him to whom it appertaineth shall he give it, in the day of his being found guilty.

Indeed, the Hebrew law went still farther, for it was directly commanded that those finding strayed animals, or lost articles of any kind, should make diligent effort to find the owner so as to restore to him that which had been lost.

13

If the witnesses of that man be not at hand, the judge shall put off the case for six months; and if then he do not produce his witnesses within these six months, that man is malevolent, he himself shall bear the penalty in that case.

The reader will at once perceive that the laws of Hammurabi which pertained to theft were much harsher than those of the Hebrews. This is natural, for they point to a more developed commercial and business system than that which obtained in Israel. Not only was theft of a certain kind punishable with death, but the receiver of stolen goods was subject to the same penalty as the thief himself.

14

If a man steal the minor son of a freeman, he shall be put to death.

Kidnaping was a capital offense in Israel too. The law reads:

And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. (Ex. 21:16.)

In Deuteronomy the law seems to be confined to the stealing of Israelitish children, as it was in Babylonia to freemen, which goes to show that the Hebrews made a distinction between kidnaping from Israelites and foreigners. We read:

If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and he deal with him as a slave, or sell him, then that thief shall die. (Deut. 24:7.)

15

If any man take a male or female slave of the [royal] palace, or the male or female slave of a freeman outside the gates of the city, he shall be put to death.

16

If a man conceal in his house a male or female slave, a fugitive from the palace, or from a freeman, and do not produce the same at the order of the officer, the master of that house shall be put to death.

The Babylonian law made it exceedingly difficult to harbor or aid in any way runaway slaves. It will be noticed that the extreme penalty of the law was inflicted in all cases, regardless of the fact as to whether the slave was that of the king or of some ordinary citizen. Such laws made the condition of those in slavery extremely hard. In Israel, on the other hand, the provisions of the laws relating to fugitive slaves were very mild. To recover or capture a Hebrew slave was a difficult task; the owner of such a slave would therefore, in the nature of things, endeavor to make his lot tolerable. Here is the Deuteronomic law:

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a servant which is escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which he shall choose, within one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him. (Deut. 23:15, 16.)

It may be observed that the phrase "in the midst of thee," signifies anywhere in Israel. Many think that this law was enacted for foreigners or non-Israelites, for they argue that, according to Lev. 25:39, a Hebrew is not to be made a bond-servant, but, at the most, a hired man or day laborer for a limited time. We read:

Of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. (Lev. 25:14.)

17

If a man find a fugitive slave, male or female, in the open country, and brings the same to the owner, the owner of said slave shall pay that man two shekels of silver.

18

If that slave refuse to give the name of his master, he shall be brought to the palace; an inquiry shall be made into his past, and he shall be restored to his owner.

Here again we see another proof of the law favoring the rich rather than the poor, the master rather than the slave; the reward offered for the restoration of a fugitive slave could not but have served as an inducement for the capture of those slaves who had deserted their posts. It is probable that Israel, too, had similar laws. See the account of Shimei and his two fugitive slaves, 1 Kings 2:39 ff.

19

If he forcibly detain that slave in his house, and that slave be caught later in his house, then that man shall be put to death.

This is not a case of harboring a slave, but rather one of theft, or kidnaping. As in the case of concealing stolen goods, the penalty was death. (See Section 6).

20

If a slave escape from the one who has captured him, that man shall swear, by the name of God to the owner of the slave, then he shall be acquitted of all blame.

21

If a man make a breach into a house, one shall kill him in front of the breach, and bury him in it.

This passage is not quite clear, "To make a breach," corresponds, no doubt, to our phrase, "to break into." "To kill in front of the breach," probably means to kill on the spot, without giving the thief any chance whatever to escape; i.e., without ceremony or trial. To bury the culprit in a hole in front of the breach seems to point to a custom of burying burglars, wherever killed. Such a custom was known to the Germans during the Middle Ages. Some have suggested that the belief was indulged in that the dead man's spirit would protect that house from further burglaries.

In Israel, too, the penalty for housebreaking "before the sun be risen" i.e., at night was death. This is perfectly natural, for burglars have all the advantage in the darkness of the night; their apprehension is very difficult, and their identification always all but impossible. Moreover, a burglar in case of an effort to capture him, seldom hesitates to resort to extreme measures. The Hebrew law reads thus:

If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall be no bloodguiltiness [no charge of murder against the one that killed him] for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him. (Ex. 22: 2, 3.)

22

If a man carried on highway robbery and be captured, he shall be put to death.

23

If the highwayman be not captured, he who has been robbed shall declare before God [under oath in open court], the amount lost; then the place and official in whose territory and district the robbery took place shall compensate him for that which he lost.

24

If it be a life, the place and official shall pay one mina of silver to his people.

This is rather obscure. Winckler renders: "If people are stolen, then shall the community and official pay one silver mina to the relatives." Have we reference here to murder or kidnaping? Cook evidently regards the first clause as having reference to murder. He says: "The code placed upon the city and the governor the responsibility for brigandage carried on within its limits. And if it was a life, the city and the governor were required to pay one mina of silver to the people of the murdered man." The law has Semitic analogies, and, as Dareste has pointed out, recurs not infrequently in ancient codes. "In Arabia the responsibility for homicide, where the murderer was unknown, was cast, in the first instance, upon the nearest community; but under Islam, blood money in these circumstances, was paid by the state."

The Hebrew law in case the murderer were not known is stated at length in Deut. 21: 1-9, to which the reader is referred, as our space forbids its insertion here.

25

If a fire break out in a man's house, and any one who goes to put out the fire shall lift up his eyes towards the owner's property and take any property [furniture] of the owner of the house, he shall be cast into that same fire.

It is clear, from the wording of this law, that the owner of the house on fire had the right to take the law into his own hands, and punish the thief on the spot, just as in the case of housebreaking at night mentioned in Section 21. We find no parallel to this in the Mosaic Code, nor any reference to such practice anywhere in the Old Testament. It will be admitted, however, that a man mean enough to steal under such circumstances deserved summary punishment.

26

If an officer or man [common soldier] who has been ordered to proceed on the king's business, go not, but hire a substitute whom he sends in his place, that officer or man shall be put to death, his substitute shall take possession of his house.

The contrast between this severe law and that of Deuteronomy in regard to soldiers and army officers is marked. The Hebrew law reads:

When a man taketh a new wife, he shall not go out in the host, neither shall he be charged with any business: he shall be free at home one year. (Deut. 24:5. See also 20:5-9.)

It is not quite clear what is meant by the terms officer and man in this section, nor yet on what business they were dispatched by the king. Some regard the reference to soldiers and officers in time of war, while others maintain that the cultivation of public lands is the subject in question.

We now come to a number of laws (27-41) having reference to what may be called crown-lands, or land held in fee by the State. We know that Israel, too, had such lands at one time or another under the monarchy. It is to this custom that Samuel refers when he says to the delegation which waited upon him to demand a king:

And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive-yards, even the best of them, and give to his officers and his servants. (1 Sam. 8:14.)

The words of Jezebel concerning Naboth's vineyard prove clearly that the prophecy of Samuel was not a mere threat. (1 Kings 21:7; Ez. 46:16-18.)

27

If an officer or a man be captured in the garrison of the king, and subsequently his field and garden have been given to another, and this one take possession; if he [the former owner] return and reach his place, his field and garden shall be restored to him, and he shall take it again.

28

If an officer or a man be captured in the garrison of the king, if his son be able to take charge of his business, the field and the garden shall be given to him, and he shall take his father's field.

29

If his son be a minor, not able to take charge of the business, the third of the field and garden shall be given to his mother, and she shall bring him up.

30

If an officer or a man neglect his field, garden, or house, instead of taking care of them; if another take his field and garden and house and care for them three years; if the owner return and claim his field and garden and house, they shall not be given to him, but he who has taken them and cared for them shall continue to take care of them.

31

If he abandoned them one year, and return, then the field, garden, and house shall be given back to him, and he shall take them again.

32

If an officer or a man be captured on an errand of the king, and a merchant ransom him, and bring him back to his locality; if he have in his house means for his ransom, so shall he ransom himself; if there be no means in his house for his ransom, so shall he be ransomed by the temple of his community; if in the temple of his community there be no means to ransom him, then the palace [the king] shall ransom him. His field, garden, and house shall not be given for his ransom.