Ancient Egyptian Bread. (Tlie tiist two fiffnres are from the Monuments, the others from epecimens in the Brit- isli Museum.)
The word nsn, channh',"cake" (2 Sam. vi, 19), of- ten refers to a cake of oblation (Exod. xxix, 23; Lev. viii, 26 , Numb, vi, 15 ; etc.), from the root hhri, chalal,
to pierce through, because they were pricked, as among tlie original spirit of the law" was approved bv our Lord the Arabians and Jews of the present day. We also (^Matt. v, 42; xxv, 27; Luke vi, 35; xix, 23). The find, on the paintings in the monuments of Egypt, rep- I money-changers (/cfo/xa-iff-ni and KoWnjStcrTai), who resentations of offerings of cakes pricked. See Cake. I had seats and tablcsin the Temple, were traders whose
LOAN
473
LOAN
profits arose chiefly from the exchange of money "with those who came to pay their annual half shekel (I'ol- lux, iii, 84 ; vii, 170 ; Schlcusner, Lex. N. T. s. v. ; Light- foot, //o?-. Ihhr. at jNIatt. xxi, 12). The documents re- lating to loans of money appear to have been deposited in public otlices in Jerusalem (Josephus, TFar, ii, 17, 6). In making loans no prohibition is pronomiced in the law against taking a pledge of the borrower, but certain limitations are prescribed in favor of the poor. 1. The outer garment, which formed the poor man's principal covering by niglit as %\ell as by day, if taken in pledge, was to be returned before sunset. A bedstead, how- ever, might be taken (Exod. xxii, 26, 27 ; Deut, xxiv, 12, 13 ; comp. Job xxii, 6 ; Prov. xxii, 27 ; Shaw, Trav. p. 224; Burckhardt, iVo^fs on Bed. i, 47, 231; Niebuhr, Descr. de I' A?: p. 56; Lane, Mod. Eg. i, 57, 58; Gesen. Thesaur. p. 403 ; Michaelis, Laics of Moses, arts. 143 and 150). 2. The prohibition was absolute in the case of (o) the widow's garment (Deut. xxiv, 17), and (6) a millstone of cither kind (Deut. xxiv, 6), Michaelis (art. 150, ii, 321) supposes also all indispensable animals and utensils of agriculture ; see also Mishna, Mauser Sheni, i. 3. A creditor was forbidden to enter a house to reclaim a pledge, but was to stand outside till the borrower should come forth to return it (Deut. xxiv, 10, 11). 4. The original Komau law of debt permitted the debtor to be enslaved by his creditor until the debt was discharged (Livy, ii, 23 ; Appian, liul. p. 40) ; and he might even be put to death by him, though this ex- tremity does not appear to have been ever practiced (Gell. XX, 1, 45, 52; Smith, Lict. of Class. Aniiq. s. v. Bonorum Cessio, Nexum). In Athens also the creditor had a claim to the person of the debtor (Plutarch, Vit. Sol. 15). The Jewish law, as it did not forbid tem- porary bondage in the case of debtors, yet forbade a Hebrew debtor to be detained as a bondsman longer than the seventh year, or at furthest the year of jubilee (Exod. xxi, 2; Lev. xxv, 39, 42; Deut.'xv, 9). If a Hebrew was sold in this way to a foreign sojourner, he might be redeemed at a valuation at any time previous to the jubilee year, and in that year was, under any cir- cumstances, to be released. Foreign sojourners, how- ever, were not entitled to release at that time (Lev. xxv, 44, 46, 47, 54; 2 Kings iv, 2; Isa. 1, 1; Iii, 3). Land sold on account of debt was redeemable either by the seller himself, or by a kinsman in case of his inabil- ity to repurchase. Houses in walled towns, except such as belonged to Levites, if not redeemed within one year after sale, were alienated forever. Michaelis doubts ■whether all debt was extinguished by the jubilee; but Josephus's account is very precise (^Ani. iii, 12, 3; comp. Lev. xxv, 23, 34 ; Ruth iv, 4, 10 ; see Michaelis, § 158, ii, 360). In later times the sabbatical or jubilee release was superseded by a law, probably introduced by the Romans, by which the debtor was liable to be detained in prison until the full discharge of his debt (Matt, v, 26). Michaelis thinks this doubtful. The case imag- ined in the parable of the unmerciful servant belongs rather to despotic Oriental than Jewish manners (Matt, xviii, 34, Michaelis, ibid. art. 149; 'French, Parables, \). 141). Subsequent Jewish ojiinions on loans and usury may be seen in the Mishna, Baba Meziah, c. iii, x. See
JUBILKE.
These laws relating to loans may wear a strange and somewhat unreasonable aspect to the mere modern read- er, and cannot be understood, either in their bearing or their sanctions, unless considered from the Biblical point of view. The land of Canaan (as the entire world) be- longed to its Creator, but was given of God to the de- scendants of Abraham under certain conditions, of which this liberality to the needy was one. The power of getting loans, therefore, was a part of the poor man's inheritance. It was a hen on the land (the source of all property with agricultural people), which was as valid as the tenure of any given portion hy the tribe or fam- ily to whose lot it had fallen. This is the light in Which the Mosaic polity represents the matter, and in