Israel and Humanity - The law on usury and Gentiles
§ 2.
The law on usury and the Gentiles.
If we objected and permission, according to Maimonides, the commandment to practice usury against Gentiles, [1] we would observe that, although Jewish law draws a distinction here between the Jew and the stranger, not to break it to the duties of justice, but to impose vis- à-vis the Jewish obligation of charity. It's not just because the wear abuse in the ordinary sense of the word which is covered by this statutory provision is any interest, whether it is low on money lent or subject .
We know the other hand, the theory of some economists who see the wear, it is so excessive that a market like any other set, like all contracts in general, by the ratio between supply and demand. And if there is a limit that can not cross without falling into the flight, the Mosaic allow it to overtake when it comes to lending money to a stranger, when he formally prohibits any willful and any fraud against him in any other circumstance? We see that he was ordered to the Hebrew slave to calculate exactly with his pagan master the price of its acquisition [2], where the rabbis, as we said, have inferred the prohibition of theft and deception Gentil [3].
In this case, we will say, how to justify Maimonides that makes usury a command, as if it was a crime for the Jewish than being generous to the Gentile? It [4] could answer that every nation has the right to establish its economic relations with foreign rules that suit them best and that the law of usury as an international economic and political but not religious. "You shall lend to many nations," said Moses, and thou shalt not borrow [5]. This is a promise of material prosperity, as we know, has its cons corresponding part in the curse.
And besides, we should not ignore that Maimonides is not the only doctor who is authoritative in Israel. For other rabbis not only usury is not ordered, but it is even forbidden. R. Daniel of Babylon [6] observes wisely that it would be absurd and contradictory to the precept of what is otherwise qualified to act immoral. This is precisely the case for wear. So the doctor wants it that when the text mosaic allows wear, it is interpreted not in the sense that it is lawful to make loans at usurious Gentile, but that can be borrowed from him in these conditions, and those who would practice wear for his personal account would violate a tenet of both negative and positive precept. Nachmanides, araBAD, Arishba support as well as this positive command ( acetic mitsvat ) does not refer to the loan sharking to Gentile, but rather to the interest-free loan to the Israelite.
