In the discussed Mesopotamian codes, namely Code of Ur-Nammu, Code of Lipit-Ishtar, The Laws of Eshnunna, and Code of Hammurabi none of the above mentioned legislators in their legal texts refer to a poor man. With the exception of some phrases, e.g. man in straitened circumstances (If a man becomes impoverished.) the word poor man itself remains unspoken. Furthermore, we should be aware of the fact that this is not an issue of poor Sumerian or Akkadian vocabulary. Moreover, we can see that Ur-Nammu epilogue and Hammurabi prologue both refer to poor man describing ruler´s characteristics and his stereotypic role as a protector and guardian of the weak, i.e. widows, orphans and poor men. These denominations have rather been pointers of practical value in duty of the leader´s publicity and legitimation of personal authority in accordance with applicable standards of that time. Knowing this, it is not a surprise to us that legal texts from prologue to epilogue are completely different. Thus, one shekel man, mentioned in the epilogue, is not mentioned in provisions themselves. Focusing on pure articles, if the code was dispossessed of its historic-religious prologue and epilogue, we would not reveal anything about the poor man. Some articles, using the above mentioned word combination, address this topic in the way that they mention people »only« in poor financial situation and not poor men. Considering the reconstruction of society itself under provisions, makes it impossible to speak about poor people: not literally, that is on the level of legal texts, which would in accordance with the prologue protect poor men (or at least mention them), nor on a »figurative« level where the concern mentioned in the prologue could be theologically build up and explained.
Pentateuch reveals a completely different issue. Reading Torah, a stratified society can be reconstructed with poor men being its legitimate part. Here the Legislator talks about them. Several authors of Hebrew Bible apply a number of different terms to describe this situation in their provisions trying to protect the above mentioned people (e.g. prohibition of charging interests, lower price of the offerings etc). However, if it holds true that Mesopotamian codes legalize the society where the rights of the rich are protected, then Pentateuch at least theoretically and considering poor man turns this regime upside down. In that case, protector´s primary role of the poor is not in the domain of the ruler (although he performs it) but in the domain of God himself. Thus the law does not protect interests of the rich, but takes the side of the suppressed. When the issue of poor man is concerned (e.g. interest-free loans, prohibition to lease coat or millstone etc.), rich men are those suffering the loss. Therefore, in this case the key role is not played by human but by God. It is all about the idea that the notions of who God is are being embodied in (legal) texts. Besides, in the five books of Moses, the problem of poverty is not only about solving consequences of unequal social relations, i.e. solving legal delicts (debts, claims etc.). Instead, realizing the fact, that there will always be some who are poor and needy (5 Mz 15,11) God is trying to sooth the situation in a way that before God a rich man with all his wealth can not do anything more and a poor man in his misery anything less (e.g. 3 Mz 5,7–13).