lending money – RabbiKaganoff.com

Halachic Writings of Rav Itzele Peterberger

Question #1: When and where to daven?

If all the minyanim in my town daven shacharis after zman keri’as Shema, is it preferable for me to say all three paragraphs of kerias Shema and then daven with the tzibur, or should I daven shacharis bi’yechidus before zman kerias Shema and join the tzibur to answer borchu, kaddish and kedusha?

Question #2: Lending without proof

May I lend someone money without witnesses or without the borrower signing an IOU note acknowledging the loan?

Question #3: Acceptable resentment (Tar’omes)

At times, the Gemara states that I can be upset at someone for what they did to me. Are there halachic guidelines as to what type of resentmentI may have?

Question #4: Shocheit

My town has a shocheit who may not be up to snuff. Can we get rid of him?

Foreword:

The eleventh of Av is the yahrzeit of one of the greatest of the ba’alei musar, Rav Yitzchak Blaser, commonly called Rav Itzele Peterberger. Aside from being a highly respected talmid chacham, as evidenced from his halachic writings, he is considered the most prominent of the disciples of Rav Yisrael Salanter and is the source of most of the writings attributed to Rav Yisrael. Rav Itzele wrote several works, Ohr Yisrael, Kochavei Ohr and Nesivos Ohr, which he states are completely quotations of what he learned from Rav Yisrael.

Aside from many articles that Rav Itzele published in various rabbinic journals, his primary published work is called Pri Yitzchak. At the time he published the first volume of this work, he had no children, and he was the only surviving descendant of his father. Rav Itzele had two brothers, both of them prominent talmidei chachamim and rabbonim. Unfortunately, both of them passed away as young men and without progeny.

When Rav Itzele turned 50, his rebbitzen insisted that they get divorced so that he might be able to have children from a different wife. He refused her entreaties, until she took him to a din Torah to force him to divorce her. After their divorce and his subsequent remarriage, he continued to support her financially, the true ba’al musar that he was.

From Rav Itzele’s second marriage, he had a son and three daughters.

I have a personal reason to write about Rav Itzele. His first rebbitzen, this unbelievably altruistic woman, was a sister of my great-grandfather, which makes Rav Itzele my great-great-uncle – and makes me the closest his first rebbitzen had to descendants.

Rav Itzele Peterberger was born in Vilna in 1837; he studied under Rav Yisrael Salanter in Kovno. While yet in his 20’s, Rav Itzele reluctantly agreed to become the rav of St. Petersburg (at different times in history also known as Leningrad and Petrograd), then the capital of the Czar’s Russian Empire. Of course, being the rav of the capital city was a position both of great prestige and greater responsibility, and his position enabled him to assist many Jews living under the Czar. At this time, perhaps the majority of world Jewry lived under the thumb of the viciously anti-Semitic Czar’s regime.

Because of this position, he was called Rav Itzele Peterberger.

Rav Itzele held the position for sixteen years, and he then returned to Kovno, where he was the head of the famed Kovno Kollel. He was also involved in the creation of both Slabodka yeshivos, Kenesses Yitzchak and Kenesses Beis Yisrael, and the yeshiva in Kelm, called the “Talmud Torah.” (At this time, Slabodka was a suburb of Kovno, the two cities located on opposite sides of the Neiman River, now called the Nemunas. Slabodka is now incorporated within the city of Kovno, currently called Kaunus.)

In his late 60’s, Rav Itzele left Europe and moved to Eretz Yisrael, where he lived out his last years in Yerushalayim. He passed away in 1907.

Since this is a halachic column and not a presentation of biographies of gedolim, the rest of this article will focus on various points in halacha that Rav Itzele wrote about in his seforim, Pri Yitzchak and Nesivos Ohr. As mentioned, the latter was written by Rav Itzele as the opinions and thoughts of Rav Yisrael Salanter.

When to daven?

The first question with which I opened our article is: “All the minyanim in my town daven shacharis after zman kerias Shema. Is it preferable for me to say all three paragraphs of kerias Shema before davening and then daven with the tzibur, or should I daven shacharis by myself before zman kerias Shema and join the tzibur to answer borchu, kaddish and kedusha?”

The very first responsum that Rav Itzele wrote in Pri Yitzchak is devoted to this topic. In his lengthy teshuvah, he analyzes passages in the Gemara, rishonim and early acharonim on the topic. First, he quotes the various opinions regarding how much of kerias Shema is required for one to fulfill the mitzvah min haTorah. He notes that some authorities require that we say only the first pasuk; others require reciting the first paragraph; still others contend that the mitzvah min haTorah requires that we say all three paragraphs, including parshas tzitzis. However, Rav Itzele contends that this dispute among halachic authorities should not affect what we do. Regardless of how much of Shema must be recited to fulfill the mitzvah min haTorah, the rabbinic mitzvah requires that we recite all three paragraphs of Shema before sof zman kerias Shema.

Based on his analysis, Rav Itzele concludes that if a minyan will daven after zman kerias Shema, the individual should daven bi’yechidus before the tzibur does. He rules that one should recite Shema with its berachos in the correct time rather than reciting Shema earlier and then davening after zman kerias Shema. His reason is that Chazal wanted us to fulfill mitzvas kerias Shema while reciting Shema with its berachos, notwithstanding that the berachos that surround the Shema are not categorizedas birchos hamitzvah, berachos recited immediately before fulfilling a mitzvah. Whether these berachos are categorized as birchos hamitzvah or not is the topic of a dispute among the rishonim, with most rishonim contending that they are not birchos hamitzvah. Many proofs can be rallied to this approach, among them the fact that these berachos are not structured like birchos hamitzvah. If they were, their text would be Baruch Attah Hashem Elokeinu Melech ha’olam asher kideshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al kerias Shema.

Notwithstanding his conclusion that birchas kerias Shema are not birchos hamitzvah, Rav Itzele still maintains that Chazal intended that we fulfill mitzvas Shema while we recite the birchos kerias Shema, and that reciting Shema before davening should be done only when one is uncertain whether the tzibur will miss the zman of kerias Shema. He notes that his position appears to disagree with the majority of later halachic authorities on the subject, yet he is absolutely convinced that this is the correct halachic position. (By the way, there is evidence that the Vilna Gaon and his disciples also held this way.)

Lending without proof

At this point, let us analyze the second of our opening questions: “May I lend someone money without witnesses or without the borrower signing an IOU note acknowledging the loan?”

The Gemara (Bava Metzia 75b) teaches that it is forbidden to lend money without proof that can be used afterward to demonstrate that the loan took place. Its actual words are: “Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: Whoever has money and lends it out without witnesses violates the prohibition of lifnei iveir lo sitein michshol, ‘you may not place a stumbling block in front of the blind.’ Reish Lakish said: He brings a curse upon himself.”

The Gemara understands that the prohibition of lifnei iveir includes causing someone else to violate a mitzvah of the Torah. In this instance, as Rashi explains, the concern is that, with time, the borrower will realize that the lender has no proof that a loan was ever taken out, and that if he, the borrower, denies having borrowed the money, he can avoid paying it back.

Although the ruling of this Gemara is recorded in all the standard halachic authorities, including the Rif, the Rambam, the Rosh, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch and all its commentators, widespread practice was that people ignored this passage of Gemara and loaned money without any proof. Examples of appropriate proof that a loan transpired include lending the money with witnesses present or having the borrower sign an IOU note. Another way to avoid the problem of lifnei iveir is to require the borrower to provide collateral such that if the borrower defaults or denies the loan, the lender simply sells the collateral as payment.

When people lend money without proof, although they are performing a great mitzvah of lending money, they are transgressing a dictate of the Gemara while doing so. Several authorities attempt to explain why the Gemara’s prohibition does not apply.

Rav Itzele shares some approaches of the Acharonim that attempt to justify the practice, but demonstrates why he is dissatisfied with their rationales. He then presents his own approach to explain why people’s actions were justified. I have chosen not to explain in this article the finer erudite reasons that he presents in this venue; suffice it to say, his conclusion is that one should not lend money without proof, as the Gemara states. However, he created what is called a limud zechus, a reason to explain why people do what they do, notwithstanding that one should not rely on this heter.

Question #3

The third of our opening questions is different from the previous two, in that its source is from Nesivos Ohr, one of the works that Rav Itzele states are quotations of lessons he learned directly from Rav Yisrael Salanter. Thus, this halachic discussion is not only from Rav Itzele, but from Rav Yisrael himself!

Tar’omes

According to halacha, wronging someone financially does not always mean that the aggrieved party is entitled to financial compensation. There are situations that are categorized as grama, indirect damage, that are ruled chayov bedinei shamayim yet beis din cannot demand payment. In these instances, the damager should pay or the heavenly tribunals will punish him for not having paid. However, should the aggriever refuse to pay, the aggrieved party has no halachic recourse whereby he can force collection.

Complaints, complaints

There are also situations in which Chazal rule that an aggrieved party may have tar’omes, a complaint that someone dealt with him unethically, although he has no claim to compensation for damages. Several examples appear in Chazal where this is the ruling. Here is one:

An employer engaged a foreman to hire daily workers for whom he was willing to pay forty dollars per diem. For whatever reason, the foreman hired the workers for only thirty dollars; they were willing to be hired for the lower amount and did not know that the employer was willing to pay them more. The workers now discover that, had they known, they could have earned more daily bread for their work. Do they have any financial claim against either the employer or the foreman?

The answer is that they do not. Since they agreed to the price quoted by the foreman, who was the party with whom they negotiated, they have no financial claim against either the employer or the foreman. However, the Gemara states that they have a non-financial grievance against the foreman, which is called a tar’omes. This is one instance in which the Gemara refers to someone as having a claim that is not financial but he can be upset at the person who caused him loss. Are there halachic guidelines as to what type of resentmentI am permitted to have?

Rav Itzele quotes Rav Yisrael Salanter as noting that there is a legal claim called tar’omes. This means that the employees cannot sue the foreman for money, but they have a halachic right to be upset at him should he not apologize to them or make amends in a way that satisfies them. If they reach an agreement with him and/or they forgive (mocheil) him, even without his having made any amends, they can no longer have any tar’omes against him. After all, they were mocheil him for any claims they may have.

Problematic shocheit

At this point, let us discuss the fourth of our opening questions: “My town has a shocheit who may not be up to snuff. Can we get rid of him?”

There are several other fascinating halachic issues discussed by Rav Itzele in the second volume of Pri Yitzchak, which was published posthumously by one of his sons-in-law, Rav Chizkiyahu Mishkovski, in 1913. One teshuvah (Pri Yitzchak II #22) involves a shocheit regarding whom concerns have been raised about his knowledge of the laws of shechitah and bedikah, the checking for tereifos. He appears to be an observant Jew, and he has a kabbalah on shechitah, the halachic equivalent of a shocheit’s license.

(The fact that such a shocheit had a kabbalah is astonishing, since it usually requires that a recognized, respected shocheit test him on his skills, oversee him perform shechitah successfully several times and check that his shechitah was kosher. In addition, kabbalah requires that a rav tested him on his knowledge of the laws of shechitah, on his ability to check a shechitah knife properly and to repair a nick on a shechitah knife in a nick of time. The assumption is that if he is not skilled enough to repair his knife quickly under the pressure of having a rav watch his work, he will be unable to sharpen his knife properly and quickly while working as a shocheit, if it will become necessary to do so. To receive kabbalah as a shocheit ubodeik, which is what is required for virtually all such positions, he also needs to pass testing on his abilities both as a bodeik penim,who checks whether the animal is a tereifah while the lungs are still bifnim, “inside” the animal, and as a bodeik chutz, who checks them after they have been removed.)

As a true ba’al musar, Rav Itzele is concerned about destroying the reputation and livelihood of this “shocheit,” but, of course, neither can the kashrus rules be violated one iota.

Rav Itzele rules that he may not work as a shocheit without full supervision; however, Rav Itzele does not exclude him from ever being a shocheit. Rav Itzele rules that this “shocheit” must learn all the laws and skills of a shocheit and undergo testing until he demonstrates that he has mastered the skills and knowledge required. He also insists that the “shocheit” accept that he is not competent to rule on the laws of shechitah, but must refer any question to a competent rav.

Non-kosher fish in your meat!

Here is another responsum from Rav Itzele Peterberger (Pri Yitzchak II #25). A piece of non-kosher fish fell into a pot of kosher meat. Obviously, if the quantity of kosher food is less than sixty times the volume of the non-kosher fish, the pot and its contents are all non-kosher – the food can be sold to a non-Jew or disposed of and the pot requires kashering. But what is the halacha if there is sixty or more times the kosher food relative to the amount of non-kosher fish?

There is a major dispute among halachic authorities regarding whether the practice of not eating fish and meat together applies when the fish is less than one-sixtieth of the food. The Rema (in Darkei Moshe, Yoreh Deah Chapter 116) and the Taz (Yoreh Deah 116:2) prohibit the food, whereas the Mordechai and the Shach (in Nekudos Hakesef ad loc.) permit it. Rav Itzele cites Talmudic sources whereby he demonstrates that non-kosher fish is certainly nullified one part in 60; the dispute among the earlier authorities can only be regarding small amounts of kosher fish that became mixed into meat.

Conclusion

We know most of the details of what Rav Yisrael Salanter bequeathed to us only from the writings of his talmidim, and the foremost writer among his disciples was Rav Itzele Peterberger. Thus, much of the invaluable lessons that have been handed down to us from Rav Yisrael Salanter, the unbelievable gadol, the founder of the musar movement, is known from my great-great-uncle. It certainly behooves us to study the Torah of this great leader, even if we are not his great-great-nephews.

The Kosher Way to Collect a Loan

Although it is a very big mitzvah to lend money, some people are reluctant to do so because they know of loans that proved difficult to collect. Must you lend someone money if you are not sure it will ever be repaid? What do you do if you lent money to someone who seemed very honest and sincere, but now that it comes time to repay, he informs you that he is penniless? What may you do and what may you not do to collect your money? How can you guarantee that you get your money back?

Our goal this week is to address these questions.

THE MITZVAH OF LENDING MONEY

The Torah requires us to lend money to a poor Jew who needs it (Rambam, Hilchos Malveh 1:1). This is stated in the pasuk, “Im kesef talveh es ami, es he’ani imach – When you lend money to My people, to the poor person among you” (Shemos 22:24). Chazal explain that the word “Im” in this pasuk should not be translated as “If,” which implies that it is optional, but as a commandment, “When you lend…” (Mechilta). Poskim even discuss whether we recite a bracha on this mitzvah, just as we recite one on tefillin, mezuzah and other mitzvos (Shu”t HaRashba #18). Although the halacha is that we do not recite a bracha, the question itself shows us the importance of the mitzvah of lending money.

It is a greater mitzvah to lend someone money, which maintains his self-dignity, than it is to give him tzedakah, which is demeaning (Rambam, Hilchos Malveh 1:1). There is a special bracha from Hashem to people who lend money to the poor.

I should not become upset if a poor person returns to borrow money from me shortly after repaying a previous loan. My attitude should be similar to a storekeeper: “Do I become angry with a repeat customer? Do I feel that he is constantly bothering me?” Similarly, one should not turn people away without a loan, but rather view it as a new opportunity to perform a mitzvah and to receive additional brachos (Ahavas Chesed 1:7).

One should also lend money to wealthy people who need a loan, but this is not as great a mitzvah as lending to the poor.

Someone with limited available funds and has requests for loans from family members and non-family members, and cannot lend to both, should lend to family members. Similarly, if he must choose to whom to lend, he should lend to a closer family member rather than to a more distant one.

By the way, one may lend money to a poor person with the understanding that if the borrower defaults, the lender will subtract the sum from his tzedakah–maaser calculation (Pischei Choshen, Volume 1, p. 4).

WHAT IF I KNOW THE BORROWER IS A DEADBEAT?

I am not required to lend money if I know that the borrower squanders money and does not repay (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 97:4). It is better not to lend if I know that the borrower will squander the money and probably not pay it back.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BORROWER

Someone who borrows money must make sure to pay it back. One may not borrow money that he does not think he will be able to repay. A person who squanders money and therefore does not repay his loans is called a rasha (Rambam, Hilchos Malveh 1:3).

The borrower is required to pay his loans on time. If his loan is due and he cannot pay them, he is required to use his household items, if necessary, to pay his debt (Nesivos 86:2; Graz, Hilchos Halvaah 1:5). Similarly, he may not make significant contributions to tzedakah (Sefer Chassidim #454). He may not purchase a lulav and esrog if he owes money that is due; instead, he should borrow someone else’s (see Pischei Teshuvah, Choshen Mishpat 97:8). He must use whatever money he has available to pay his debts.

It is strictly forbidden to pretend that he does not have money to pay his debts or even to delay paying them if he does have the money, and it is similarly forbidden for him to hide money so that the lender cannot collect. All this is true even if the lender is very wealthy.

COLLECTING BAD DEBTS

Most people who borrow are careful to repay their debts and do so on time. However, it happens occasionally that someone who intended to pay back on time is faced with circumstances that make it difficult for him to repay.

There is a prohibition in the Torah, “Lo siheyeh lo k’nosheh – Do not behave to him like a creditor” (Shemos 22:24). Included in this prohibition is that it is forbidden to demand payment from a Jew when I know that he cannot pay (Rambam, Hilchos Malveh 1:2). The lender may not even stand in front of the borrower in a way that might embarrass or intimidate him (Gemara Bava Metzia 75b; Rambam, Hilchos Malveh 1:3).

However, if the lender knows that the borrower has resources that he does not want to sell, such as his house, his car, or his furniture, he may hassle the borrower since the borrower is halachically required to sell these properties in order to pay his loan. (See Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 97:23 for a list of which items he must sell to pay his debt.) Furthermore, the lender may sue in beis din for the right to collect these items as payment.

(Technically, it is not the borrower’s responsibility to sell the items and bring the cash to the lender; he may give the items to the lender as payment. The lender must then get a beis din or a panel of three experts to evaluate the property he has received. If he needs to hire experts to make the evaluation, the expenses are added to the debt. Of course, the lender and borrower can agree to whatever terms are mutually acceptable without involving expert evaluation, provided that no ribbis [interest] prohibition is created. The vast subject of ribbis is beyond the scope of this article.)

The borrower is in a very unenviable position. He owes money that he would like to pay, but he is overwhelmed with expenses and he simply does not earn enough money to pay all his creditors. He knows he could sell his house or his furniture to pay up, but he really does not want to do that to his family. He should try to appease the lender in whatever way he can (for example, by asking for an extension) and he should certainly try to find other sources of income and figure out how to trim his expenses. But he should realize that he is obligated even to sell his household goods to pay his creditors. Someone who uses his money to purchase items that are not absolutely essential instead of paying back money that is overdue demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Torah’s priorities.

The lender may not enter the borrower’s house to seize collateral or payment. Some poskim contend that the lender may seize property that is not in the borrower’s house or on his person (see Pischei Choshen, Vol. 1, pg. 96). Furthermore, there are poskim who rule that if the borrower has the means to pay but isn’t paying, the lender may enter the borrower’s house and take whatever he can (Shu”t Imrei Binah, Dinei Geviyas Chov chapter 2; Pischei Choshen, Vol. 1, p. 100). One should not rely on this approach without first asking a shaylah.

If the borrower claims that he has absolutely nothing to pay with, the beis din can require him to swear an oath to that effect (Rambam, Hilchos Malveh 2:2).

A lender who feels that the borrower is hiding money or property may not take the law into his own hands to collect, but may file a claim in beis din. If the lender feels that the borrower will not submit to beis din’s authority, he should ask the beis din for authorization to sue in secular courts – but it is forbidden for him to sue in a secular court without first receiving halachic approval.

HOW CAN I GUARANTEE THAT I GET MY MONEY BACK?

As most of us have no doubt experienced at one time or another, it is not pleasant to be owed money that is not repaid. The lender is entitled to be repaid.

Is there a way that I can lend money and guarantee that I get in back?

First of all, the lender must make sure that he can prove the loan took place. This is actually a halacha; it is forbidden to lend money without witnesses or other proof because of concern that this may cause the borrower to sin by denying that the loan exists (Bava Metzia 75b).

All of this is protection only against a borrower denying that he borrowed, which is fortunately a rare occurrence. What we want to explore is ways that the lender can fulfill his mitzvah of lending to a needy person while making sure that the loan does not become permanent.

CO-SIGNERS

The most common method used to guarantee the repayment of a loan is by having someone with reliable finances and reputation co-sign for the loan. In halacha, this person is called an areiv. In common practice, if the borrower defaults, the lender notifies the co-signer that he intends to collect the debt. Usually what happens is that when the lender calls the co-signer, suddenly the borrower shows up at the door with the money.

There are several types of areiv recognized by halacha. The most common type, a standard co-signer, is obligated to pay back the debt, but only after one has attempted to collect from the borrower. If the borrower does not pay because he has no cash, but he has property, the areiv can legitimately claim that he is not responsible to pay. The lender would need to summon the borrower and the areiv to beis din in order to begin payment procedures. Most people who lend money prefer to avoid the tediousness this involves.

One can avoid some of this problem by having the co-signer sign as an areiv kablan. This is a stronger type of co-signing, whereby the lender has the right to make the claim against the co-signer without suing the borrower first.

The primary difficulty with this approach is that it might make it difficult for the borrower to receive his loan, since many potential co-signers do not want to commit themselves to be an areiv kablan.

ANOTHER APPROACH

Is there another possibility whereby one can still provide the chesed to the potential borrower and yet guarantee that the money returns?

Indeed there is. The Chofetz Chayim (Ahavas Chesed 1:8) suggests that if you are concerned that the proposed borrower may default, you can insist on receiving collateral – a mashkon to guarantee payment.

Having a loan collateralized is a fairly secure way of guaranteeing that the loan is repaid, but it is not totally hassle-free. There are three drawbacks that might result from using a mashkon to guarantee the repayment of the loan. They are:

1. Responsibility for the mashkon.

2. Evaluation of the mashkon.

3. Converting the mashkon into cash.

1. Responsibility for the mashkon.

When the lender receives the mashkon, he becomes responsible to take care of it. If it is lost or stolen, the value of the collateral will be subtracted from the loan (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 72:2). If the collateral is worth more than the loan, the lender might be required to compensate the borrower for the difference. (See dispute between Shulchan Aruch and Rama, ibid.) However, the creditor is not responsible for the mashkon if it is lost or damaged because of something that halacha considers beyond his responsibility.

2. Evaluation of the mashkon.

When keeping the collateral to collect the debt, the mashkon must either be evaluated by a panel of three experts before it can be sold (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 73:15 and Ketzos), or must be sold with the involvement of beis din (Shach), to protect the borrower’s rights. Some creditors find this step tedious.

However, there are methods whereby one can use a mashkon to guarantee a loan and avoid having the mashkon evaluated afterward.

When arranging the loan, the lender tells the borrower of the following condition: If the loan is not paid when due, the buyer agrees to rely on the lender’s evaluation of its worth (Pischei Choshen, Vol. 1, pg. 145).

An alternative is for the lender to tell the borrower: If you do not pay by the day the loan is due, then retroactively this is not a loan but a sale. At that point, the collateral becomes mine in exchange for the value of the loan. This is permitted even if the mashkon is worth far more than the loan, and does not involve any violation of ribbis (prohibited charging of interest), since, retroactively, a sale took place rather than a loan (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 73:17).

3. Converting the mashkon into cash.

PROPER ATTITUDE TOWARD THE MITZVAH

At times, lenders have asked me for a method whereby they can be certain to get their money back, and I have suggested the collateral method. Sometimes I receive the following response: I don’t want to be bothered with selling the mashkon to get my money back. If I think the borrower is a risk, then I would rather not lend to him.

Do we have the same attitude toward other mitzvos we perform? Do we say that we want to perform mitzvos only when they are without complications? Certainly not! However, the yetzer hora convinces us that lending money is a good deed that I need to perform only when it is convenient and when I feel like being benevolent, not when it is going to result in a hassle.

SHLEMIEL, THE BORROWER

Nachman once came to me with the following shaylah:

Shlemiel used to borrow money from Nachman regularly, and although Shlemiel always repaid the loan, he often did so long after the due date. Nachman wanted to know what he could do about this situation. He wanted to perform the tremendous mitzvah of lending money, but he wanted his money back in a reasonable time.

I suggested to Nachman that he tell Shlemiel that the loan was available, but only if Shlemiel produced a mashkon and agreed to the above conditions. Since my suggestion, Nachman has been zocheh to fulfill the mitzvah of lending money to Shlemiel many times, and not once has a repayment been late! Think of how many brochos Nachman has received from Hashem because he is willing to subject himself to the “hassle” of transporting the mashkon to a secure place and being willing to sell it should the need arise!

Why do people view loaning money as an optional “good deed” rather than as a commandment? The Chofetz Chayim (Ahavas Chesed 2:8) raises this question and mentions several excuses people make to avoid lending money. After listing these reasons, the Chofetz Chayim proceeds to refute each one of them. Simply put, the answer to this question is the old Yiddish expression, “Ven es kumt tzu gelt, iz an andere velt – When people deal with their money, they tend to act totally differently.” Truthfully, people find it difficult to part with their money, even temporarily. This is precisely why one receives such immense reward for lending. As Chazal teach us, “lefum tzaara agra – the reward is commensurate to the difficulties involved.”