33

If either a governor or magistrate have taken to himself the men of the levy, or accepted, and sent on the king's errand, hired substitute, that governor or magistrate shall be put to death.

Winckler maintains that it is an impossibility to get at the exact meaning of the words translated "governor and magistrate" in this or the following section. He thinks, however, that the reference must be to military men of some kind. We have followed Harper.

34

If a governor or a magistrate take the property of an officer, plunder an officer, hire out an officer as slave, or deliver an officer in a lawsuit to a tyrant, take away from an officer a gift given him by the king; that governor or magistrate shall be put to death.

Harper's rendering is nearly the same as the above; but Johns gives the following translation: "If either a governor or magistrate has taken to himself the property of a gauger, has plundered a gauger, has given a gauger to hire, has stolen from a gauger any judgment by high-handedness, has taken to himself the gift the king has given the gauger; that governor or magistrate shall be put to death."

35

If any one buy the cattle or sheep from an officer, which were intrusted to him by the king, he [the buyer] shall forfeit his money.

The property above mentioned belonged evidently to the royal flocks, intrusted to the care of government officials. The Hebrew kings, too, had their royal domains, consisting of vineyards, olive-yards, flocks, herds, etc. (See 1 Chron. 27:25-31.)

36

The field, garden, or house of an officer, sub-officer [constable], or a tributary [tax-gatherer, H.], may not be sold for money.

37

If a man buy the field, garden, or house of an officer, sub-officer or tributary, the sale is void [the tablet recording the sale shall be broken], and he forfeits his money. The field, house, or garden shall be given back to the owner.

38

An officer, sub-officer, or tributary may not transfer in writing his field, garden, or house to his wife or daughter, nor may he assign them for debt.

The reference in this section is not to property inherited, or even acquired by purchase, but most probably to lands and houses intrusted to a man while filling some government or municipal office; or, as Professor Harper suggests, property "which is his by virtue of his office." If this theory be correct, we may infer that a son might also inherit certain offices.

39

He may, however, transfer in writing a field, garden, or house, which he has acquired by purchase, and possesses, to his wife or daughter, or may assign for debt.

Daughters, according to Hebrew law, too, could, under certain circumstances, inherit the property of their father. See Num. 27: 1-11, where the case of Zelophehad's daughters is discussed.

40

He may sell field, garden, and house to a royal agent [tamkar], or any other State official; the buyer holding field, garden, and house for its usufruct.

This section is obscure. It is probable that the law refers to one public official transferring public properties or benefices to another agent of the State.

Harper's and Johns's translations are essentially different. We reproduce that given by Harper: "A woman, merchant, or other propertyholder may sell field, garden, or house. The purchaser shall conduct the business of the field, garden, or house which he has purchased."

Johns has votary i.e., a temple prostitute for woman, and foreignsojourner for property-holder; otherwise he agrees with Harper.

41

If any one fence in the field, garden, or house of an officer, subofficer, or tributary, and furnish the fencing material therefor, when the officer, sub-officer, or tributary return to the field, garden, and house, the fencing material becomes his property.

The translations of both Johns and Harper differ widely from the above, though agreeing very closely with one another. Johns renders thus: "If a man has bartered for a field, garden, or house of a gauger, constable, or tributary, and has given exchanges, the gauger, constable, or tributary shall return to his field, garden, or house, and shall keep the exchanges given him."

42

If a man rent a field for tilling and raise no crops; then he shall be called to account for not having cultivated the field, and [if convicted] he shall deliver grain to the owner of the field, in proportion to the yield of the adjacent fields.

This law is eminently just, for instead of fining the neglecter any fixed sum, he simply has to pay the amount for which he is justly responsible. That is, the fine is based upon the yield in near-by fields that same year. This law finds an exact parallel in Hebrew legislation, though the following more than covers it:

Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy; whether he be of thy brethren or of thy strangers that are within thy gates. (Deut. 24: 14.)

43

If he do not till the field, but neglect it, he must give grain to the owner of the field to the same amount that his neighbor produced; and the field which he has not tilled, he must plow and harrow and give back to the owner of the field.

44

If a man rent for three years a piece of waste land to make it productive, but is too lazy to till it, so as to make it arable, in the fourth year he must plow it, harrow it, and till it, and give it back to the owner, and for each year he must measure out ten GUR of grain for each ten GAN.

A GAN was about 6 acres, and a GUR a little more than eight bushels.

45

If a man let his field to another for a fixed rent, and has received the rent for the field, but storms come and destroy the crops, the loss falls upon the renter.

This law is eminently unjust, and proves clearly that the rich man had advantage over the poor, and yet the same custom prevails to-day in our own land.

46

But if he have not received a fixed rent for his field, but has let it out for one-half or one-third [of the crop], so the grain on the field shall be divided proportionately between the renter and the owner of the field.

47

If the renter, because in the first year he did not gain sustenance, has given the field into the charge of another, the owner shall not object; the field has been cultivated, and he shall take his share of the grain according to the contract.

This section is not free from obscurity. Johns renders the first part, "If the cultivator, because in the former year he did not set up his dwelling;" and Scheil, "because he did not go to his farm."

48

If any owe a debt on which he pays interest, and a storm devastate his field and destroy the grain, or, owing to a scarcity of water, the grain have not grown in the field; in that year he need not give any grain to the creditor; he shall moisten his contract tablet in water, and need pay no interest this year.

To moisten the tablet in water was symbolical. We learn from Section 37 that tablets were also destroyed.

49

If a man have taken money from a merchant, and have given [as security] the merchant an arable field, to be planted in grain or sesame, and have said to him, Plant grain or sesame in the field and take the crop; if the cultivator produce grain or sesame in the field, then at the harvest the grain or sesame that the field has produced shall be the property of the owner of the field, and he shall pay grain for the money he received from the merchant, and for the interest and for the support of the renter.

We know, from other inscriptions, that interest, amounting to what would now be regarded as usury, was charged in ancient Babylonia. The rate, as a rule, was 11 or 134 per cent., though some tablets record interest at 20 per cent. Interest was often paid in money, but quite commonly in grain, fruit, or vegetables. The contracting of debt was regarded by the Hebrew law as a misfortune; consequently those having anything to lend were exhorted to be generous. We read :

If thou lend money to any of my people with thee that is poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him usury. (Ex. 22: 25.)

It must be noticed, however, that the Hebrews made a distinction between a native Israelite and a foreigner, in money-lending matters; for we further read:

Thou shalt not lend on usury to thy brother, usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent on usury; unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend on usury. (Deut. 23: 19, 20.)

The reader must bear in mind that the word usury is employed here, as everywhere in the Old Testament, as the exact synonym of interest, and therefore should never be regarded as an excessive rate of interest. Driver observes, very justly, that Hebrew legislation, in condemning interest on anything lent, agrees perfectly with the thinkers of Greece and Rome, as well as those of the early Christian Church. The fact, however, is, that it was very uncommon in ancient times to borrow money simply for the sake of speculation, or mere investment in some business project. A clear-cut distinction should be made between the ancient charitable loan and the modern commercial loan. Our Savior, though acquainted with purely commercial loans, did not speak in unmeasured terms of condemnation. (See Matt. 25:27 ff.) Nor must we think that it was ever a general practice among the Jews to receive no interest, accept no pledges, or demand no security. Indeed, we know that debtors were sold (for a limited period) as slaves. (See 2 Kings 4:1; Neh. 5:5, 6; Isa. 50:1.) The seventh year, the so-called year of release, is known to us all. (See Deut. 15:1-6; and Ex. 21: 2.)

50

If the field of grain or the field of sesame were already planted when he gave it [as security], the grain or sesame in that field shall belong to the owner of that field, and he shall return the money with interest to the merchant.

51

If he have no money to pay back, he shall give the merchant grain or sesame according to the current price for the money, and also interest according to the royal tariff [i.e., the sum legally fixed by the authorities].

52

If the renter have not planted grain or sesame in the field, his [the debtor's] contract is not annulled.

Harper has, "do not secure a crop," instead of "have not planted." The above laws seem exceedingly fair. Poor crops resulting from natural causes excused the poor man or renter from part of the rental; but carelessness or indolence were treated with no leniency.

The next four laws concern dams, dykes, or canals. In the very nature of the case, the hills of Palestine exclude the necessity for legislation suitable only to level or low lands, such as Mesopotamia. Babylonia was almost as dependent upon its canals as is Holland to-day. They needed constant care and repairing. Those living alongside of them were held responsible for any damage which might result from a breach. The severity of the law, as we shall see, for neglecting them, is a certain proof of the damage caused by inundations.