Jewish and Christian opinions on Usury Researchers believe that the Christian and Jewish theorist have varied opinions when it comes to the issue of lending money. They have notable differences concerning the study of medieval European view which was meant to prevent taking interests on loans. The insights and governing interpretations of the medieval Rabbis on interest rates are that Talmud and Scripture prohibits it with respect to the law of natural justice. In theory, the natural justice principles guarantee no opposition to the contract entered into by both parties (Kirshenbaum 282). It is very fair to charge a normal rate of interest on loan despite the irrational lending terms put on the borrower by the creditor. In case the borrower leaves the nation without repaying the cash owed, the creditor will bear the loss. Moreover, circumstances of monetary failure of the debtor are putting the creditor in trouble of losing the full loan. Therefore, the creditor cannot benefit from using his money during the loan period. Compensation is necessary to the creditors for the shortages and risks they undergo during the time of lending (Temin and Voth 551). The example of a clouded legislation is the Jewish prohibition of lending money free of charge or at set charges. The scholars openly state that the scriptures instructed the Israelites to carry out their activities in a manner that manifests care and sympathy. In contrast, most financial philosophers uphold their overriding position that charging interest on the cash lent is not against the decree of natural justice. Ruling out the interest charged as indicated in the bible corresponds to morality. Thus, using this can help in explaining Usury (Benmelech and Moskowitz 1041). Theorists used the emerging concerns on Usury from the medieval interpreters. In fact, they could also refer to early sources that explain the charged interests on loans. The patristic inscriptions and the church councils clearly state that the Christian tradition denounced Usury during money lending. This was long back in the year 1000. Usury was rather prehistoric until that time, and its definition was just unclear (Farooq 267). In fact, not even a lone effort tried to define what comprised the loan, though Usury emerged probably because of loans. The reimbursement of Usury prescription was not a contract neither was it an offense against justice. At the same time, encouraging Usury was an offense and condemning it was an apparent look of discrepancy. The medieval financial researchers educated that lending with interest on top entailed infringing the natural justice. In the 11 th century, Ivo from Chartres, and Anselm from Canterbury were the first individuals to link Usury to theft. An affirmation by Auxerre William that Usury was contrary to the natural law came just a century later (Labat and Block 383). When arguing about lending money, contradicting opinions emerged between the Jews and the Christians. Some supported lending money without payment while others were on the contrary. Therefore, Aquinas Thomas formulated and presented some controls regarding the charged interests on loaned funds. Aquinas saw that it was unfair for the creditor to gain interest or profit from the money lent out. It was clear that loan entailed the shift of monetary rights from the creditor to the debtor. Further, it is an injustice to receive extra money from a lesser amount (Farooq 56). Aquinas said that money had no regular or pe