In this section of Chapter 22, we examine three matters that are foundational to proper conduct: the grave warning against acting as a guarantor, safeguarding the boundaries established by earlier generations - ancestral customs and protective fences - and praise for the trait of alacrity. We will follow the order of the verses and study the insights of Rabbeinu Yonah, the Vilna Gaon, and the Malbim.
אַל־תְּהִי בְתֹקְעֵי־כָף בַּעֹרְבִים מַשָּׁאוֹת׃ (כו) - Do not be among those who strike hands, among those who are guarantors for loans. (26)
"Those who strike hands" (tokei chaf) refers to a person who shakes hands with another to act as a guarantor on his behalf. This corresponds to what is known today as a handshake agreement, which expresses a formal accord and a willingness to obligate oneself on another's behalf. "Guarantors for loans" (orvim masa'ot) - orvim comes from arev (guarantor), and masa'ot means loans, as in the verse, "You shall not press your fellow for any loan [masat me'umah]" (Devarim 24:10). In other words: a person who steps forward to guarantee a loan.
Rabbeinu Yonah notes that in numerous places, Shlomo HaMelech warns against guaranteeing the debt of another. We have already paused several times to discuss how destructive and dangerous acting as a guarantor can be. A person can live his entire life uprightly, honestly, and prudently, yet in a single lapse of caution, he signs as a guarantor for someone - and loses his home, loses his domestic peace, loses his children's stability, and loses everything. Why? Because of one hasty signature. And if one says, "I am a cautious person and do not stumble into such traps" - that may be true, but you co-signed for someone who is not cautious, an irresponsible individual who does not manage his affairs diligently. The bottom line is that you signed as his guarantor, and they came to collect from you. Countless stories exist of people whose lives were completely ruined because of this.
Rabbeinu Yonah adds that the verse warns not only against guaranteeing a loan, but also against casually offering personal commitments and assurances to a friend. For example, declaring, "I will take care of this for you," "I will make sure you are paid," or taking possession of merchandise and promising future payment - "I personally guarantee to pay you for this" - even when this is not a guarantee on behalf of another party. Why? Because "he who loves transgression loves strife" (Mishlei 17:19): when someone enters such arrangements, he often finds it difficult to pay when the time comes, which inevitably leads to disputes and wrongdoing.
Rabbeinu Yonah adds another warning: do not enter a guarantee even when the repayment date is far off - "guarantors for loans" can refer to debts due in two years or five years. The reason is psychological: when someone signs a guarantee for the near future, he is cautious; but when the due date is distant - "That is five years away, ten years away" - he takes it lightly. But will those ten years not eventually arrive? And when the borrower fails to pay, they will turn to you. And if you have no way to pay - that brings us to the next verse.
אִם־אֵין־לְךָ לְשַׁלֵּם לָמָּה יִקַּח מִשְׁכָּבְךָ מִתַּחְתֶּיךָ׃ (כז) - If you have nothing with which to pay, why should he take your bed from under you? (27)
The Vilna Gaon, followed in this direction by the Malbim, distinguishes between an unconditional guarantor (arev kablan) and a standard guarantor. An arev kablan means that the guarantor takes full, direct responsibility: the moment the borrower does not pay, the creditor may turn directly to the guarantor, and he may even approach him first. The lender is not required to pursue the primary debtor at all; if it is more convenient, he can approach the guarantor directly and demand payment. This is an arev kablan, who assumes responsibility to repay the debt as if he were the debtor himself. Regarding this, Shlomo HaMelech said, "Do not be among those who strike hands."
The verse then adds: "among those who are guarantors for loans" - referring to a situation where the lender is already pressing the borrower for payment on an existing debt without a prior guarantee. Reuven lent money to Shimon, and now he comes to Shimon demanding repayment. A third party steps in and says, "I will guarantee for him; do not worry, he will pay you." That is, he enters the commitment after the loan is already in existence, rather than as an arev kablan from the outset.
And why is this so severe? Here lies the core problem described in the verse: "If you have nothing with which to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you?" We know that when someone owes you money, you cannot do with him as you please. To be sure, he is obligated to pay, and if he has assets, beit din goes down to seize his property, but the Torah limited the lender: if you took a pledge from him, you must return it. A night garment must be returned every night. A daytime garment must be returned every day. The pillow he sleeps on must be returned at night. The Torah restricted how far one is permitted to pressure the borrower.
On the other hand, the borrower is also bound toward the lender. Today, unfortunately, this has become completely unbridled: the borrower does as he pleases with the lender, dictating when he may call and even suing him for harassment - "You are harassing me with your repeated payment demands; when I have the money, I will call you." They arrange a debt settlement, leave him his television, claim "it's an LLC" - and good luck finding him. Thirty shekels a month, with four hundred other creditors in line. It is a nightmare reality. But according to the Torah, the interests of both sides are safeguarded: if you took a loan, sir, you must pay. They will strip it from your walls, and even your suit may be given to him. Yet on the other hand, the lender will not be allowed to strip a person bare, and the garment he wears - even though taking it as collateral is permitted - must be returned to him at the time he needs it.
Notice carefully: this entire halachah applies only to the borrower, not to a guarantor. Consequently, the guarantor enters a far more severe predicament. Shimon took out a loan, and I told Reuven, "You have nothing to worry about; if Shimon doesn't pay, come to me." And when he comes to me, he takes the mattresses, the clothes, the night garment - he takes everything. This is the meaning of "Why should he take away your bed from under you?" - because the law prohibiting a lender from taking a debtor's bed applies strictly to the borrower, not to the guarantor. That alone is reason enough to avoid guaranteeing loans entirely.
Rabbenu Yonah explains "If you have nothing with which to pay" in another way. A person protests: "What are you talking about? I am heavy with silver, gold, and livestock!" And why is he taking a loan? To purchase a commercial complex, to develop a major project. Be aware that most money loaned by banks goes to tycoons, not to Mrs. Cohen from Hadera. Small apartment mortgages are pocket change - a few tens or hundreds of thousands of shekels. The bank survives mainly on the profits from tens of millions loaned to real estate developers. A contractor does not build an apartment tower with his own capital; he builds with money borrowed from the bank and repays it gradually. That is why when the real estate market crashes, the banks collapse. Does the bank really stay afloat from your overdraft of two thousand shekels?
It turns out, then, that someone whose financial standing is solid does not envision a bleak future. Someone once described a program showing how every other household product one uses belonged to a single tycoon: the toothpaste, the shampoo, everything. Yet today that same man sits behind bars. There is no need to get into names; what matters is the realization that the wheel can always turn.
This is what the verse is saying: you strike hands and guarantee debts, declaring, "Do not worry, I have the funds, everything will be fine" - but if you have nothing with which to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you? Even if you are wealthy at the moment you sign the guarantee, Rabbenu Yonah notes: who can guarantee that your wealth will endure until the debt comes due? A person should never put his trust in riches, as it is written, "He who trusts in his riches will fall," and as it is written, "Should you cast your eyes upon it, it is gone." Then you will be stunned to discover, when forced to pay, that even your villa is no longer yours, and that even your most basic possessions will be taken from you to settle the debt.
The Gra also explains the verse allegorically: do not associate with people who despise wisdom and refrain from performing mitzvot, telling yourself, "I will guide them; I will direct them in the service of Hashem." Do not become a guarantor for them - "among those who guarantee debts" - guaranteeing that these people will fulfill mitzvot. Why? Because if they do not perform the mitzvot, you will be held accountable for them; you will, so to speak, be called to task for what they failed to do. Moreover, this could cause you direct harm: someone who associates with the wicked in order to draw them close and appeal to their hearts is, in the meantime, actively keeping company with them, and he may very well be drawn after them himself.
The Gra offers yet another explanation: the verse is speaking about the person himself. Sometimes a person takes a vow and accepts upon himself: "I will do such-and-such; I swear; I will learn this tractate; I will complete the entire Shas." This is the meaning of being "among those who guarantee debts." Do not make a habit of this, says the Gra, for we know what happens to one who vows and fails to fulfill it - for the sin of unfulfilled vows, a man's wife passes away, Heaven spare us. This is "Why should he take away your bed from under you": you obligated yourself, you made a vow, and you have nothing with which to pay. His wife is referred to here by the euphemism "your bed from under you," as the verse refrained from stating explicitly "Why should he take your wife," choosing instead this indirect phrasing.
אַל־תַּסֵּג גְּבוּל עוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ׃ (כח) - Do not move the ancient landmark which your fathers have set.
Rashi explains: Do not push back the custom of your fathers - "lehassig" is from the language of retreat (nesigah). Rabbeinu Yonah explains similarly. Why not interpret it according to its plain meaning? Because this warning is already written in the Torah: "You shall not move your neighbor's boundary marker, which the early ones established in your inheritance" (Devarim 19:14), so why would Shlomo need to repeat and quote verses? Rather, the matter comes by way of a metaphor: there are good customs, there are enactments established by the fathers, there are fences and safeguards - and do not push them back.
And if you should say, "After all, this is only a safeguard, it is not a Torah prohibition, do not exaggerate" - we have already said several times that safeguards make up most of what we encounter. Most things you come across are in the category of a safeguard or a Rabbinic mitzvah; therefore, dismissing something because it is "only a safeguard" is certainly incorrect.
It is told of the Rama, Rabbi Moshe Isserles, that when he was appointed Rabbi in Cracow, he saw the mikveh attendant's husband one day in the synagogue approach a man, shake his hand, and say, "Mazal tov." The next day, he saw him approach another man in the same way. It sounded strange to him: What is this "mazal tov" for? They told him, "His wife went to immerse yesterday." The Rama was horrified: matters of modesty, where a woman must go without being seen - and furthermore to shake hands and say mazal tov? This is audacity! And he ordered the practice abolished completely.
One day, a man came to the synagogue who had not been in town when the Rama abolished the custom. Seeing that the mikveh attendant's husband did not say mazal tov to him, he approached and asked, "Why did you not say mazal tov to me?" He answered, "First of all, the Rama ordered an end to this custom. And second - your wife did not go at all yesterday." This is a true story, not a joke. When the Rama heard this, he restored the custom to its place.
What became clear there? There were women who did not go to immerse - in Europe, in the bitter cold, it was not simple; a woman would step out, take a walk around, and return - and the husband was certain she had immersed. To ensure this did not happen, they instituted that the mikveh attendant's husband would shake the husband's hand and say "Mazal tov," serving as a note from the attendant, just like a bride today who needs a confirmation note that she immersed. The moment people realized there was no tracking and that the husband knew nothing, some stumbled into prohibitions bearing the penalty of kares.
From this, the Rama learned that one must never abolish any custom, even if it seems puzzling, unless the custom is an outright violation of the Torah - in which case "minhag" (custom) is an anagram of "Gehinnom." But regarding a puzzling custom, one must investigate and examine its reason. There were great Torah leaders in all communities: Ashkenazim, Iraqis, Yemenites, Sephardim, Moroccans. When someone tells you, "In our city this was the custom," one must investigate where it stems from and why it was instituted. Often it turns out that the custom was designed to close a breach or address a specific problem. It may be that there is no need for it today, but abolishing it out of hand is certainly not the right way.
On the other hand, one must also be cautious of the opposite extreme. Pay attention to the wording of the verse: "Which your fathers have made." This is one of the most common occurrences: you ask someone why he acts this way, and he replies, "That is the custom here, do not change it." What custom? People came from the ingathering of the exiles, one from here and one from there, established a synagogue, and began practicing something in a certain way - and this became a "custom." But a custom is "which your fathers have made": when someone is asked why he does so and he replies that his grandfather did so and his great-grandfather did so - here there is likely an authentic source, it is a custom from the old country, and it requires examination. But "since they founded this synagogue, this is how we do it" - what is its source, and what are its foundations? And if the custom contradicts a law or Halachah, or causes embarrassment to someone - one does not do such a thing, and such a "custom" is an anagram of Gehinnom. The ABCs of a custom is "which your fathers have made," and then we say, "Follow the tracks of the sheep, and graze your kids by the shepherds' tents" (Shir HaShirim 1:8).
The Gra explains: "Do not move an ancient boundary marker" - the fence that was established in ancient generations, "which your fathers have made." Do not say now, "This is no longer relevant," but rather maintain that very practice.
For example, among Yemenite Jews, it is customary to translate the Torah reading aloud in the synagogue, a practice known among them as Targum. In many places, they wanted to abolish it long ago: they saw their Sephardic and Ashkenazic neighbors leaving the synagogue after about two hours, while they still had another hour left, because a young boy who had not yet finished his years with the mori was trying to translate while his father nudged him along, stumbling through the parashah, and everyone had to wait until he finished - and one had to show patience, for after all, people were patient with your own child when he translated. This doubles the length of the reading: the chazzan reads the verse quickly, but the translation takes twice as long, and in difficult Aramaic words. Therefore, many shortened the process - some abolished it altogether, while others said to translate only during the first aliyah as a remembrance of our fathers' custom, so children would have something to practice with and remember that such a thing existed. In fact, says the Gra, it is not fitting to abolish it.
We see this principle in most Rabbinic enactments (gezeirot Chazal). One might say: Today this does not apply. They forbade swimming in water lest one construct a sailor's float - who builds a raft today? They forbade carrying a lulav on Shabbat lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain while going to a scholar to learn the wavings; likewise with the shofar, lest one go to a scholar to learn how to blow - do you know any ba'al toke'a who waits until Rosh Hashanah to go to a scholar to learn how to blow? They forbade tapping on the table to a rhythm or clapping hands lest one repair a musical instrument - have you recently seen someone who, as a result of clapping, repaired a musical instrument? Nevertheless, the rule is that we do not abolish ancient decrees, even if the practical scenario no longer applies today.
And here the Vilna Gaon makes an important point in the opposite direction: do not innovate in the ways of Hashem; rather, walk in the footsteps of the flock. A person might say: "They established a fence? Wonderful, I will add another fence and another safeguard!" Regarding this, one must know that we are not to invent decrees on our own. Where Chazal enacted safeguards, they enacted them, but for us to invent our own decrees - no. Nevertheless, it is essential that the leading Torah authorities of every generation establish safeguards, for otherwise people would steadily decline. When a breach opens, it certainly must be sealed, and if there is a need in a given generation to fence off a breach, that is done. But to establish permanent decrees for all generations on our own authority - that we do not do. We walk in the footsteps of the flock.
The Malbim notes that the concept of "Do not move an ancient boundary marker" is essentially already stated in the Torah: "Do not move the boundary marker of your fellow, which the early ones marked off in your inheritance" (Devarim 19:14) - and there it refers literally to encroaching on a neighbor's property boundary, whereas King Shlomo extends this to all ancient enactments, as we explained. The Malbim adds an example from the Yalkut: Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, if you see a custom established by our ancestors, do not alter it. For example, Avraham instituted the Shacharit prayer. Is it written anywhere in the Torah to pray Shacharit? Rather, Avraham instituted Shacharit - therefore, pray Shacharit. This is the "boundary of the early ones" that must be preserved.
חָזִיתָ אִישׁ מָהִיר בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ לִפְנֵי־מְלָכִים יִתְיַצָּב בַּל־יִתְיַצֵּב לִפְנֵי חֲשֻׁכִּים׃ (כט) - Have you seen a man skilled and diligent in his work? He shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before obscure men.
Before we explain, a side note: this is a verse many cite. There is a Midrash known as "Midrash Chazita," which people mistakenly call "Midrash Chazit" - simply because they are unfamiliar with the verse. Why is it called this? Because the Midrash opens with the verse, "Have you seen [chazita] a man diligent in his work" and begins expounding it, and the Midrash was named after its opening verse. Similarly, "Midrash Tadshe" is called that because it opens with "Let the earth bring forth [tadshe ha'aretz]." Know, therefore: it is not "Chazit," but "Chazita," just as the verse reads.
Rabbeinu Yonah writes: Scripture comes here to praise the trait of alacrity (zerizut). A person who is "diligent in his work" is an energetic person who, when a task or responsibility is placed upon him, "the man will not rest until he has settled the matter." And about whom was this said? About Boaz. Naomi said this to Ruth: You have nothing to worry about, "for the man will not rest until he has settled the matter today" (Ruth 3:18). He will clarify this very day whether he can marry you and redeem the field. And that is exactly what happened: that very day he gathered the judges, that very day he clarified the halachah, that very day he approached Tov to ask if he wished to redeem.
And there was immense significance to this, for had they missed a single day, the entire Davidic dynasty would never have come into being, since Boaz passed away that very night. After he married Ruth, betrothed her, and was with her, he did not wake up the next morning. What do we learn from this? That a delay of a single day would have derailed the entire royal lineage of the House of David. Indeed, a broader study of this entire lineage reveals that at every single stage, the delay of a mere moment would have thwarted it completely; this theme is explored at length in the lesson for Shavuot.
From here one can appreciate the trait of alacrity. Some people jokingly say: "Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow" - and such people live in chronic procrastination. A person has tasks to arrange, affairs to put in order, yet until a gun is held to his head, until a red warning letter is slapped onto his door, he does not pay the debt and does not set his affairs straight. This is not the proper way to live. Above all, a person must be diligent in his work, not delaying it until tomorrow, but attending to it with alacrity and perseverance.
And such a person "shall stand before kings," Rabbeinu Yonah explains, because kings appreciate such an individual and actively seek him out. What does a king want around him? People who get things done, people to whom an order can be given with full confidence that every detail will be taken care of, people who can be relied upon. Such a person will indeed stand before kings, for monarchs seek out individuals like this to carry out their work.
"He shall not stand before obscure men" - the word chashukim is related to darkness, referring to the impoverished and lowly, as in the Aramaic Targum of "From the dunghill He lifts the destitute" (Tehillim 113:7) - "from the garbage heap He lifts the lowly [chashicha]," and "a poor people, a lowly people [chashucha]." Rabbeinu Yonah explains this in continuity with what was said: an artisan who is swift and masterly is hired for complex, delicate work. This is comparable to someone looking to buy a piece of jewelry for his wife; he approaches a master craftsman who quotes a steep price. The buyer asks: "What is the difference?" and the craftsman replies: "This is true artistry." But the buyer cannot even begin to comprehend the caliber of craftsmanship and expertise involved here compared to the simple piece of jewelry he might buy from someone else. This is "he shall not stand before obscure men" - those of modest means have no appreciation for such fine distinctions. One who stands before kings operates on an entirely different level, while those of lowly station cannot discern the difference between the cheap and ordinary and the work of a consummate master craftsman.
The Malbim explains: This is an allegory that speaks to human duty and ethics. What is man's purpose in this world? It is the King's work: engaging in Torah, fulfilling the mitzvos, serving Hashem, contemplating His truth, and delving into intellectual and spiritual wisdom. A person who is diligent in this work stands before the King.
Consequently, when people approach him and ask him to leave his work to deal with one matter or another - solving a mathematical problem, assisting with material concerns - he thinks to himself: Shall I leave the spirituality in which I am immersed for these trivialities, for these mundane affairs? He will not present himself. Everything that stands before him in comparison to the King's service - fear of Hashem, divine service, and Torah study - is entirely "dark" in his eyes, an aspect of darkness. In such a reality, the desires of this world, its pursuits, and the yearning for materialism no longer speak to him.
This is especially true since he knows that such a thing is repulsive to the King. For when I return to do the King's work, the King will say to me: For whom did you go to craft jewelry? For so-and-so? The craftsmanship you make for Me, you went and offered to another? The King has exclusivity over everything. This leads a person to say: Shall I go and engage in nonsense and vanity, and then face a reckoning with the King? So too in the nimshal: a person who dedicates all his talents and soul-powers to the service of Hashem says to himself - shall I invest in mundanity and worldliness, and then the King will take issue with me: you went and squandered this divine intellect and this divine wisdom on vanity? Therefore, one who is diligent in his craft and stands before kings will not go stand before obscure men; he will not descend into material and physical matters that would degrade his standing after having breathed the mountain air of the heights, matters that in his eyes are darkness alongside light.
The Vilna Gaon continues his previous explanation: "Do you see a man diligent in his craft" - in Torah and good deeds. One who does not place himself in the midst of a community of people whose observance of mitzvos is completely marginal, who are neither meticulous nor observant, and does not become a guarantor for them - but rather is diligent in his own work in Torah, before whom does he stand? "He shall stand before kings" - and who are kings? The Rabbis.
That is to say, where does he place himself? Not among a group of people who know nothing, where, as we have seen, one strikes hands and becomes a guarantor bearing burdens for people whose spiritual level is very low: first, one will be held accountable for them; second, they may drag him down as well. Rather, he connects himself to a community of Torah scholars, to people with whom meaningful work can be done, who are willing to receive, who can be elevated - people inclined toward wisdom, talmidei chachamim. "He shall not stand before obscure men" - he will not present himself before those who walk in darkness, who do not observe mitzvos, with whom one speaks again and again only to see that nothing accomplishes anything.
It is told of one of the great Torah leaders of Israel that a talmid chacham came to him to receive rabbinic ordination. The sage examined him on the Shulchan Aruch and saw that he was proficient and knowledgeable. He asked him: Tell me, have you studied the fifth part of the Shulchan Aruch? He replied: A fifth part? What is that? I know that the Shulchan Aruch has four parts. The sage said to him: The fifth part is how to behave with other human beings. Have you studied that? It is not enough to master the sugyos - do you know how to conduct yourself with people, how to respond to them, in what manner to treat them?
That talmid chacham entered the rabbinate, mastered these matters well, and served as a rav. Two years later, the one who had ordained him met him and asked: Well, have you managed to implement the fifth part of the Shulchan Aruch? He replied: Rebbe, I have even managed to learn the sixth! He asked: What is the sixth? He said to him: The fifth part of the Shulchan Aruch is how to behave with human beings, and the sixth is how to deal with savages. That too I have learned. Indeed, there are people who recognize neither law nor judge, brazen people devoid of derech eretz, shameless - and with them too, one must know how to conduct oneself, how to silence them, and how to put them in their place. But one who is wise and diligent in his work does not place himself among people of this kind in the first place: "He shall not stand before obscure men."
There is another fascinating explanation: chashuchim does not only stem from the word for darkness (choshech), but also from the root of chasoch avdecha ("withhold Your servant") - restraint or withholding. Chashuchim is akin to chasuchim (those lacking or deprived). Today, people often speak of children who suffered from deprivations: a child who was never kissed, a child suffering from extreme poverty. Similarly, there are people who have deficiencies and need to be helped forward. The Vilna Gaon explains: These individuals are deprived, withheld from the observance of mitzvos - so do not go and become a leader of such people who have no intention of observing and no intention of doing, for then you would have to supervise them constantly and waste your time on them.
It was once related that when Rav Ovadia Yosef was in Egypt, at a certain point he saw that action had to be taken, yet the heads of the community there were deprived, benighted, and obtuse - whatever description one might choose. At one stage he told them: If it will not be possible to firmly establish religious standards in matters of kashrus, I am leaving. What astonished him was that they said: Then leave. Could one even imagine such a thing? What were they willing to forfeit! What a priceless jewel was in their midst, and what a transformation he was effecting in that community, yet these individuals were so deprived and so benighted that they did not comprehend what they were losing; to them it seemed merely as if an ordinary employee was resigning. Rav Ovadia was stunned by their complete lack of understanding. In practice, a person must know to seek a community containing people who are receptive and ready to listen, for only then can one achieve meaningful results with them.
We have learned three fundamentals here. "Do not be among those who strike hands" - the caution against acting as a guarantor, which is a tangible financial danger (as the law requiring the return of a pledge applies to the borrower, not the guarantor), as well as a spiritual danger: do not become a guarantor for people who do not observe mitzvos, do not multiply vows that you cannot fulfill, and do not place your trust in your wealth, for who can guarantee the lifespan of your wealth? "Do not move an ancient boundary" - safeguarding ancestral customs and rabbinic safeguards, meaning that we do not abolish a custom or decree even when its original rationale seems no longer applicable; and on the other hand, we do not fabricate customs and decrees from our own hearts, and any custom that contradicts halachah or shames a person - the letters of the word minhag (custom) spell Gehinnom. And "Do you see a man diligent in his work?" - the trait of alacrity in the manner of Boaz, through whose single day the dynasty of the House of David was established; and one who is diligent in the King's work, which is Torah and mitzvos, does not stoop to stand before obscure elements - neither before material pursuits, which are darkness in comparison to light, nor before company where there is nothing constructive to achieve, but rather connects himself to "kings" - and who are the kings? The Rabbis.