083. LIX. Law And Society In Early Israel

§ LIX. LAW AND SOCIETY IN EARLY ISRAEL Exodus 21:2-26; Exodus 22:1-15, Deuteronomy 22:13-26, Exodus 22:16-29 1. The rights of slaves (a) males.

I. If a man buy a Hebrew slave, the slave shall serve six years; but in the seventh he shall go free without having to pay any ransom.

II. If he come in single, he shall go free unmarried.

III. If he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.

IV. If his master give him a wife and she bear him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, but the man shall go out by himself.

V. If, however, the slave shall definitely say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go free, then his master shall bring him before God, and shall lead him to the door, or the door-post, and his master shall bore through his ear with an awl; and the man shall be his slave as long as he liveth.

(b) Females.

VI. If a man sell his daughter to be a slave, she shall not go free as do the male slaves.

VII. If she do not please her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then he may let her be redeemed; only he shall have no power to sell her to a foreign people, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

VIII. If he espouse her to his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter.

IX. If he marry another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish.

X. If he do not these three things to her, then she may go out without having to pay any money.

2. Assaults (a) capital offences.

I. If a man strike another so that he die, the manslayer shall be put to death.

II. If a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand, then I will appoint thee a place to which he may flee.

III. If a man attack another maliciously to slay him by treachery, thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may be put to death.

IV. He who striketh his father or his mother shall be put to death.

V. He who stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he still be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

(b) Minor offences.

VI. If men contend and one strike the other with a stone or a club, and he die not, but is confined to his bed, then if he rise again, and can walk out supported on his staff, the one who struck him shall be acquitted; only he must pay for the loss of the other man’s time until he is thoroughly healed.

VII. If a man strike his male or female slave with a stick so that he die at once, the master must be punished.

VIII. If, however, the slave survive a day or two, the master shall not be punished, for it is his own loss.

IX. If a man smite the eye of his male or female slave, so that it is destroyed, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.

X. If he knock out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

3. Domestic animals (a) injuries by them.

I. If an ox fatally gore a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted.

II. But if the ox was already in the habit of goring, and it hath been reported to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, with the result that it hath killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death.

III. If a ransom is fixed for him, he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever amount is determined.

IV. Whether the ox hath gored a boy or a girl, this law shall be executed.

V. If an ox gore a male or female slave, thirty shekels of silver shall be given to their master, and the ox shall be stoned.

(b) Injuries to them.

VI. If a man open a cistern or dig a cistern but doth not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall into it, the owner of the cistern shall make it good; he shall give money to its owner and the carcass shall be his.

VII. If one man’s ox hurt another’s, so that it dieth, then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money received from it; they shall also divide the carcass between them.

VIII. If it be known that the ox was already in the habit of goring and its owner hath not kept it in, he must pay ox for ox, and the carcass shall belong to him.

IX. If a man steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If he have nothing, then he shall be sold to pay for what he hath stolen.

X. If the theft be found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep, he must pay twice its value.

4. Responsibility for property (a) in general.

I. If a man burn over a field or vineyard and let the fire spread so that it devoureth a neighbor’s field, out of the best of his own field, and the best of his own vineyard shall he make restitution.

II. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the shocks of grain, or the standing grain, or the field are consumed, he that kindled the fire must make restitution.

III. If a man deliver to his neighbor money or personal property to keep, and if it be stolen out of the man’s house, if the thief be found, the man shall make double restitution.

IV. If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come before God to prove whether or not he hath taken his neighbor’s goods.

V. In every case of breach of trust, whether it concern an ox, or ass, or sheep, or clothing, or any kind of lost thing of which one saith, This is it, the case of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall make double restitution to his neighbor.

(b) In cattle.

VI. If a man deliver to his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die or be hurt or be driven away without any one’s having seen it, an oath sworn by Jehovah shall be between both of them to decide whether or not the one hath taken his neighbor’s property; the owner shall accept it, and the other need not make restitution.

VII. If it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner.

VIII. If the animal be torn in pieces, let him bring it as evidence; he need not make good that which was torn.

IX. If a man borrow an animal from his neighbor and it be hurt or die, while its owner is not with it, the man must make restitution.

X. If its owner be with it, the man need not make it good: being a hired animal, it came for its hire.

5. Social impurity (a) adultery.

I. If, after a man hath married a wife and entered into marital relations with her, he turn against her, and frame against her shameful charges, . . . then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring evidences of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate; . . . And the elders of that city shall take the man and punish him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the young woman’s father be cause the man hath given an evil name to a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not divorce her as long as he liveth.

II. But if it prove to be true that the evidences that the young woman was a virgin were not found, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she hath committed a shameful act in Israel, in that she hath been a harlot in her father’s house.

III. If a man be found lying with a married woman, they shall both of them die, the man who lay with the woman and the woman.

IV. If a man find in the city a young woman who is a virgin betrothed to a husband, and lie with her, then ye shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and stone them to death, the damsel because she did not cry out, although she was in the city, and the man because he hath seduced his neighbor’s wife.

V. If the man find a young woman, who is betrothed in the field, and force her and lie with her, then simply the man who lay with her shall die; but thou shalt do nothing to the young woman; she hath committed no sin worthy of death.

(b) Fornication and apostasy.

VI. If a man entice a young girl who is not betrothed, and lie with her, he must make her his wife by paying a dowry for her.

VII. If her father utterly refuse to give her to him, he shall pay money equivalent to the dowry of young girls.

VIII. A sorceress shall not be allowed to live.

IX. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

X. He who sacrificeth to other gods, except to Jehovah, shall be placed under the ban.

I. Form and Date of the Primitive Decalogues inExodus 21:1toExodus 23:19. In Exodus 21:1 to Exodus 23:1 a is found a group of decalogues which throws remarkably clear light upon social and economic conditions in early Israel. The setting and literary form of these decalogues indicate that they were incorporated in the historical record by the Northern Israelite prophetic historian who wrote about 750 B.C. Their carefully developed decalogue and pentad form suggests, however, that they had been handed down orally for generations before they were committed to writing and given their present setting. Most of the customs assumed in these laws, and many of the principles which underlie them, are found in the old Babylonian code of Hammurabi (about 1900 B.C.). Many of the laws in the primitive decalogues of Exodus reflect the early nomadic and agricultural life of the Hebrews. Some, as for example, those which refer to fields and houses, indicate that, when the laws were formulated, the Israelites were firmly established in Canaan. There are no references, however, to the temple of Solomon, or to the institutions which characterize the united kingdom. It is highly probable that most, if not all, of these early Hebrew laws were in existence in their present or slightly different form in the days of David and Solomon. They may, therefore, be studied as a faithful contemporary record of the social, moral and religious standards and customs of the Hebrews in the days of the united kingdom.

II. The Rights and Position of Slaves in Early Israel. The old Semitic institution of slavery existed in Israel from the earliest times. The man who was unable to pay his debts, or support himself or his family, was forced either to become a slave to his creditor, or else to give his own son or daughter to meet the obligation. The aim of the early Hebrew lawgiver was primarily to protect the rights of slaves, to guard against possible abuses and to provide for the ultimate liberation of the native-born Hebrews.

There is no evidence that other Semitic peoples made any similar provision for the manumission of slaves. The Hebrew law, therefore, marks a great advance over existing oriental usage. It recognizes the fact that slavery was usually incurred through debt, and that, when the debt was discharged, the slave was entitled to his freedom. The narrative in Jeremiah 34 indicates that, in the later days at least, this law was enforced only under the pressure of a great national danger, and that when the danger was passed the masters shamelessly compelled their slaves to resume the old relation. Even though the law of release at the end of six years was not accepted by the people as a whole, it is significant that it finds a place in these early decalogues. The fact that definite provision is made for cases in which the slaves voluntarily assumed permanent slavery suggests that the institution was very different from what it became in the later days of Rome or in more recent times. For those who were poverty-stricken, or lacking in physical or mental vigor, slavery offered a welcome refuge. It gave them the assurance of a permanent home, food and protection. Their treatment in most cases appears to have been considerate. It is easy, therefore, to understand why many Hebrew slaves preferred to remain in the homes of their masters, especially when freedom meant parting with their wives and children. The rite of piercing the ear was probably performed at the door post, originally in the presence of the household god, or else at the local sanctuary. The laws regarding a female slave were necessarily different, for she appears in almost every case to have intermarried into the family of her master. After she had become a member of the household, she could be divorced at the pleasure of the master, but not sold, as other slaves, to foreigners. Her rights as wife or daughter were also carefully guarded by the Hebrew law.

III. Punishment of Crimes. The laws regarding assaults further reveal the noble purpose of the early Hebrew lawgivers to correct the abuses inherent in existing customs and to protect the innocent as well as to punish the guilty. In contrast to the earlier Semitic laws, as for example, those of Hammurabi, they reveal a remarkably high regard for the sanctity of human life. The ancient law of blood revenge was still in force. To save the innocent manslayer Hebrew law and custom provided that, if he succeeded in escaping and found refuge at an altar, he should be under Jehovah’s protection. There the hand of the avenger could not touch him; but, if the man were guilty of murder, the community was under obligation to drag him from the altar and put him to death. The strong emphasis which the Hebrews placed upon the duty of children to parents is illustrated by the fact that they inflicted the death penalty upon the son who struck either his father or his mother. The law of Hammurabi is rigorous but not quite so severe; “If a man has Struck his father, his hand shall be cut off” (§ 195). In punishing by death the heinous crime of kidnapping, the Hebrew lawgivers simply reiterated the ancient law of Hammurabi, “If a man has stolen a child, he shall be put to death” (§ 14).

Hammurabi’s enactment in the case of personal injury incurred in a quarrel anticipates, in principle at least, the corresponding Hebrew law. It directs that, “If a man has struck another in a quarrel and cause him a permanent injury, that man shall swear, ‘I struck him without malice,’ and shall pay the physician” (§ 206). In providing that the master should be punished for killing his slave, the Hebrew law is far in advance of the standards maintained by other Semitic peoples, and even more modern codes. The nature of the penalty, however, is left to the decision of the judges. In case the blow was not immediately fatal, the early Hebrew lawgivers accepted the prevailing standards and freed the master, in view of the loss of his slave, from all personal responsibility. Their eagerness to correct possible wrongs is again shown by the regulation that for minor injuries, such as the loss of an eye or a tooth at the hand of the master, the slave should in every case have his freedom.

IV. Laws Regarding Domestic Animals. The regulations regarding injuries to and by animals also illustrate the aim of the Hebrew lawgivers to guard against the loss of human life, and to place the responsibility for the injury where it belonged. A corresponding law of Hammurabi enacts, “If a man’s ox be a gorer and has revealed its evil propensity as a gorer, and the man has not blunted its horns or shut up the ox, and then that ox has gored a free man and caused his death, the owner shall pay half a mina of silver. If it has been a slave that has been killed, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver” (§§ 251, 252). The comparatively small fine thus imposed for criminal carelessness is in striking contrast to the corresponding Hebrew law which makes the punishment death. Possibly under the influence of the older custom, the Hebrew code also allows for the substitution of a ransom in case the judges shall so decide. The moderation of the Hebrew laws in punishing theft is in favorable contrast to the rigorous regulations of even such a benign ruler as Hammurabi, who decreed that, “If a patrician has stolen ox, sheep, ass, pig or ship, whether from a temple or a house, he shall pay thirty-fold. If he be a plebeian he shall return tenfold. If the thief cannot pay, he shall be put to death” (§ 8). While the Hebrew law is very similar in form to the older enactment, the later lawgivers have in each case reduced the penalty. Apparently they also aimed to punish the thief in proportion to the value of the stolen animal. In case the thief had nothing, slavery was substituted for the death penalty. If the animal stolen was alive and could be returned, the penalty was still further reduced.

V. Responsibility for Property. The Hebrew laws were clearly intended to place the responsibility for injury or loss of property where it rightly belonged. In case of doubt as to the guilt of the parties involved, the matter was referred to the priest, who probably decided it on the basis of a personal investigation, or else by the use of the sacred lot. If property held in trust was lost through death or injury or theft, and no witnesses could be produced, the owner was obliged to accept the solemn oath of the trustee. Otherwise the trustee was responsible for the loss. The code of Hammurabi is much more explicit. It enacts: “If a man has hired an ox or an ass, and a lion has killed it in an open field, the loss falls on its owner. If a man has hired an ox and has caused its death by carelessness or blows, he shall restore ox for ox to the owner. If a man has hired an ox and God has struck it and it has died, the man who hired the ox shall make affidavit and go free” (§§ 244, 245, 249).

VI. Personal Responsibility to Society. The Hebrew lawgivers regarded social immorality and all forms of apostasy as crimes against society and therefore against the state. The zeal with which they guarded the sacred rights of the community is shown by the fact that the penalty imposed for these crimes was in almost every case death. This punishment was inflicted by the injured community itself. The code of Hammurabi was equally strenuous: adultery was punished by strangling or burning. In contrast with the laxness of public opinion and of modern laws in dealing with this most hideous of crimes, the strenuousness of the ancient lawgivers is profoundly significant. They endeavored at any cost to preserve the purity of the family and community, and to save the innocent and tempted from lives of unspeakable pain and ignominy. In general these Hebrew laws reflect a very simple social and economic organization. They anticipate only the more common and typical cases, and establish precedents for the guidance of the judges in deciding the more difficult and complicated questions which might be referred to them. The influences of existing Semitic customs and institutions are always apparent; but the dominant motives are those of justice, mercy, and humanity. In their present form many of these laws have long since become obsolete; but the divine principles which they illustrate, are eternal, and therefore equally applicable to the changing conditions of every age.