Secondly, the Law commanded that, in some respects, the use of things should belong to all in common.  Firstly, as regards the care of them; for it was prescribed (Deut. 22:1-4):  “Thou shalt not pass by, if thou seest thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray; but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother,” and in like manner as to other things.  Secondly, as regards fruits.  For all alike were allowed on entering a friend’s vineyard to eat of the fruit, but not to take any away.  And, specially, with respect to the poor, it was prescribed that the forgotten sheaves, and the bunches of grapes and fruit, should be left behind for them (Lev. 19:9; Deut. 24:19).  Moreover, whatever grew in the seventh year was common property, as stated in Ex. 23:11 and Lev. 25:4.

Thirdly, the law recognized the transference of goods by the owner.  There was a purely gratuitous transfer:  thus it is written (Deut. 14:28, 29):  “The third day thou shalt separate another tithe . . . and the Levite . . . and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow . . . shall come and shall eat and be filled.”  And there was a transfer for a consideration, for instance, by selling and buying, by letting out and hiring, by loan and also by deposit, concerning all of which we find that the Law made ample provision.  Consequently it is clear that the Old Law provided sufficiently concerning the mutual relations of one man with another.

Reply Obj. 1:  As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:8), “he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the Law”:  because, to wit, all the precepts of the Law, chiefly those concerning our neighbor, seem to aim at the end that men should love one another.  Now it is an effect of love that men give their own goods to others:  because, as stated in 1 John 3:17:  “He that . . . shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him:  how doth the charity of God abide in him?” Hence the purpose of the Law was to accustom men to give of their own to others readily:  thus the Apostle (1 Tim. 6:18) commands the rich “to give easily and to communicate to others.”  Now a man does not give easily to others if he will not suffer another man to take some little thing from him without any great injury to him.  And so the Law laid down that it should be lawful for a man, on entering his neighbor’s vineyard, to eat of the fruit there:  but not to carry any away, lest this should lead to the infliction of a grievous harm, and cause a disturbance of the peace:  for among well-behaved people, the taking of a little does not disturb the peace; in fact, it rather strengthens friendship and accustoms men to give things to one another.

Reply Obj. 2:  The Law did not prescribe that women should succeed to their father’s estate except in default of male issue:  failing which it was necessary that succession should be granted to the female line in order to comfort the father, who would have been sad to think that his estate would pass to strangers.  Nevertheless the Law observed due caution in the matter, by providing that those women who succeeded to their father’s estate, should marry within their own tribe, in order to avoid confusion of tribal possessions, as stated in Num. 36:7, 8.