whirh Hhe.de.me.nt.hue we.s euppo!!ed to act on culcating RB strongly RB p088ible the principlo in th~ judgmcnt e.fter death (book 5, sec. 8), of the ee.nctity of hume.n life, the logisle.tor e.nd the.I it had the approYal of the Pythe.- gorrans. Solon admit.t.cd it to a certain notices the case where mortal injury is done extent into the laws of At.hone, e.nd e.t Rome to a person by a domesticated 11.ll.ime.l. The ox it found ;ts we.v int-0 the Twelve Tables. is taken as the example, being the e.nime.l There is a prima fa.eu appe&l"Rnce of exact mOl!t likely to inflict such e.n injury. In e.c- equalit:r in it, 'l\·hich would ce.ptivate rude corde.nce with the decla.ration e.lready me.de to minds e.nd ceuse the principle tc, be widely Noah (Gen. ix. 6), it is le.id down the.t the adopted in e rude state of society. But in pre.e- t ice objections would soon be felt to it. There destructive beast mUBt be killed. Further, to i, no exe,r,t mee.sure of the he.rdneee of e. blow, me.rk the abhorrence in which murder ought or the severity of a wound ; e.nd " wound for to be held, the provision is made, that none wound, stripe for et.ripe," would open e. door of the creature's flesh must be eaten. The for ve,:r uueque.l inflictions " Eye for eye" question then e.risee, is the owner to 8Uller would he flagre.ntly unjwrt in the case of e. one-eyed me.n. Moreover, it is e.ga.inst public e.ny punishment? This is answered in the polic.1· t-0 augment unneceese.ri.ly the number way that natural equity points out-" If he of mutilated e.nd maimed citizens, whose had reason to know the savage t.emper of the power to serve the ste.te is le&Bened by their e.nima.l, he is to be .held responsible ; if other- mutile.tion. Consequently in every society wise, he is to go free." In the former case, retaliation has at e.n early de.t.e given way to pecuniary compenee.tion ; e.nd this was the the Hebrew law assigned a higher degi·ee of case even among the Hebrews, as Kalisch has responsibility the.n accords with modern ~hown satisfe.ctorily. If the literal sense was notions : but practically the result was not insisted on in our Lord's day (Matt. v. SS), it very different. The neglectful Hebrew owner was only by the Sadducees, 11·ho declined to was held to have been guilty of a capite.I give the law a spiritual interpretation. offence, but was allowed to " redeem his life " Vcrs. 26, 27.-.ASBGults OIi Bla'1168. The by a fine. His modern counterpe.rt would be general law of retalie.tion was not made to held to have been guilty simply of l4ches or ext.end to slaves. For ordinary blows the neglect of duty, and would be punished by ,Jave was not thought entitled to compensa- fine or imprisonment tion, any more tluw. the child. They were Ver. 28.-The oz shall be surely stoned, natural incidents of his condition. In ex- He shall su1Ier the same death that wonld tremer cases, where he was permanently have been the portion of a human murderer. injured in an orge.n or a member, he was, Xiii 11.eah 8ha.J.J. not be ea.ten. The animal however, considered to have ground of com• was regarded as accursed, e.nd therefore, as a matter of course, no Hebrew might eat of it. plaint and to deserve a recompense. But for According to the Rabbinical commentators, it hllll to revenge him.self upon his master by was not even lawfnl to sell the ce.rcese to in.dieting the same on him was not to be Gentiles. The owner shall be qnit-i.e., thought of. It wonld have pnt the slave into "shall be liable to no punishment." a fwie position, have led to his prolonged ill- Ver. 29.-1! the oz were wont to push with his horns. If he were notoriously, e.nd treatment, and have been an undue degre.de.- to bis owner's knowledge, a dangeroUB e.nimal, tion of the ma.ner. Therefore, compnlsory which required watching, and no watch was emancipation was m&de the pen.e.lty of all kept on him, then the owner became blame- such aggravated assaults, even the slightest able, and having by his neglect contributed to (ver. 'El). a homicide, was " guilty of death." Ver. 30.-1! there be a 11.ne la.id upon Vers. 26, 'El.-1! a man l!llite the eye, et.c. him. There can sea.reely have been any The '" eye " seems to he selected as the most circumstances under which the penalty precious of our organs, the " tooth " as that of death would have been enforced. tLe loss of which ill of least consequence. No neglect could bring the crime into the TLe principle was that any permanent loss of category of murder. It is assumed, therefore, any part of his frame entitled the slave to his that practically the penalty would be a fine, lil,erty. A very considerable check must have proportioned no doubt to the value of the life Leen put on the brutality of me.sten; by this taken. ew.ctlllent. Ver. 31.-Whether he have gored a son or a danghter. If the su1Ierer were a child, the V1:rs. 28-32.-Injtuiea done l,y cattle w value of the life, and therefore the IWluWlt oJ uavi,,; w,d freemen.For the purpose of in- the fine, would be lelill en. xxr. 2-32.] THE BOOK OF EXODUS. 171
Ver. 82.-It the ox ehall puah a man- thue far the so.me sneredne,is WOB mnrle to ■ervant or a maidservant. Hitherto, the Rttach to the life of the slove one\ of the free- c~c of free persons only hM been considered. man. But,_ in lien of a varying fine, the But the RCcidcnt might have happened to a average price of o slave, thirty shekels of elnve. Where this wns the case, tho death silver, WOB appointed to ho pnid in all r.11&es of tho ox was still made indispensable, and as a compensation to the master '..,.,,: ;;;..,-