Our Gemara on Amud Aleph presents a surprisingly lenient ruling: Torah scholars are permitted to borrow from each other with interest. The Gemara explains: Why is this allowed? Because they are fully aware that interest is prohibited, thus they do not intend the loan as a formal business transaction. They willingly forgo additional payments from each other at the outset, considering the extra payment a gift exchanged between them.

This uncharacteristically permissive legal stance invites further commentary and qualifications. Typically, rabbinic scholars subject themselves to more stringencies rather than leniencies. One might question, even if this provision was a special exemption aimed to foster their economic capacity, given that it was only permitted among fellow sages, not regular citizens, how much economic benefit could it truly bring?  

Maharal (Gevuros Hashem 45) explains that taking interest on money is akin to draining a person's life force. In biblical terms, a loan was usually not for investment but to meet basic needs. Paying interest would plunge the borrower further into poverty's grasp, depriving them of their basic sustenance.

Maharal posits that life itself is imbued with a divine force. Charging interest demonstrates a lack of respect for this divine force, reducing money to a mere commodity. By refusing to extend kindness to those in need, the lender betrays an atheistic spirit, denying God's providence. Hence, the prohibition of usury is linked to the exodus from Egypt, symbolizing the rejection of arrogant beliefs that man can control the world without divine blessings such the Egyptians’ trademark reliance on magic and technology to assert their dominion.

A Torah sage embodies a connection to the divine in everyday affairs, enabling him to view money as a tool without succumbing to the illusion of complete mastery. However, some may perceive this explanation as apologetic. Furthermore, if a sage is truly detached from money, why would they need to charge interest? The latter question is partially answered by considering that the loans were private matters conducted between two sages. Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why this allowance was made, given the chance of a negative impression.

Though a full explanation is elusive, I offer a perspective on the resolution. Maharal's portrayal of the sage as one who perceives God's providence and transcends attachment to money suggests more than mere adherence to the law. The sage’s deep-rooted trust in divine providence enables him to regard money as a gift from God, regardless of his effort in acquiring it. For the sage, money is not a measure of personal prowess but a manifestation of divine grace.  To him, money that is so-called earned versus money that comes as a windfall or via charging interest are all the same, they are all equally considered as a gift from God. This is why only a scholar can be trusted to engage in this legal loophole of treating the interest received as a gift, because he truly believes it.