Willis : Hebrew Law 
23 
beginning, not in contract at all, but in power, or status. The 
first agreements were between the heads of different families. 
These were made binding by great ceremony and formality, 
or by some religious association. Jephthah thought his agree- 
ment with God was obligatory for the latter reason, altho it 
involved the killing of his daughter . 78 In the agreement be- 
tween Jacob and Laban, Laban sold his daughters to Jacob. 
Henceforth they were no longer members of their father’s 
family, but entered the manus of their husband. Yet because 
Laban was a patriarch, Jacob, tho the head of another family, 
feared that Laban might exercise his power to take his daugh- 
ters back, as Saul and Samson’s father-in-law did later. Jacob 
called for a family court. Laban calmly asserted authority 
over daughters, son-in-law, and all that they owned. The con- 
testants, however, finally parted in peace, and made a cove- 
nant treating with each other as sovereigns. To get the 
treaty sanctioned by deity they offered a sacrifice; and for a 
visible symbol they made a heap of stones — a miniature high 
place, a witness, a watching of the Lord — in the presence of 
the spirits of their ancestors. The covenant of Joshua with 
the Gibeonites resembles the foregoing in many respects. 
Abraham’s purchase of the cave of Machpelah was character- 
ized by formality, rather than religious association. Since 
tribal ownership was the custom, Abraham was invited to take 
a place in the public assembly; and, since there were no rec- 
ords, it was necessary to have witnesses and such formality 
that the witnesses would be sure to agree upon the terms of 
the negotiation. The bargain was, therefore, consummated 
by means of question and answer. The formal words were 
“hearken unto”. When all the details were agreed upon the 
money was publicly weighed. The sale of Esau’s birthright 
was another illustration of a valid sale, where the validity of 
the transaction was obtained, not by the presence of wit- 
nesses, but by means of a sworn oath. The fear of breaking 
this was enough to make Esau stand by the arrangement. 
In Jeremiah’s purchase in the sixth century B.C. the validity 
of the transaction arose from a number of formal acts, all pub- 
lic, which were doubtless imported into the Hebrew law from 
the Babylonian law. 
In the matter of succession, at first the succession was to the 
78 24 Josh. 25 ; 11 Judg. 35. 
