Exodus 21
PATIengc any right or propriety in it, to sow his field, or reap that whichgrew of itself, &c. itwas sacrilege for any master to keep a servant from his freedom, when the year came which was the Lord’s release, as wo read expressly Lev. xxv. and Deut. xv. Whence it was, that, because the Jews were so profane as to break this law, and not give their servants liberty (as Ave read in. the thirty-fourth of Jeremiah), God punished them with a captivity of seventy years, in which the land lay waste, till it had fulfilled the years of rest which they would not observe; as Mr. Mede hath truly noted, Discourse xxvi. latter end, * expected from him, if he did not think* fit to marry her himself, he shall deal with Iter after the manner of daughters. If the word he relate to the father, the meaning is, he shall give her a portion, as if she were his own daughter. If it relate to the son, the meaning is, he shall treat her like a wife. the act of sacrifice, Re was to be taken away without delay if he had committed wilful murder; if it was involuntarily, then ho was to be taken from thence and carried to the city of refuge; for God would not have a pious place (as Conradus Pcllicanus glosses) be a protection to impiety. (See Mr. Seldcn, lib. iii. de Synedr. cap. 8. p. 100.) Maimonides’s observation is pertinent enough upon this occasion; " That the mercy which is shewn to wicked men is no better than tyranny and cruelty to tba rest of God’s creatures: and therefore, though such persons sought to God for his patronage, by betaking themselves to that which was dedicated to his name, he would not afford them any protection; but commanded them to bo delivered up to justice/’ (More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 39.) tise; some men being able to earn more by their labours than others; and the disability the stroke brought upon them being, more or less, of a larger and shorter continuance; with respect to all which a proportionable compensation was made to them. And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.] Here they also distinguished between the cure of the wound, bruise, or swelling, caused by the stroke, and of any other breaking out that he chanced to have at the same time. He was bound to pay for the cure of the former, but not of the latter. And if after a man was cured he fell ill again, he that struck him was not bound to take care of his cure. The same provision is made in the civil law, as I/Empereur notes, which perfectly agrees with this constitution of Moses: " Judex computat mercedes medicis proestitas, ceeteraqueimpendia, quae in curatione facta sunt: praeterea operas quibus caruit, aut cariturus est ob id, quod inutilis factus est." According to Plato’s laws, he that wounded another in his anger, if the wound was curable, was to payrov /3Xaj3ovc ttjv §nr\a<jiav, double to the damage the woundedman sustained thereby. If it was incurable, he was to pay fourfold; and so he was to do likewise if it were curable, but left a remarkable scar. If tho wound was given involuntarily, he was to pay only simple damages: Tux^c/ap vo/iofltrrj? ovSe!? havoc apxztv: for no lawgiver is able to govern chance, (lib. ix. de Leg. p. 878, 879.) [chap. xxf. should not have the benefit of this law. For they thus distinguish servants of another nation. Some were circumcised and baptized; others still remained gentiles, or were only proselytes of the gate. The former kind might be set free three ways; by being redeemed by a price paid by themselves, or any friend; by manumission; and by virtue of this law, upon the loss of any member. For though only an eye and a tooth be here mentioned, yet herein are included all the rest of the principal members of the body, which, being mutilated, cannot be repaired; which they reckon to be four-and-twenty in all. If they did not dismiss such a servant thus maimed, the court of judgment, npon an appeal to it, compelled them to give him his liberty with a certificate of it. But the second sort of gentilo servants could be mado free only by the two first ways, having no benefit (according to this doctrine) by this third way here mentioned. (See Selden, lib. vi. de Jure N. et G. cap. 8.) But heathens themselves were more merciful than these doctors; for the civil laws (as I/Empereur observes upon Bava kama, cap. 8. sect. 3.) made better provision for slaves when they were hardly used. - say it was given to the heirs of her father’s family, and not to her husband.
Exodus 21:1
J\0W these are the judgments thou shatt set before them. By judgments are meant such political laws which God thought fit to give for the determination of differences among the people; and that they might be justly and peaceably governed. Which, though they were not spoken with such pomp and majesty as the ten commandments were (and much less were the ceremonial precepts delivered with such solemnity), yet the Israelites believed that they came from the same authority, though spoken to Moses in the mount privately, and not in the audience of all the people; as appears by their submission to these, no less than to the other laws. And there. was great reason for it; Jt being their own desire not to hear God’s vpice any more; but to be instructed by Moses what God required, and they promised to obey it, (xx. 19.)
Exodus 21:2
Jf thou buy a Hebrew servant, &c. Or a..slave. Some persons sold themselves by reason of poverty: of which sort the Hebrews understand thatlaw,(Lev.xxv.39.) Others were sold by the court of judgment; which was in case of a theft they had committed; for which, not being able to make satisfaction unto him that had received the damage, they were condemned to be his servants. Of these they interpret this place, and Dcutxv. 12. But this sale, they say, did not extend to both sexes; for a woman was not to be sold for theft. In the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing.] If the damage was so great, that his six years’ service had not satisfied for it, yet he was not to be kept longer. And his servitude also might end sooner, by manumission, or redemption, or the death of his master, if he were a gentile or a proselyte. Nay, if he were a Hebrew, his death put an end to it, in case he left no son. And his master also was bound to maintain his wife and children (if he had any), all this time giving them food, raiment, and a dwelling, though they were not to be his servants. (See Mr. Selden lib. vi. de Jure N. et G. cap. 7.) It is remarkable, that he sets this law in the first place, because mercy, next to piety, is the most excellent virtue: and God would have his people, saith R, Levi Barzelonita, adorned with and full of the noblest qualities, which arc benignity and mercy. This year of release also being a sacred year; the whole land being holy to the Lord, so that no man might chal-
Exodus 21:3
Jf he come in by himself, &c. That is, a single man without a wife; so he was to depart. But if he was a married man when ho was sold; as the master was not to let his wife and children want food, and raiment, and habitation, while he continued his slave; so, when he was free, he was not to meddle with them, or detain them from their father and husband, (Lev. xxv. 41.)
Exodus 21:4
Jf his master have given him a wife. Unto such a servant as this, who was sold by the court of judgment, his master might give a gentile maid to wife (and no other Hebrew, but such as he, might marry a gentile), that he might beget children of her, who were to be the master’s servants or. slaves for ever. The Hebrew doctors say, the master could not do this, unless such a servant had a lawful wife and children before of his own, who were not to be kept from him; but he might beget children for himself, as well as for his master; who could not impose upon him more than one maid-servant to be his wife. He that sold himself also was not subject to this law. But as his master could not impose a wife of this sort upon him; so neither was ho bound, when the servant went free, to bestow any gift upon him: which was due only to him that was sold by the court for theft, (Dcut. xv. 12.) to whom the ancient Jews say he was to give thirty shekels. And she have born him sons or daughters.] During his service. The wife and children shall be his master’s, &c] For the wife was a slave as well as himself when he married her. And she was given to wife, merely that he might beget slaves of her. Who therefore continued with the master, as well as their mother, when the man had his liberty: for they were not so much his, as his master’s goods; who had such a power over them, that he might circumeise them, as he did his own children, without their consent. (See Selden, lib. vi. dc Jure N. et G. cap. 7. and de Uxorc Hebr. lib.i. cap. 6. p. 39.)
Exodus 21:5
And if the servant shall plainly say. In the Hebrew the words are saying, shall say; i.e. stand in it (as we speak) and steadfastly resolve, by saying it not in a fit, but constantly. I love my master, my wife, and my children, &c] If his love to such a wife and children, who were not properly his own, was greater than his love to liberty; which made him still desire their company, and choose to stay with his master who had been so good to him. Ver. G. His master shall bring him to the judges.] That it might appear he was not fraudulently or forcibly detained against the law, but with his own consent, or rather at his desire. Jle shall also bring him to the door 9 or the door-post.] After the caso had been heard, and the judges had given sentence. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl] In token that he was now affixed to his house, and might not so much as step over the threshold without his leave, but be obedient to his will for ever. This is to be understood only of one that was sold by the court; not of him that sold himself. And though the Hebrews take this to have been a mark of infamy, set upon a man who chose servitude before liberty; yet it being chosen out of love to his master, I cannot think that they intended by this act to disgrace him: but look upon it only as a solemn addiction of him to his master’s service; which w T as done, it is likely, in the presence of the judges. This custom of boring the cars of slaves lasted a long time after this in Syria and Arabia, as Bochartus shews out of Juvenal, sat. i. and Petronius, (lib. iii. Hierozoic. cap. 6. p. 1.) He shall serve him for ever.] Till the year of jubilee, or till his master died (for his son was not to detain him when his father was dead), unless he would release him, or he was redeemed.
Exodus 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant. Besides the two former sorts of persons sold to be his servants, there was a third here mentioned, which is thus expounded by the Hebrews: that she was to be a virgin under age; that is, less than twelve years old and a day. For if she was more than that, it was not lawful for him to sell her: and when she came to be of age it put an end to her servitude, as well as the year of jubilee did, or redemption, or the death of her master. Besides, her father might not sell her, unless he were reduced to extreme poverty. If he did, without such necessity, he was forced by the court of judgment to redeem her. And she was not to be sold neither, unless there was some hope her master or his son might take her to wife. She shall not go out as the men-servants do.] There were other and better conditions for her, than for the servant mentioned ver. 3, “4. particularly, her master could not marry her to any body but to himself or his son.
Exodus 21:8
Jf she phase not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself. This shews she was sold to him upon the presumption he would take her for his wife; and there was, such a previous agreement about this, that there needed no other espousals: but if, after this, he changed his mind, and did not like her enough to make her his wife; then God ordains as follows: Then shall he let her be redeemed.] She was to serve her master six years, if she was sold for so long; unless she was redeemed (which her master is here required not to re^ fuse) or manumitted; or set free by the year of jubilee; or by the death of her master; or (which w r as peculiar in this case) the signs of her being ripe for marriage appeared: (sec Selden in the place beforcracntioned.) To sell her to a strange nation he shall have no ])ower.] No man had power to sell a Hebrew servant to one of another nation: and therefore, by a strange people (as tho word is here in the Hebrew) must be meant an Israelite of another family, that was not of her kindred, nor had any right of redemption. Seeing he hath dealt deceitfully ivith her.] Frustrated her hope of marrying her.
Exodus 21:9
Jf he hath betrothed her to his son. Which was
Exodus 21:10
If he take him another wife, her food, &e. If after the son had married her, he took another wife besides, he was still to perform to this all those things that belong to a wife, viz. give her food, and raiment, and at certain times (which were determined by law in some countries) cohabit with her as her husband. From this place the Hebrews have made a general rule, that these three tilings are owing to all wives from their husbands, viz, alimony, clothes, and the conjugal duty. For howsoever the Vulgar Latin understands the last word, the Hebrews generally take it for that which St. Paul calls due benevolence, 1 Cor.” vii. 3. (See Selden, do Uxor. Hebr.’lib/iii. cap. 4.). Now what was accounted alimony, and sufficient for clothes, he shews cap. v. and what belongs to the other, cap. vi. The Hebrew word gonata, which we translate duty of marriage, properly relates to the stated and determined time wherein every thing is to be done; and therefore here signifies the use of marriage," certo tempore et mbdo, as Bochart hath well expounded it, (lib. ii. Canaan, cap. 11.) Many indeed will have it derived from py, from which comes pyo, a habitation; as if it signified here the cohabitation of a man with his wife. But Aben Ezra rather refers it to roy, from whence comes ny, time: whence gonat signifies the set and appointed time wherein every thing is done. And so the Chaldee uses the word goneta, for the term prescribed to every thing (as the same “author observes), that it may be done in due time and manner. Theodoric Hackspan thinks Moses here speaks of the father; to whom all the precedent and subsequent acts belong, and not to the son.
Exodus 21:11
And if he do not these three to her. i.e. ^either marry her to himself, nor to his son, nor suffer her to be redeemed. Then she shall go out free without money.’] When she came of age, and was ripe for marriage, she was to be set free, and pay nothing for her freedom: nay, on the contrary, he was to give her something, as appears from Deut. xv. 12, VI. 17. What the signs of puberty were, Mr. Selden shews, Lib. de Successionibus, cap. ix.
Exodus 21:12
He that smiteth a man, so that he die. That is, commit wilful murder, as we now speak. Shall surely be put to death.] Wheresoever we find this word maveth (death) absolutely, without any addition, it always signifies strangling. They are the words of R. Levi Barzelonita. But the Jewish doctors will not have this law extend unto proselytes of the gate, much less to gentiles, whom, if any Israelite killed, he was not to suffer death for it. (See Mr. Selden, lib. iv.-de Jure N. et G. cap. 1.) But Plato, in his Book of Laws, (lib. ix. p. 872.) hath determined more justly than these rabbies, that in the case of murder the same laws should be for strangers and for citizens.
Exodus 21:13
And if a man lie not in wait. Do not design to kill another.. But God deliver him into his hand.] But he happens, as we speak, to kill a man by that action which aimed at another end., This the Scripture expresses’more religiously, by acknowledging God in every thing that falls out, who permits such things as are mentioned, Deut, xix. 5. whereby a 1 man is killed, without the intention of him who was about such actions. * Tlien I will appoint him a place, whither he shall flee.] He may flee to one of the places which I will appoint for his security. Which place, the Jews say, was the camp of the Levites, while they continued in the wilderness: but when they came to Canaan, there were cities appointed for this purpose, as we read Numb. xxxv. 11, 12. Deut. xix. 2, 3, Sec’ And there being several kinds of involuntary x killing men, the Hebrews make these
Exodus 21:14
But if a man come presumptuously. The Vulgar’ Latin rightly translates it industriously, or with design to kill him; for it is opposed to ignorance. The Hebrew word also carries in it a signification of boiling anger; which doth not alter the case: for if a man in the height of his rage resolved to kill another, and laid wait for him to execute his design, it was justly judged to be wilful murder, and punished with death. Which was far more equal than Plato’s law, that such a man should only be banished for three years; as he that on a sudden killed a manin his anger only, for two, (lib. ix. de Legibus/p. 8G7.) Upon his neighbour.] The Hebrew doctors by neighbour understand only an Israelite, or a proselyte of justice: as for others, they were not put to death if an Israelite killed one of them. Which was not the intent of this law; whereby God wouldhave all men that lived among them safe and secure from being murdered. To slay him with guile.] By which it appeared the act was designed and deliberate. For two things are denoted by this word tvith guile; first forethought, and then delay, as Isaac Karo observes: (see L’Empereur in Bava kama, cap. iii. sect. 6.) Thou shalt take him.] If it be inquired who should take him, it seems to be determined, Deut. xix. 12. where the elders of the city were to fetch away a wilful murderer from’ the city of refuge. In aftertimes the king ordered it, as Moses did while he lived, (1 Kings i.ult.ii. 29.) By which, places it appears, that if a man refused to come from the altar (being judged upon proof to be a wilful murderer or other high offender), he might be there killed, as Gcorg. Ilitterhusius shews, (L. de Jure Asylorum, capi viii.) where he observes, out of Plutarch in his Laeonia, that Agesilaus declared publicly at the altar of Pallas, where he sacrificed an ox, that he thought it lawful to kill one that treacherously assaulted him, even at the altar/ And thus the practice was among Christians (as he there shews) when their temples became sanctuaries to malefactors. From my altar.] This was an asylum, as well as the cities of refuge; but under many limitations, both with respect to the part of the altar, and to the persons that fled thither, and to the crime they had committed; as Mr. Selden shews in the place aboverflentioned, (p. 475.) That he may die.] Though he was the high-priest, and in
Exodus 21:15
And he that sfniteth his father or mother. So as to wound them, and to make the blood come; or to leave a mark of the stroke, by making the flesh black and blue, as we speak, (Sclden, lib. ii. de Syriedr. cap. 13. p. 556.) Shall be surely put to death.’] Strangled (say the Hebrews, see ver. 12.) by the sentence of the judge, there being competent witnesses of the fact, as in other cases. The giving them saucy words, or making mouths at them, which signified contempt, was punished also with whipping. There was no need to say any thing of killing them: for all wilful murder was punished with death. And Solon, it is commonly noted, made no law about this; because it was not to be supposed any man would be so wicked. Nor was this crime known among the Persians, as Herodotus saith, in his days. * Nor do we find any mention of it in the law of the twelve tables. But in aftertimes there were most severe punishments enacted against parricide, which are described at large by Modestinus. And Diodorus Siculus tells us of the like among the Egyptians. (See Hen. Stephanus in his Fontes et Rivi Juris Civilis, p. 18.) Plato would have him that killed either father or mother, brethren or children, not only to be put to death, but to be disgraced’ after his execution, by throwing his dead body naked into a common place without the city, where all the magistrates, in the name of the people, should every one of them throw a stone at his head, and then carrying him out of the coasts leave him without burial, (lib. ix. de Legibus, p. 873.)
Exodus 21:16
He that stealeth a man. By a man the Hebrews understand an Israelite; whether he was a freeman, or but a servant; as Mr. Selden observes, (lib. vi. de Jure N. ct G. cap. 2.) And selleth him.] No Israelite would buy him, and therefore such plagiaries sold him to men of other nations, which made the crime to be punished with death; because it was a cruel thing, not only to take away his liberty, but make him a slave to strangers. Or if he be found in his hand.] Though ho had not actually sold him; yet his intention was sufficiently known by his stealing him. Shall be surely put to death.] I observed abovo, ver. 12. they interpret this phrase every where to signify strangling. If it be said any where his blood shall be upon him, it signifies stoning. Maimonides makes this the reason why such a man was condemned to die, because it might well be thought he intended to kill him, whom he violently carried away (at least, as I understand it, if ho could not find means to sell him), More Nevoch, par. iii, cap. 41.
Exodus 21:17
And he that curteth his father, or his mother, &c. The Hebrews take this law to concern those who cursed their dead parents, no less than those who cursed them when they were alive: but not without premonition and witnesses, as in other capital crimes: and not unless they cursed their parents by some proper name of God, as Mr. Selden observes out of the Jewish doctors, (lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 13.) This and the other law (ver. 15.) enacted death as the punishment of such crimes, because they were a sign (saith Maimonides, More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. j 41.) of a desperate malice and audacious wickedness;; being a subversion of that domestic order which is the prime part of good government. (See Lev. xx. 9.) And thus far the Athenians went in this matter, that by their law a son was disinherited who reproached his father. And if the father did not prosecute such a son, he himself became infamous. So Sopatcr ad Hermogenem; Tbv v/3pfcavra rbv avrov iraripa firj fitri)(tiv rrjg ovatag,Ka\ rbv vfipiaOlvra iraripa \xi\ lirt%i6vra t$ iratSi arifiov tlvat. By the same law, also, if he struck his father both his hands were to be cutofF; as we read in Heraclides Ponticus, in Allegor. Homer, and in Quinctilian, Declam. 372. “Qui patrem pulsaverit, manus ei incidantur.” And by another law he was to be stoned to death, as the author of Problemata Rhetor, tells US: Nojuoc EfclAevae rbv rvipavra avrov rbv iraripa A/0oj3o- Afj<r<u, and that without any formal process against him, wo rov Stjfiov aKpirwg.
Exodus 21:18
And if men strive together. Fall out and quarrel. And one smite another.’] So that from words they proceed to blows. Wit k a stone, &c.j Men usually in their anger take up any thing that is next at hand to throw at him against whom they are’ enraged; or, finding nothing, smite them with their fists. And he die not, but keepeth his bed.] Sometimes the blow falls in such a place that sudden death follows: or such a wound or bruise is given as confines a man to his bed.
Exodus 21:19
If he rise again, and walk abroad, &c. If a man recovered so far as to get up and walk abroad, after the stroke, it was presumed (though he died not long after) it was by his negligence, or something else, not of the blow he received. And upon the hearing of the cause, the judges were to acquit the man that gave the blow; i. e. he was not to die for it. Only.] The Hebrew particle rak signifies but, or truly, as well as only: and here expresses, that the man who gave the blow should not escape all punishment, but suffer something for the hurt he had done. Yet if we take it to signify only, the sense is not much altered; for the meaning is (as Constant L’Empereur observes in Bava kama, cap. viii. sect. 1.) by this word to exclude death, but not other punishment in his purse. He shall pay for the loss of his time, &c] The Jews say, in Bava kama, cap. viii. sect. 1. that satisfaction was to bo given him for the loss he had sustained in five tilings: for the hurt in his body; the loss of his time; the pain he had endured; the charge of physician and surgeon; and the disgrace: all which they there endeavour to prove out of the Scripture. Two of them are plainly here; Tho first of which the doctors upon the Misna consider with great nicety, as L’Empereur observes upon the forenamed trea-
Exodus 21:20
If a man smite his servant, &c. . A slave; who was not an Israelite, but a gentile. He shall surely be punished.] With death, say the Hebrew doctors, (in Selden, lib. iv. de Jure N. et G. cap. 1. p.4G3.) if the servant died while he was beating him: for that is meant by dying under his hand. But it seems more likely to me that he was to be punished for his cruelty, as the judge who examined this fact thought meet. For his smiting with a rod, not with a sword, was a sign he intended only to correct him, not to kill him. And besides, no man could be thought to be willing to lose his own goods, as such servants were. Ver. 2J. NotwitJistanding, if he continue a day or two.] A day and a night, as the Hebrew doctors interpret it. lie shall not be punished.] Because it might be presumed he did not die of those strokes. He is his money.] His death was a loss to his master: who therefore might well be judged not to have any intention to kill him; and was sufficiently punished by losing.the benefit of his service.
Exodus 21:22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child. Who interposed between the contending parties; or came perhaps to help her husband. So that her fruit depart from her.] She miscarry. And yet no mischief follow.] She do not die, as the Hebrew doctors expound it. (See Selden, lib. iv. de Jure N. ct G. cap. 1. p. 461.) He shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him.] Her husband may require a compensation, both for the loss of his child, and the hurt or grief of his wife. Yet he was not to be judge in his own ease; but it was to be brought before the public judges, as it here follows. And he shall pay as the judges determine.] Who considered in their decree what damage wa$ done; which was j vol. u estimated by the hurt his wife received in her body; and by the lessening of her price, if she were a slave and might be sold. Unto which several other mulcts were added, to be given to the woman herself, as Mr. Selden observes in the place abovenamed.
Exodus 21:23
And if any mischief follow. If the woman did die. " TJiou shalt give life for life.] In the interpretation of this, saith Jarchi, our masters differ. For some by life understand that which is properly so called, or the person himself: so that it should signify, being put to death: but others understand by it, a pecuniary mulct; that so much money should be paid to the heirs, as the person killed might have been sold for. The LXX. carry it to quite another sense; which is, that if a woman miscarry, and the child was jut* t^eiKovi(jfiivov, not yet formed and fashioned, that the man who occasioned the miscarriage was to pay a fine. But if it were formed, then life was to be given for life. So that this whole law is to be understood of an abortion; and according to the condition of the abortive (not the life or death of the mother), so the punishment was to be inflicted. And thus Philo takes it, and hath alarge discourse upon it. (See Selden, lib. iv. de Jure N. et G. cap. 1. p. 464. and Constantino I/Empereur in Bavakama, p. 200, ate.)
Exodus 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, &q. These and all the rest that follow to the end of the twenty-fifth verse, the Hebrews understand to signify pecuniary mulcts; as may be seen in their Comments upon this place. And Mairaonides gives three reasons for it, which I/Empereur takes notice of, and endeavours to confute in his Annotations upon Bava kama, p. 167, &c. 198, &c. But, after all, there seems to be a great deal of reason, at least in many cases, to admit of a compensation. As in that mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, (lib. xii.) where the one-eyed man complained of this law (which was among the heathen) as too rigid; for if he lost the other eye, he should suffer more than the man whom he injured, who had still one eye left. Upon such considerations Phavorinus argues against this law, which was one of the twelve tables, as not possible to be justly executed, according to the very letter of it. For the same member of the body is far more valuable to one man than it is to another. For instance, the right hand of a scribe, or a painter, cannot be so well spared as the right hand of a singer. And therefore the law of the twelve tables conceruing taliones (like for like), was with this exception — Ni cameo pacet: that is, if he who had put out a man’s eye, or taken away the use of any other member, would not come to an agreement, de talione redimenda 3 to make him satisfaction, and redeem the punishment he was to suffer in the very same kind. So Sex. Caecilius expounds it in Aulus Gellius, (lib. xx. cap. 1.) Ver. 2G. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, &c] It is but reason that this should extend to all servants, though of another nation, not merely to those who were Jews. And so Maimonides seems to allow, when he saith, " This is a precept of piety and mercy to poor wretches, who should not be any longer afflicted with servitude when they have lost a member of their body." (More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 41.) And therefore the common resolution of their doctors is very cruel, that gentile servants (whom they call Canaanites), who were not circumcised, 2L
Exodus 21:27
And if he smite out his man-servant’s tooth, &c. The loss of a tooth was not so great as that of an eye: yet, to prevent cruelty, God ordained a master should lose the service of his slave for so small a loss as this.
Exodus 21:28
If an ox gore a man, or a woman, that they die, then the ox shall be surely stoned.~. This was not a punishment to the ox, as the Sadducees, saith Maimonides, cavil against us, but to his owner; who was admonished hereby to look better after his cattle*: for which reason •also the ox was not to be eaten. (More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 40;) And his flesh shall not he eaten.’] Because God would have the’owner entirely lose all benefit by it, as Maimonides interprets it. And so Josephus, (lib. iv. Archajol. cap. 8.) jnjS’ ug Tpo(j>fiv ivyj>r<rrog, &c. It was not permitted to be so much as profitable to him for his nourishment. And the Hebrew doctors say, that if a man ate so much as the bigness of an olive of this flesh he was to be scourged. By this means both he and others were admonished to be more careful and cautious: and God also declared how heinous the crime of murder is; the punishment of which, in some sort, reached even unto beasts: which were therefore also stoned, when they had killed a man, that no more might be in danger of their lives by them. Some think its flesh therefore could not be eaten, because, being stoned, it was a carcase whose blood was in it. But Maimonides answers to this in his treatise of Forbidden Meats, that the scope of the law is, that as soon as the sentence for its being stoned was pronounced it became unclean. Nay, if a man,.to prevent this sentence, killed it after a legal manner, no man might eat a bit of it. And when it was stoned, the flesh was neither sold, nor given to the gentiles, nor to the dogs, &c. as Bochart observes, (lib. ii. Hierozoic. par. i. cap. 40.) The same Maimonides, in his treatise of Pecuniary Mulcts, rightly extends this law to other creatures, whether beasts or birds, that any man kept; as L’Empereur observes upon Bava kama, cap.^4. sect. 5. And Plato, I observe, hath the very same law, that edv v7ro%vytov ii Z&ov aXXort 0ov«v(T»>iW,&c. if an ox, or any other animal, kill a man (except it were in the public combats), the officers called’Aypovofiot, that were set over their fields, were to kill it, and throw it out of their territories,?£w rwv opuv rfjc ^wpac aTTOKTtivavraQ Stopiaat, (lib. ix. dc Legibus, p. 873.) But the owner shall be quit.] The loss of his ox w r as all his punishment. And if the ox did not kill the man, but only wounded him, in that case the owner was obliged to make him such a compensation as the judges thought equal, and to take care the like happened not again.
Exodus 21:29
But if the ox were wont to push in time past, and it hath been testified to him, &c. In the former case, the owner was only punished with the loss of his ox; it being the first time that it had been known to push. But if the ox had formerly been known to be so unruly, and he had been told of it, and yet did not tako care to prevent further mischief, then he, as well as the ox, were to be put to death. The Jewish doctors, indeed, have softened this by divers exceptions: as, first, they say it w T as to be proved that the ox had pushed upon three several days; for though it appeared he pushed a great many times in one day, it would not make the man liable. And, secondly, it was to be testified, not only to the owner, but before the magistrate, that he had pushed so often. And, lastly, they interpret the last words of this verse (the owner also shall be put to death), of punishment by the hand of Heaven: that is, they leave him to God. (See Bochart in his Hierozoic. par. i. lib. ii. cap.’ 40.) But though Abarbinel propounds this as the opinion of their wise men, yet he was sensible of its absurdity. For he confesses that God doth decree th^ sentence of death should be executed upon the owner of the. ox: only he thinks that he remits something of the strictness of it in the next verse. And there are three cases here mentioned relating to this matter: one in the foregoing verse, where the ox is ordered to be stoned: another in this, where the owner is also made liable to be put to death: and a third in the next verse, where a pecuniary mulct is only set upon him.
Exodus 21:30
If there be laid upon him a sum of money, then he shall give it for the ransom of his life. By this it appears there might be a case wherein the owner of the ox should not be put to death, but only be fined, though the ox had been wont to push, and he was told of it. And the interpretation of this and the foregoing law, which is given by Constantine L’Empereur, is not unreasonable, upon Bava kama, cap. 4. sect. 5. Either the knowledge which the owner had of the ill conditions of his ox was certain or uncertain; v and his carelessness in preventing the mischief he w r as wont to do was greater or lesser; and the friends of him that was killed pressed the strictest justice, or were content to remit it. In the former cases (if the knowledge was certain, the carelessness very gross, and the friends were strict in the prosecution) he was punished with death: but if otherwise, he was punished only by setting a fine upon him. Certain it is, that the foregoing law might prove too rigorous in many cases (as, if the ox pushed, being provoked; or broke loose when he was tied up; or was let go by the negligence of a servant, &c); and therefore God permitted the judges to accept of a ransom, as they saw cause", which w r as to be paid according as the Sanhedrin thought meet. So Jonathan. Whatsoever is laid upon him.] He was to submit to the fine, whatsoever it was: and it was given to the heirs of him that was killed. If a man’s wife was killed, the Jews
Exodus 21:31
Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, &c. Because what was said (ver. 29.) of killing a man or a ivoman, might have been restrained to the father or mother of a family, whose loss was greatest, and their lives most precious: therefore the same law is here extended to the children: yet both Jonathan and Onkelos confine it to the children of Israelites; as if all mankind besides were nothing worth. (See Bochartus in the place abovementioned.)
Exodus 21:32
If an ox sltall push a man-servant or a maidservant, &c. Whether the servant was of greater or lesser value, saith Maimonides, the punishment was the payment of thirty shekels (and the loss of the -ox); half the price of a freeman, who was estimated, he saith, at sixty shekels, (More Nevoch. par. iii. cap. 40.) He adds, in another place (in his treatise of Pecuniary Mulcts), that the owner was not bound to pay this ransom, unless the ox killed the man out of his own ground. For if he was killed within the owner’s ground, the ox, indeed, was stoned, but no ransom was paid. Divers other cases he mentions in that book, as I/Empereur observes upon Bava kama, p. 85. where he takes notice that Solon himself wrote J3\aj3rjc T£7y>a7roSa>v vo/iov, a law concerning the mischief done by cattie, as Plutarch relates in his life.
Exodus 21:33
And if a man shall open a pit, &c. In the street, or public highway, as Jonathan rightly interprets it For if he opened or digged a pit in his own ground, he was not concerned in this law, though another man’s beast fell into it. And not cover it.] If he did cover it conveniently, though in time the cover grew rotten, and a beast fell into it, he was not bound to make it good, as Maimonides resolves the case. Ver. &4. The owner of the pit shall make it good, &c] There were so many cases arose upon this law, that it is not easy to number them. Maimonides hath amassed together abundance belonging to this matter, with wonderful accuracy, as Bochartus observes; who hath transcribed a great many of them, in his Ifierozoic. par. i. lib. ii. cap, 40. p? 39J., &c.
Exodus 21:35
If one man’s ox hurt another’s, that he die. Which equally belongs to all other cattle, as Maimonides observes; for the la\v mentions an ox only for example’s sake. They shall sell the live ox, and divide the money, &c] Though the ox that was killed was worth as much more as the other, yet satisfaction was to be made only out of the live ox which did the mischief, as the same Maimonides observes, who hath several cases upon this law, as may be seen in the forenamed book of Bochart’s, p. 393. But it might so happen, that the ox which was killed was of little value, and the live ox worth many pounds: in which case it seems so unreasonable, the man whose loss was small should be a great gainer by the sale of the ox which did the mischief, that the Jewish lawyers resolve the meaning of this law is, the man whose ox was killed should receive half the damage he had sustained; as L’Empcrcur observes upon Bava kama, cap. 1. sect. 4. Ver. 3G. Or if it be known that the oxhathused to push, &c] There is a great difference between what is done casually, and what is done constantly. The former verse speaks, of the hurt done by a beast that was not wont to push; and this, of the hurt done by one that was notoriously mischievous; and accordingly, greater damages were given in this latter case than in the former. And by this general rule the Jews regulated all other cases.: making those mischiefs that were done by beasts which were wont to hurt, or were of a hurtful nature, to be punished above as much more, than the mischief done by a creature that was not wont to hurt, or with a part of his body which uses not to hurt. (See I/Empereur in Bava kama, cap. 2. sect. 1.)