Obj. 4:  Further, man’s needs require that men should be ready to lend:  which readiness ceases if the creditors do not return the pledges:  hence it is written (Ecclus. 29:10):  “Many have refused to lend, not out of wickedness, but they were afraid to be defrauded without cause.”  And yet this was encouraged by the Law.  First, because it prescribed (Deut. 15:2):  “He to whom any thing is owing from his friend or neighbor or brother, cannot demand it again, because it is the year of remission of the Lord”; and (Ex. 22:15) it is stated that if a borrowed animal should die while the owner is present, the borrower is not bound to make restitution.  Secondly, because the security acquired through the pledge is lost:  for it is written (Deut. 24:10):  “When thou shalt demand of thy neighbor any thing that he oweth thee, thou shalt not go into his house to take away a pledge”; and again (Deut. 24:12, 13):  “The pledge shall not lodge with thee that night, but thou shalt restore it to him presently.”  Therefore the Law made insufficient provision in the matter of loans.

Obj. 5:  Further, considerable risk attaches to goods deposited with a fraudulent depositary:  wherefore great caution should be observed in such matters:  hence it is stated in 2 Mac. 3:15 that “the priests . . . called upon Him from heaven, Who made the law concerning things given to be kept, that He would preserve them safe, for them that had deposited them.”  But the precepts of the Old Law observed little caution in regard to deposits:  since it is prescribed (Ex. 22:10, 11) that when goods deposited are lost, the owner is to stand by the oath of the depositary.  Therefore the Law made unsuitable provision in this matter.

Obj. 6:  Further, just as a workman offers his work for hire, so do men let houses and so forth.  But there is no need for the tenant to pay his rent as soon as he takes a house.  Therefore it seems an unnecessarily hard prescription (Lev. 19:13) that “the wages of him that hath been hired by thee shall not abide with thee until morning.”

Obj. 7:  Further, since there is often pressing need for a judge, it should be easy to gain access to one.  It was therefore unfitting that the Law (Deut. 17:8, 9) should command them to go to a fixed place to ask for judgment on doubtful matters.

Obj. 8:  Further, it is possible that not only two, but three or more, should agree to tell a lie.  Therefore it is unreasonably stated (Deut. 19:15) that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand.”

Objection 9:  Further, punishment should be fixed according to the gravity of the fault:  for which reason also it is written (Deut. 25:2):  “According to the measure of the sin, shall the measure also of the stripes be.”  Yet the Law fixed unequal punishments for certain faults:  for it is written (Ex. 22:1) that the thief “shall restore five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep.”  Moreover, certain slight offenses are severely punished:  thus (Num. 15:32, seqq.) a man is stoned for gathering sticks on the sabbath day:  and (Deut. 21:18, seqq.) the unruly son is commanded to be stoned on account of certain small transgressions, viz. because “he gave himself to revelling . . . and banquetings.”  Therefore the Law prescribed punishments in an unreasonable manner.