Print this Article
HaRav Yishai Natan –
Last week, I lent my friend $2,000. I thought I was performing a great mitzvah by helping him when he needed money. However, when I told my brother what I had done, he said that it may have been closer to an averah than a mitzvah. He claimed that a person is not allowed to lend money without witnesses. I told him that I had never heard of such a rule. People regularly lend money to relatives and close friends without bringing witnesses or preparing formal loan documents.
Was I wrong to lend my friend money without witnesses?
The Gemara in Baba Metzia (75b) teaches that Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that anyone who lends money without witnesses violates the prohibition of lifnei iver lo titen mikhshol—“Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.” By lending without witnesses, the lender creates an opportunity for the borrower to deny receiving the money. Since there are no witnesses or documents proving that the loan took place, the borrower may be tempted to lie and keep the money.
Resh Lakish adds that a person who lends without witnesses brings a curse upon himself. If the borrower later denies the loan, the lender will demand his money but will have no proof. People may then suspect that the lender is falsely accusing the borrower.
This halachah is written by the Rambam and by Maran in the Shulhan Aruch (Hoshen Mishpat 70:1). They rule that a person should not lend money without witnesses. They mention both concerns: the prohibition of lifnei iver and the danger of bringing a curse upon oneself.
Why Are People Not Careful?
The Aharonim struggle to explain why many people are not careful with this halachah. It is common for people to lend money to relatives, neighbors, and trusted friends without witnesses or formal documents. Several explanations have been suggested.
The Rashash
The Rashash explains that the prohibition may apply mainly when the lender is wealthy. A borrower who receives money from a wealthy person may convince himself that denying the loan is not so serious because the lender has plenty of money. According to this explanation, when an ordinary person lends money, the borrower may not face the same temptation.
However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer, HM 7:7) rejects this explanation. The Gemara, Rambam, and Maran Shulhan Aruch do not limit the prohibition to a wealthy lender. Their language appears to apply to every lender.
The Arugat HaBosem
The Arugat HaBosem (YD 235) suggests that the prohibition applied mainly during the time of the Mishnah. At that time, a borrower who completely denied receiving a loan was not required to take the later rabbinic oath known as a shevuat heset. After the Hachamim established this oath, a borrower is required to swear that he never borrowed the money. The fear of taking a false oath would discourage him from lying, and in turn, would eliminate the requirement of lending with witnesses.
Hacham Ovadia also rejects this explanation. Maran Shulhan Aruch lived many generations after the establishment of shevuat heset. Nevertheless, Maran still ruled that lending without witnesses is prohibited. Clearly, the rabbinic oath did not remove the concern.
The Pilpuleh Harifta
The Pilpuleh Harifta (Baba Metzia 75b) notes that Resh Lakish did not say that the lender “also” brings a curse upon himself. This may indicate that he disagrees with Rav Yehudah.
According to Resh Lakish, there may not be a direct prohibition of lifnei iver. Rather, lending without witnesses is improper because it creates a risk that the lender will later be cursed or falsely suspected. The Pilpula Harifta suggests that people probably rely on this understanding and follow the opinion of Resh Lakish.
However, Hacham Ovadia rejects relying on it. The Rambam and Maran Shulhan Aruch clearly accept both statements. They rule that the lender violates lifnei iver and also brings a curse upon himself.
The Maharshag
The Maharshag (2:100) discusses an opinion that avoiding a loan without witnesses may not be a complete obligation. Hacham Ovadia understands that this approach may be based on the Ritva in Megillah (28a), who indicates that it may be a matter of middat hasidut rather than a full prohibition.
Hacham Ovadia rejects this too, since the clear language of the Rambam and Maran Shulhan Aruch describes lending without witnesses as an actual violation of lifnei iver, not merely as a failure to follow middat hasidut.
Others explain the Maharshag differently. According to them, the prohibition exists, but it may not take effect until the borrower actually denies receiving the loan. This too can be rejected since the wording of Maran infers that there is a prohibition at the time of lending.
The Aruch HaShulhan
The Aruch HaShulhan (HM 70:1) explains that people lend money without witnesses because friends and relatives trust each other. A lender may know the borrower well and feel certain that he will never deny the loan. According to this explanation, the concern of lifnei iver may not apply when the lender fully trusts the borrower, as is often the case when people lend money to relatives or friends.
Hacham Ovadia questions this explanation. It is difficult to prove that people today are more trustworthy than people in the time of the Gemara. Financial disagreements often begin between relatives and friends who originally trusted each other. A borrower may later forget the amount, misunderstand the agreement, or believe that he already repaid the money.
Hacham Ovadia and The Yad Yitzhak
Hacham Ovadia concludes with the Yad Yitzhak (2:146) who rejects the claim that the accepted custom is to lend without witnesses. According to the Yad Yitzhak, people do commonly lend money with witnesses or written proof. A written admission from the borrower serves the same basic purpose as witnesses. It proves that the loan occurred and records its terms. Therefore, even when people do not bring formal witnesses, they may still follow the halachah by creating written documentation.
Text Messages and Email
Today, it is easy to document a loan without embarrassing the borrower. The borrower can send a text message or email stating, “I borrowed $2,000 on such and such date and will repay it by a certain date.” Or the lender can send a text stating, “Please confirm that I lent you $2,000 on such and such date, and must be repaid by a certain date.”
Many hold that a message sent from the borrower’s regular phone number or email address can serve as meaningful proof that the loan took place. A check or bank transfer marked “loan” can also create a record and prevent future confusion.
The lender should also state in writing that repayment should not be made in cash. It should be made by check, bank transfer, wire, or another trackable method. Otherwise, the borrower may later claim that he already repaid the loan in cash.
The Practical Halachah
Helping your friend by lending him $2,000 was certainly intended as a great mitzvah. Nevertheless, the loan should have been properly documented. You should now ask your friend to send a simple text or email confirming the amount of the loan and the repayment terms. The message should also state that repayment will be made through a traceable method.
The lesson is not that a person should avoid lending money. Lending to someone in need is a tremendous mitzvah. However, the mitzvah should be performed according to halachah. Proper documentation protects the lender, protects the borrower from temptation or forgetfulness, and helps preserve peace between relatives and friends.