After introducing the requirement to remit outstanding loans upon the conclusion of the Shemita year, the Torah in Parashat Re’eh (Debarim 15:9) commands that one may not refuse to extend a loan as Shemita approaches. A prospective lender might, understandably, be reluctant to grant loans shortly before the Shemita year, given the possibility that the borrower might not repay before the end of the Shemita year, and will then not be required to repay the loan. The Torah forbids those in a position to lend from withholding loans from people in need due to this concern. Despite the possibility that the loan will be cancelled and the money will thus be lost, one is required to lend to those in need of a loan, even shortly before Shemita.
The Sefer Ha’hinuch explains that the Torah issued this command in order to strengthen our quality of “Nedibut” – generosity – and to distance us from stinginess. There is no greater form of generosity, the Sefer Ha’hinuch writes, than agreeing to extend a loan to a person in need, knowing that there is a likelihood that the money will never be repaid. This command, then, helps reinforce our generous character. The Sefer Ha’hinuch adds that one who is generous with his money, selflessly giving to help other people, earns G-d’s blessing and thus ends up earning even more. Conversely, the Sefer Ha’hinuch warns, stinginess acts as an “iron wall” between a person and G-d’s blessing, preventing it from coming into his life.
This command is directed to both men and women alike, and it applies in all places and in all times. Although the law of Shemitat Kesafim – the remission of debts at the end of Shemita – applies nowadays only Mi’de’rabbanan (by force of Rabbinic enactment), the Sefer Ha’hinuch maintains that even nowadays, one is bound by the Torah command not to refuse a loan out of concern of the Rabbinically-mandated remission of debts.
Somebody who refuses to grant a loan to a person in need because of his fear that the debt will be cancelled after Shemita is in violation of this Torah prohibition. Since this prohibition is transgressed passively, through inaction, violators are not liable to Malkut.
The Sefer Ha’hinuch raises the question of why a person would fear extending a loan as Shemita approaches, given the possibility of circumventing this prohibition. For example, a lender may grant a loan on condition that the debt will not be cancelled by the Shemita year; such a condition is Halachically binding. Likewise, a lender can give his contract to the Bet Din, which then has the authority to collect the debt on his behalf after Shemita. If the law of Shemitat Kesafim can be circumvented, then why did the Torah need to command prospective lenders not to refuse to grant loans before Shemita? After all, a prospective lender who is afraid that the debt might be cancelled can simply utilize one of the available Halachic methods of avoiding the remission of debts.
The Sefer Ha’hinuch answers that the Torah nevertheless introduced this prohibition in order to teach us the underlying concepts of this command, the importance of generosity, and so on. While in practice this prohibition might not be so relevant, the Torah issued this command so that we learn the principles that it expresses.
Seemingly, we can also suggest a different answer – that the person in need of a loan might not accept the loan unless the possibility of its remission remains open. In such a case, the Torah forbids the prospective lender from refusing the loan request, and he must lend the money despite the likelihood that the money will not be returned.