885 



MOSES. 



MOSES. 



366 



/became the property of the priests. (Levit. xxvii. 16.) Moses how- 

 ever plainly intended that the land sold or vowed should always 

 i redeemed before the jubilee. 



A provision was made for avoiding litigation respecting the crops 

 upon the ground at the jubilee, by the institution of the sabbatical 

 year, during which there was to he neither sowing nor reaping, but all 

 the land was to lie fallow. Every seventh year, and likewise the year 

 of jubilee, was a sabbatical year. A promise was annexed to the law 

 that the crop of the sixth year (or perhaps we should read of the six 

 years) should be sufficient to afford food while the land lay fallow. 

 (Levit. xxv. 20-22.) Michaelis is of opinion that the tendency of this 

 law was to increase the national wealth by affording a strong induce- 

 ment to store up corn during the six years of plenty, part of which 

 might be sold at an increased price to the neighbouring commercial 

 nations in the seventh year; but this seems a very unsatisfactory 

 explanation of the matter. He also mentions other incidental advan- 

 tages, as he considers them, of this institution. (Mich., Arts. 

 74, 75.) 



The laws of the jubilee and sabbatical years do not appear to have 

 been long observed; indeed it is plain from Levit. XXVL 34, that 

 Moses expected them to be disregarded. From 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21, it 

 appears that up to the Babylonish captivity there had been seventy 

 sabbatical years neglected. This would carry us back nearly 500 

 years, namely, to the reign of Saul or David, as the time at which the 

 observance ceased. 



A man's property descended to his sons, of whom the eldest had a 

 double share. (Deut. xxi. 17.) The exclusion of daughters from the 

 iuheiitance was established long before the time of Moses. (Gen. 

 xxxi. 14.) No provision is made in the law for the support of 

 unmarried daughters. On the occurrence of a case in which a man 

 died leaving only daughters, Moses n,ado the law that in all such cases 

 the daughters should inherit their father's property, but that they 

 must not marry out of their own tribe. The husbands of such 

 heiresses were reckoned as the sons of their father-in-law, and took 

 his name. Failing daughters, the inheritance passed to a man's 

 brethren ; failing them, to his father's brethren : and failing them, ' to 

 the next of kin' of the deceased. (Numb, xxvii. 1-11.) But the law 

 gives no directions as to determining who are the next of kin : pro- 

 bably this was already determined by custom. The Mosaic Liw 

 contains nothing on the subject of wills; but we find that the right 

 of bequeathing property other than land existed both before and after 

 his time, and he nowhere prohibits it. 



2. Lava rclaliny to Persons. The laws of Moses inculcate the most 

 complete filial obedience. (ExoJ. xx. 12; compare Kphea. vi. 1-3.) 

 The power of fathers over their sons was great, and does not appear 

 to have ceased as they grew up. WH have here a remnant of the 

 patriarchal state. Flagrant nets of disobedience were punished with 

 death (Exod. xxi. 17; Levit xx. 9), which however could only be 

 indicted by a judicial process, and not at the pleasure of the father. 

 (Ueut. xxi. 18-21.) Fathers, and even mothers, chose wives for their 

 eons. Next to the father, the first born had the greatest power over 

 the family, though it does not clearly appear in what this consisted, 

 npr whether it was exercised in his father's lifetime. Though what- 

 ever opened the womb was a first-born (Exod. xiii. 12), yet it is clear 

 from Dent. xxi. 15, and 1 Chron. v. 1, 2, that the first born of a family 

 was the first born to a man of all hia children, and not the first born 

 by each of 1>U wives. 



Marriage Law*. Among the Hebrew?, as among other Oriental 

 nation*, wives were generally bought (Gen. xxix. 15-30; xxxiv. 12; 

 Hose.i iii. 1-2), and in certain coses their price waa fixed by law (Exod. 

 xxii. 1<>, 17 ; Deut. xxii. 28, 29). Some wives were not bought, and 

 these enjoyed greater freedom thun the others. In certain cases 

 concubines were allowed. (Exod. xxi. 7-11 ; Michaelis, Arts. 87, 88.) 

 The marriage law of Moses had in general a tendency to promote 

 marriage, and this chiefly by his sanctioning the notion, which he found 

 already prevailing among the people, that it was highly honourable 

 for a man to have posterity who might perpetuate his name, and by 

 IIH engrafting upon this notion the law of levirate marriage*, by which 

 it was enacted that when a man died leaving a widow, his brother 

 should marry her, and raise up children to his brother ; that is, 

 children who were to be accounted as belonging to the first husband, 

 and who were enrolled in the genealogical registers in his name. 



The Mosaic law prescribe* no marriage ceremonies. We may con- 

 jecture from history (Gen. xxix. 22-28) that ceremonies much resem- 

 bling those of the Arabians in the present day (Lane's ' Modern 

 Egyptians,' voL i. c. G) were already in use, which Moses left as he 

 found them. He connected no religious ceremony with the solemnisa- 

 tion of matrimony. Tho bridegroom might put away his wife if the 

 tirjna viryinitatii were wanting (Deut xxii. 13-21). A right under- 

 standing of this law is very important to the explanation f the doc- 

 trine of Christ concerning divorce (.Matt. v. 313-'), which has had no 

 small influence on the marriage laws of Christian countries. (Michaelis, 

 Arts. 92, 93.) 



Moses permitted polygamy, as is proved by the laws in Exod. xxi 

 9, 10, Levit. xviii. 18, Deut xxi. 15-17; by the constant practice of it 

 both before and after his time, connected with the fact that he nowhere 

 prohibits it, and by the small number of the first-born compared with 

 the whole number of males, namely, about 1 in 42 (Numb. iii. 43). 



But he permitted it only as a matter of policy, "on account," as Christ 

 said, " of the hardness of the people's hearts," that is, the difficulty 

 of rooting out inveterate customs, and perhaps for other reasons, 

 which are pointed out by Michaelis (Art. %). Some of his laws have 

 a strong indirect tendency to prevent it, for example, the buying of a 

 wife ; and notwithstanding some striking examples of its practice, as 

 that of Solomon, it does not appear to have prevailed extensively 

 among the Israelites. (Mich., Art. 95.) After the Babylonish cap- 

 ;ivity it ceased entirely. Moses however set limits to the practice of 

 polygamy, not allowing many wives. (Deut. xvii. 17.) Moses prohi- 

 aited marriages between certain near relations, some of which, those 

 namely between parents and children, brothers and sisters, he con- 

 sidered as opposed to natural morality, for ho calls them abominations, 

 md represents them as sinful in themselves. Other marriages between 

 relations were probably forbidden only for reasons connected with the 

 haracter and habits of the people. (Levit. xviii. 20; Michaelis, 

 book iii., c. 7.) 



Of divorce Moses was no favourer, at least if we may judge by the 

 way in which he speaks of the marriage bond in Gen. ii. 24 ; but he 

 allowed it to a greater extent than he altogether approved, " because 

 of the hardness of their hearts." (Matt. xix. 8.) The law of divorce 

 is in Deut. xxiv. 1-4. If a man disliked his wife, he might put her 

 away by giving her a writing of divorcement. She mi^ht then marry 

 again ; but if her second husband put her away or died, she might 

 not return to her first husband. (Mich., Arts. 119, 120.) No pro- 

 vision is made for the support of the divorced wife. In certain cases 

 the husband forfeited his right of divorce. (Deut. xxii. 19, 29.) Tho 

 support of a widow after her husband's death was provided for, if she 

 uad no children, by the law of levirate marriages; if she had children, 

 it was left to filial piety. 



Laws respecting Slaves and Servants. Moses found slavery already 

 existing among the Israelites and their neighbours. He permitted it to 

 continue, under certain restrictions, and his laws on this subject are 

 conceived in the most merciful spirit (eeo especially Deut. xxiii. 15, 

 16). Slaves were acquired by capture iu war, by purchase, aud by 

 the marriage of slaves. Of purchase there were four kinds : 1, when a 

 slave was transferred from 0110 master to another ; 2, when a man 

 under the pressure of poverty sold himself for a slave; 3, when 

 parents sold their children ; 4, when an insolvent debtor, or a thief 

 unable to make restitution, was sold as a punishment. The value of 

 slaves was of course variable, but in two cases it was fixed by law. 

 (Exod. xxi. 32; Levit. xxvii. 1-8 ) Besides the slaves of private indi- 

 viduals, there were others who belonged to tho public ; these were 

 employed in menial labours for the service of the sanctuary. Slaves 

 might have property of their own. A master might beat his slave, 

 but not so as to kill him (Exod. xxi. 20, 21) ; if he even maimed him 

 the. slave was to be set free. (Exod. xxi. 26, 27.) A Hebrew slave 

 possessed this advantage over a foreign one : he was entitled to hia 

 freedom in the Sabbatical y ar and in the year of jubilee, aud he might 

 be redeemed before the j oar of jubilee, while the stranger might bo 

 held in slavery for ever. The manumitted slave received presents 

 from his master. (Exod. xxi. 2-11 ;_Levit. xxv. 39-55 ; Deut. x,v. 12-18.) 

 Slaves had to conform to some of tho principal religious ceremonies 

 observed by the Israelites. 



lie.-i lus the slaves, there were day labourers, who were to share in 

 the rest of the seventh day, and in the spontaneous produce of the 

 Sabbatical year, and whose hire waa to be paid every day before sun- 

 set. (Levit. xix. 13; xxv. 6 ; Deut. xxi?. 14, 15.) The statute iu Deut. 

 xxv. 4, besides its literal meaning, probably meant also that servants 

 were to share in the food they prepared for their masters. 



Tli-: (Jail, or Blood-Aiiinyer. There was a custom of ancient standing 

 among the Israelites, aud which exists to this day among the Arabs, 

 which made it the duty of the nearest relation of a murdered person 

 to pursue the murderer and kill him with his own hands. This 

 relation is called iu Hebrew ' Goe'l,' iu Arabic ' Tail'.' This usage, 

 which was probably of high antiquity, is dangerous to any state, from 

 the Lasto and passion in which vengeance is exercised, and from tho 

 hereditary feuds which it causes between families. Moses dealt with 

 this as he dealt with other long-established customs of which he dis- 

 approved, not making the vain attempt to root it out, but surrounding 

 it with provisions calculated t) mitigata its evils. Six cities of tho 

 Levites were appointed as cities of refuge for the manslayer, and ev.'ry 

 facility of access to them was provided. If he escaped to one of 

 these, he was safe from the avenger of blood. (Exod. xxi. 12,13; 

 Numb. xxxv. ; Deut. xix. 3.) But these cities afforded no asylum to 

 the wilful murderer, who, when proved to bo guilty, might be torn 

 even from the altar. (Exod. xxi. 14; Deut. xix. 11-13.) At the death 

 of the high-priest, the person who bad taken sanctuary might leave 

 the city of refuge in safety. These laws seem to have acted as an 

 effectual chock on the practice of bio <d-,ivengiug, for an instance of it 

 rarely occurs in the later history of the Israelites. 



The Mosaic law commanded kindness to be shown to strangers, 

 who, unless they belonged to certain nations that had been guilty of 

 flagrant outrages against the Israelite?, might " enter the congregation 

 of Jehovah," that is, might be naturalised in Israel. Moses incul- 

 cates veneration for old age, and kindness to the deaf and blind. 

 (Levit. xix. 14, 32 ; Deut. xxvii. 18.) He made laws in favour of the 

 poor (Deut. xv. 11), besides adopting usages already iu existence for 



