RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Usuardus Usury
history; yet it was wide-spread in Greece, as well as the monthly reckoning, and was customary in the Roman Empire after the year of the city 704, though Justinian set the rate at 6 per cent for money and 12 for grain. No punishment is mentioned for taking usury, either in Bible or Talmud. The Talmud also forbids the taking of interest between Hebrews. An exception is found in Baba Mezt‘a 75a, where Rab Jehuda affirms that to the wise (those who know the law) it is permitted to borrow and pay interest, since that class knows that usury is forbidden and so make a
2. Talmudic “ present’ [in place of interest]. The and Later same rabbi, following Rab Jehuda, Usage. declared that it is permitted a man
to lend for interest his children’ and
house-folk in order to let them feel the impression of payment of interest. But, the passage goes on, this is wrong, since they may become accustomed to the practise. In the Mishna (Baba Mezi‘a 5-6) between Israelites and gentiles the taking of interest is plainly permitted, though in the following Talmudic discussion the privilege is strongly limited; and it appears from the tract Makkoth, 24a, that an ideal held forth is to take no interest from gentiles, where in remarking upon Ps. xv. 1, 5, it is added ‘‘ who takes no usury from a gentile.” But the views of later times were various, and apologetic expressions defending the practise are not wanting. It may be mentioned that the prohibition against taking usury from a gentile is reckoned by Maimonides as no. 198 among the commandments, and in the enumeration of the commands this prohibition is no. 613. Some say, again, that one must be guided by his feelings in the matter; others, that it is commendable that no one take interest. In the Shulhan arukh, Yore de‘a, clix. 1, is the following: ‘‘ The Torah permits to loan to a gentile for usury. The wise have forbidden it except so far as it is necessary for maintenance of life or in the case of a wise man or so far as concerns a gain forbidden only by rabbis. But now it is permitted.” Biblical law forbids taking usury from Israelites; the wise have also forbidden bargaining for gain or taking it for loans of money or wares. Even yet pious Jews regard the taking of interest from Jews as forbidden, even when the debtor is rich, and though the gain is regarded as a present (L. Stern, Die Vorschrifien der Thora, welche Israel in der Zerstreuung zu beobachten hat, p. 215, 4th ed., Frankfort, 1904). In the training which commerce and intercourse have in the present brought about, complete observance of the prohibition is not possible; and various ways have been devised in order to keep the letter of the law, as when a sort of partnership is agreed upon. An example of the formula employed in such a case is given in B. H. Auerbach, Lehrbuch der israelitischen Religion, p. 108 (2d ed., Giessen, 1853). The same authority lays down the maxim that from a gentile the Jew is to receive only a moderate rate of interest, such as is permitted by either the law or the custom of the land; a rate disproportionate to the value as judged by the use to be made of the loan is thievery and sinful. But such regulations have not prevented loud outcries
coneerning Jewish usury, though in many cases these had no basis in fact, since orthodox Jews regard this as heinous sin. (H. L. StRAcK.)
II. In the Christian Church: The term usury, being originally equivalent to “ fruit,” “ growth,” ‘increase,’ and being applied to personal profit or gain, was also used to express the profits derived from money loans. The term, therefore, tallies with the Greek tokos (from tekd, ‘‘ to bear,” “ to bring forth.”
In ancient times interest was paid monthly and grew to vast amounts, insomuch that when paid by the poor, who were practically constrained to accept
loans, the operation proved highly
1. Early oppressive. The New ‘Testament,
Ecclesias- while not expressly forbidding the retical Legis- ceipt of interest, yet commends gralation. tuitous lending, in token of neighbor-
ly love (Luke vi. 34, 35). In the early
days of the Church, the taking of interest was reproved, as by Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and others. It was only from the enemy, one who may also be slain in war, that interest could be taken rightfully. But as a general rule the practise was prohibited for all Christians, without distinction of persons (canon 20 of the Synod of Elvira, 310 A.D.). But as the fruition of interest was permitted by civil law, church legislation was confined to regulations forbidding the clergy to enjoy the same, under pain of dismissal (Synod of Arles, 314; Council of Nice, 325, canon xvii.). And in the year 325, again, when Constantine decreed anew that in the case of profits an interest so great as one-half of the loaned amount might be drawn, and in the case of capital, the hundredth part, that is, one per cent a month, or 12 per cent yearly (Theodosian Code, chap. 1., de usurts, iv. 33), that ecclesiastical prohibition had reference only to the clergy (Council of Laodicea, 372 a.p., canon 4; Third Synod of Carthage, 397 a.p., canon 16). But this nowise prevented the teachers of the Church from enjoining upon all Christians the duty of lending without interest, as did Augustine and Jerome. Their example was also followed by Pope Leo I., in a brief of the year 447 to the bishops of Campania, Picenum, Tuscany, and all Italian provinces. Nevertheless, the synodical prohibitions continued to be directed only against the clergy (as at the Second Synod of Arles, 448 a.p., canon 14, and that of Tarragona, 516 a.D., canons 2, 3). The Greek Church, however, so far deferred to temporal legislation, which still permitted the taking of interest though under certain restraints, as to relax even the universal interdiction governing the clergy. For in the East they prohibited only the matter of promising interest on loans, whereas they allowed the exaction of interest when the refunding of borrowed capital was immoderately delayed. This was the import of a ruling by Photius (Nomocanon, tit. [X., xxviii., in conjunction with Justinian’s Novelle, CXXXL., xii.) whereby, for pious ends of the Church, legates were allowed to draw interest arrearages. This construction was also favored by later commentators (cf. Balsamon’s commentary on the passage cited from Photius). In the Frankish realm, the interdiction
Usury Utenheim