The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1884-08-30
Our Q9lio.
The Law of Debtor and Creditor
Among the Ancient jews.
From the Pal MaN Gazette.

The Law of Debtor and Creditor
Among the Ancient Jews.
From the Pail 1NaH Gazette.
Apart from the laws of usury, the gen
eral ordinances regulating transactions be-
tween debtor and creditor are extremely
interesting. They offer marked contrast
to analogous provisions found in other
ancient legal systems, which delivered up
the unfortunate debtor to the mercy of the
person to whom he stood indebted. The
Hebrew code was in this regard eminently
humane and considerate. Due regard was
had to the position and circumstances and
necessities of a borrower unable to meet his
engagements. The lender was enjoined as
well as legally prevented from pressing
harshly and to an extreme his claim against
one indebted to him in money or kind.
"a CREDITOR says Rab Dime, ''who knows
that person owing him money is unable
to pay the amount must avoid passing
where the debtor is likely to be found Gin
order, of course, not to cause the latter pain
or shame); otherwise he violates the divine
command: Thou shalt not be towards him
an exactor EXODUS xii, 24)." The Che
mara further adds-by the mouth of Rabbi
Anne and Rabbi Asse-"that the creditor
who does this is regarded as though he had
cast his debtor into a flaming furnace or
into a stream of water" The law, how
ever provided that every man should be
fully and legally responsible for all debts
he contracted. The principal ordinances
calling for explanation are those referring
to the taking and retaining of pledges, and
the mode of Selling chattels or selling real
property in satisfaction of properly estab-
lished claims In any civil process the
party against whom Judgment was given
and who was cast in damages became a
debtor in respect of the amount in ques
ton. The ordinances of the Talmud reg
ulating distraint upon goods and property
will therefore suffice to indicate the manner
in which the local tribunals could enforce
their DEGREES, whenever the obstinacy of a
sutton rendered such a proceeding neces-
sary.
MONEY LENDING.
Money was lent among the Jews in three
different ways-Q). On an article, uten-
sill or a garment, regarded as pledge, al
though the creditor might not take posses
sion of the object in question. (2). On
personal security, where one party verbally
i. G., in the presence of witnesses by
deed, guaranteed repayment of loan con-
tracted by another. (3). Without secu-
rity of any kind; the creditor knowing the
means and position of the borrower, and
relying upon the responsibility incurred by
the latter and capable of being enforced at
law. In the case of money lent upon
pledges, the following ordinances took eff
feet; The Mosaic Code forbade the taking
of milestone as security for a debt; it was
required for the preparation of vital ne
cessity. The rabbins saw in this injunction
the enunciation of a general principle. The
Mischna therefore extended the prohibition
to all instruments or utensils embraced in
the preparation of alimentary substances.
If such an article was taken in pledge by a
creditor the tribunal could compel its re-
storation, Nor could such an object be
seized in satisfaction Of debit In like
manner it was forbidden to take a pledge
of widow. The Pentateuch prohibited a
garment only; but the Talmud again ex-
tends the prohibition to articles of any
kind; and for the following reason IF an
object taken as security was of such a
nature as to be required for domestic use
or was necessary for labor-as pillow or
ploW-the creditor was bound during the
thirty days at least to allow the debtor the
use of one of the two whenever he required
it; i, e., the pillow in the evening to sleep
upon, the pillow in the day time to work
with. In the case of man it was pre-
sumed that this would cause no inc6n-
venience; but where widow was concerned,
and she happened to be poor, and asa con-
sequence required the pledge she had given
from time to time, the constant visits of
the creditor bringing the article would
probably cause scandal, as neighbors could
scarcely be cognizant of the nature of the
business transaction which caused the
lender to come to her so frequently. Hence
this law was one of the many found in the
Talmud in favor of women. In no case,
moreover, was creditor permitted to enter
a debtors house in order to seize pledge
there. If he had not taken possession of
the article in question when he lent the
money he was not even permitted to take
it from the debtor in the street. If the
amount lent was not repaid as agreed upon,
the lender was required to attend before
the local tribunal and prove the debt An
officer of the court, specially employed for
that purpose, was then ordered to obtain
possession of the pledge in question. He
was not, however, suffered to enter the
borrowers house, in order to seize it; he
was bound to remain outside, and the article
in question had to be handed out to him.
Thirty days of grace were then allowed, in
order to afford the debtor time and oppor-
tunity to procure the sum necessary to re-
pay his loan. At the expiration of that
term the pledge was sold to satisfy the
claim of the plaintiff. In the case of
loan on personal security the same proce-
dure was necessary. 1t was, however, in
dispensible that application should in the
first instance have been made to the person
who contracted the loan Only when it had
been proved before the local court that the
debtor himself was unable topay could the
guarantee be compelled to make good the
amount
COLLECTION BY EXECUTION.
In cases where money was lent without
security of any kind, an execution on NOV
able goods and personal chattels could only
be levied after proving the debt in court
as in the preceding instances. Nor was
the plaintiff creditor himself permitted to
NEEDLE in the matter, The business was
entirely committed to the hands of the of.
fetal appointed by local judges. Now,
whatever the amount of the debt towards
renavmnnt Of which tho nronartv in nuac