In the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Ezekiel classifies the charging of interest among the worst sins, denouncing it as an abomination and metaphorically portraying usurers as people who have shed the borrower's blood.
Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel, however, declared that the acceptance of interest from non-Jews does not apply to Christians or Muslims, as their faith systems are also Abrahamic and therefore share a common ethical basis.
In Leviticus, loans themselves are encouraged, whether of money or food, emphasizing that they enable the poor to regain their independence.
Most early religious systems in the ancient Near East, and the secular codes arising from them, did not forbid usury.
Hence, if one lent "food money," or monetary tokens of any kind, it was legitimate to charge interest.
[6] The Mishnah states that it is not permissible to withhold the whole of something such as a field, for which part of the selling price has already been paid, because any income arising from possession of the entity would effectively be interest on the outstanding amount.
[6] The Mishnaic justification given for the latter view is that the biblical text invokes divine vengeance against usurers, and civil action cannot be launched against someone under the penalty of death;[15] effectively this meant that rabbinical courts made judgements in cases of usury, but refused to enforce them by anything other than physical attacks against the lender's body.
[6] However, the Mishnah argues that it would not be counted as usury if the supplier employed the shopkeeper to sell the product, even if the wage was merely nominal, such as a single dry fig;[17] this mechanism to permit profit being gained by a lender, in a business transaction between lender and debtor, was formalised as the Heter Iska, literally meaning exemption contract, which worked in exactly the same way as the earlier Sumerian business partnership contract between lender and debtor.
[20] When a non-Jew was involved, Maimonides argues that interest should be charged; indeed, Maimonides argues that it was compulsory to charge interest on loans to non-Jews, but he also suggests that such loans should be restricted to being within narrow limits, to avoid the lender becoming so keen on usury that they practice it against other Jews.
Similarly, it allows the borrowing of money on terms involving interest repayments when a life is in danger.