Reply Obj. 3:  As the Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 4), the regulation of possessions conduces much to the preservation of a state or nation.  Consequently, as he himself observes, it was forbidden by the law in some of the heathen states, “that anyone should sell his possessions, except to avoid a manifest loss.”  For if possessions were to be sold indiscriminately, they might happen to come into the hands of a few:  so that it might become necessary for a state or country to become void of inhabitants.  Hence the Old Law, in order to remove this danger, ordered things in such a way that while provision was made for men’s needs, by allowing the sale of possessions to avail for a certain period, at the same time the said danger was removed, by prescribing the return of those possessions after that period had elapsed.  The reason for this law was to prevent confusion of possessions, and to ensure the continuance of a definite distinction among the tribes.

But as the town houses were not allotted to distinct estates, therefore the Law allowed them to be sold in perpetuity, like movable goods.  Because the number of houses in a town was not fixed, whereas there was a fixed limit to the amount of estates, which could not be exceeded, while the number of houses in a town could be increased.  On the other hand, houses situated not in a town, but “in a village that hath no walls,” could not be sold in perpetuity:  because such houses are built merely with a view to the cultivation and care of possessions; wherefore the Law rightly made the same prescription in regard to both (Lev. 25).

Reply Obj. 4:  As stated above (ad 1), the purpose of the Law was to accustom men to its precepts, so as to be ready to come to one another’s assistance:  because this is a very great incentive to friendship.  The Law granted these facilities for helping others in the matter not only of gratuitous and absolute donations, but also of mutual transfers:  because the latter kind of succor is more frequent and benefits the greater number:  and it granted facilities for this purpose in many ways.  First of all by prescribing that men should be ready to lend, and that they should not be less inclined to do so as the year of remission drew nigh, as stated in Deut. 15:7, seqq.  Secondly, by forbidding them to burden a man to whom they might grant a loan, either by exacting usury, or by accepting necessities of life in security; and by prescribing that when this had been done they should be restored at once.  For it is written (Deut. 23:19):  “Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury”:  and (Deut. 24:6):  “Thou shalt not take the nether nor the upper millstone to pledge; for he hath pledged his life to thee”:  and (Ex. 22:26):  “If thou take of thy neighbor a garment in pledge, thou shalt give it him again before sunset.”  Thirdly, by forbidding them to be importunate in exacting payment.  Hence it is written (Ex. 22:25):  “If thou lend money to any of my people that