The Laws › Commandment #128
Commandment #128 · Positive · Social & Ethical Laws

Not as a Usurer: The Commandment Against Lending at Interest to the Poor

רִבִּית
Source: Exodus 22:25  ·  Maimonides, Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive #128

"If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury." Exodus 22:25 addresses a specific situation — lending to someone in need — and forbids turning that loan into a source of profit. Centuries later, Nehemiah found this exact law broken at scale in Jerusalem, and confronted his own household along with everyone else's. And in Ezekiel's exile-era prophecy, abstaining from this practice had become one of the standard marks of a righteous life.

"Thou Shalt Not Be to Him as a Usurer"

אִם כֶּסֶף תַּלְוֶה אֶת עַמִּי
"If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury."

This law sits in a dense cluster of protections for the vulnerable in Exodus 22 — alongside warnings against mistreating widows, orphans, and strangers. Its scope is precise: "if thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee." The prohibition is not a blanket rule against all lending or all interest in every commercial context — it targets a specific situation: someone with means lending to someone without, where the loan exists because of need.

Two things are forbidden in that situation. The lender must not be "as an usurer" — the Hebrew word describes a creditor who presses and exacts, treating the relationship as a debt to be aggressively collected. And the lender must not "lay upon him usury" — charge interest at all. A loan to a poor neighbor, this law says, is meant to function as an act of tzedakah (#127), not as a transaction that profits from someone else's hardship.

Nehemiah's Confrontation

וְגַם אֲנִי אַחַי וּנְעָרַי נֹשִׁים בָּהֶם כֶּסֶף וְדָגָן נַעַזְבָה נָּא אֶת הַמַּשָּׁא הַזֶּה
"I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury."

Centuries later, while Nehemiah was leading the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls, this exact law had been broken at scale. The poor among the people cried out: they had mortgaged their fields and vineyards for grain, and some had been forced to sell their own children into servitude to pay debts to their fellow Jews (Nehemiah 5:1-5). Nehemiah was "very angry" (Nehemiah 5:6) and confronted the nobles and rulers directly.

What he says next is striking: "I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn; I pray you, let us leave off this usury." Nehemiah does not exempt himself from the correction — he names his own household as part of the problem and calls for everyone, himself included, to stop. He then goes further than simply halting the practice: he requires the nobles to restore the fields, vineyards, olive yards, and houses they had taken, along with "the hundredth part of the money" already collected as interest (Nehemiah 5:11-12). The correction reaches backward, not just forward.

Ezekiel's Portrait of the Righteous Man

בַּנֶּשֶׁךְ לֹא יִתֵּן וְתַרְבִּית לֹא יִקָּח מֵעָוֶל יָשִׁיב יָדוֹ מִשְׁפַּט אֱמֶת יַעֲשֶׂה בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִישׁ
"He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,"

By the time of Ezekiel's exile-era prophecy, abstaining from interest-taking had become a standard entry on the list of what righteousness looks like. Ezekiel 18:5-9 describes a "just" man: he does not oppress, he restores a debtor's pledge, he gives bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, he executes true judgment between disputing parties — and, in the same breath, "hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase."

The chapter's structure matters here. Ezekiel 18 is built entirely around contrasts — a righteous father and a wicked son, a wicked father and a righteous son, each evaluated by the same checklist. Lending at interest to someone in need is not singled out as a uniquely severe sin, nor dismissed as a minor technicality. It is placed in a list alongside violence, idolatry, and oppression as one of the marks by which a life is weighed.

Key Figures

*
Nehemiah — The Leader Who Confronted His Own Household
When Nehemiah discovered that interest-taking had driven the poor of Jerusalem into debt-slavery, his response in Nehemiah 5:10-12 included his own family and servants among those who needed to "leave off this usury" — and required restoring what had already been taken.
+
The Righteous Man of Ezekiel 18 — Whose Lending Is Part of His Character
In Ezekiel 18:5-9, the prophet's portrait of a "just" man lists "hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase" alongside not oppressing, restoring pledges, and feeding the hungry — one item among several that together describe a righteous life.

Study Questions

For reflection and group study
Exodus 22:25 prohibits charging interest specifically when lending "to any of my people that is poor" — it's framed around the borrower's need, not lending in general. What's the difference between a blanket prohibition on interest and one that specifically targets loans to people in need?
In Nehemiah 5, even respected members of the community had been charging interest to the point that people were selling their own children into debt-slavery. Nehemiah's response includes himself: "I likewise... might exact of them... let us leave off this usury" (Nehemiah 5:10). What does it mean for a leader to include himself in the correction he's demanding, rather than only pointing at others?
Nehemiah doesn't just stop the practice going forward — he requires restoring what was ALREADY taken: fields, vineyards, houses, and the interest itself (Nehemiah 5:11-12). What's the difference between a law that prevents future violations and one that requires undoing past ones?
Ezekiel 18:8 lists "hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase" as one mark of the righteous man, alongside not oppressing, restoring pledges, and feeding the hungry. Is lending at interest to someone in need being treated here as a different CATEGORY of wrong than these others — or as the same category?
Exodus 22:25 (wilderness law), Nehemiah 5 (post-exilic Jerusalem), and Ezekiel 18 (exile-era prophecy) come from very different times and literary genres — law code, narrative, and prophecy — yet all three address this same practice. What does it suggest that one financial prohibition recurs across such different contexts?

A loan to someone in need was meant to function as tzedakah, not as a transaction — and when that line was crossed in Jerusalem, even Nehemiah found his own household standing on the wrong side of it.

Open Exodus 22:25 in Torah Reader