[92] There are other cases in which the lawgiver evidently takes the sun figuratively as applying to the First Cause, as in the Law enacted with reference to those who lend money on security. Read the Law: “If thou take thy neighbour’s garment to pledge thou shalt restore it to him before the setting of the sun; for this is his only covering, it is the garment of his shame. Wherein shall he sleep? If then he cry unto Me, I will hear him, for I am compassionate” (Ex. 22:26 f.).
[93] Do not those who suppose that the lawgiver feels all this concern about a cloak deserve, if not reproach, at least a reminder, in such terms as, “What are you saying, good sirs? Does the Creator and Ruler of the universe speak of Himself as compassionate in regard to so trifling a matter, a garment not returned to a debtor by a lender of money?
[94] To entertain such ideas is a mark of men who have utterly failed to see the greatness of the excellence of the infinitely great God, and against every principle human or divine attribute human pettiness to the Being Who is un-originate
[95] and incorruptible and full of all blessedness and happiness. What is there outrageous in money-lenders keeping the securities in their own hands, until they have got back their own? Someone will say perhaps that the debtors are poor men, and deserve pity. In that case would it not be better to make a law for contributing to the needs of such people instead of making them debtors, or for prohibiting lending upon security? But the legislator who has permitted this cannot reasonably be indignant with those who do not give up before the time what they have received,
[96] and treat them as devoid of piety. And does a man who has reached practically the extreme limit of poverty, and is clothed with a single rag, endeavour to attract fresh money-lenders, while he lets pass unheeded the compassion, which goes forth abundantly from all beholders, indoors, at temples,
[97] in the market-place, everywhere, to those who experience such misfortunes? But in this case he is supposed to bring and offer the sole covering of his shame, with which he veiled nature’s secret parts. And security for what? tell me that. Is it for a better garment to take its place? For no one is at a loss for the bare necessities of food, so long as springs gush forth, and rivers run down in winter, and earth yields her fruits in their season.
[98] And is the creditor either so swallowed up in riches or so exceedingly cruel as to be unwilling to afford a tetradrachm (or less it may be) to anybody, or make a loan rather than a free gift to one so poor, or to take as security the man’s only garment, an act which might well be given another name and called coat-snatching? For that is the coat-snatcher’s way; when they remove people’s apparel they carry it off, and leave the owners naked.
[99] And why did he take thought for night and that no one should sleep without clothing, but shewed no such care for the day and that a man should not be indecent in his waking hours? Or is it not the case that by night and darkness all things are hidden, so that nakedness causes less shame or none at all, whereas by the light of day all things are uncovered, so that then one is more obliged to blush?
[100] And why did he enjoin not the giving but the returning of the garment? For we return what belongs to another, whereas the securities belong to the lenders rather than to the borrowers. And do you not notice that he has given no direction to the debtor, after taking the garment to use as a blanket, when day has come to get up and remove it and carry it to the money-lender?
[101] And indeed the peculiarities of the wording might well lead even the slowest-witted reader to perceive the presence of something other than the literal meaning of the passage: for the ordinance bears the marks of an explanatory statement rather than of an exhortation. A man giving an exhortation would have said, “If the garment given as security be the only one the borrower has, return it before evening, that he may have it to wrap round him at night.” But if he makes a statement he would put as it stands: “thou shalt give it back to him, for this is the only wrapper he has, this is the garment without which he is not decent; what is he to sleep in?” (Ex. 22:27).