Jews, too, weren't supposed to lend at interest
But there was a convenient get-out clause in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy, chapter 23
you aren't supposed to lend to your brother at interest
But to a stranger? Well, that was a different matter
In other words, a Jew couldn't lend to a Jew, but he could lend to a Christian
The price the Jews paid for performing this service was social exclusion
Hence the ghetto. And hence the centuries - long association between Jews and finance
one of the few forms of economic activity from which Jews were not once excluded
In the end, of course, Shylock is thwarted
For although the court recognises his right to a pound of flesh
the law also prohibits him from shedding Antonio's blood
And, because he's a Jew
the law also requires the loss of his goods and life for so much as plotting the death of a Christian
He only escapes by submitting to baptism
It turns out to be a risky business to be a moneylender
The Merchant of Venice raises profound questions about both economics and anti-Semitism
Why don't debtors always default on their debts?
Especially when the creditors belong to unpopular ethnic minorities
Why don't the Shylocks always lose out?