Commentary on Exodus, Commentary · Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII.
Verſe 1. IF a man ſhall ſteal an Ox, or a Sheep, and kill it, or ſell it.] Before the Theft was diſcovered to be done by him.
He ſhall reſtore five Oxen for an Ox, and four Sheep for a Sheep.] There is a ſmaller Satisfaction required in other things, v. 9. and here is alſo a diſproportion obſervable between the ſtealing of an Ox and of a Sheep. The reaſon of both was this; that Money, Goods, Garments, Jewels, which Men keep in their Houſes, within Towns and Cities, are better guarded, and not ſo eaſily ſtoln as Cattle in the Field: and of Cattle in the Field, an Ox was more eaſie to be ſtoln than a Sheep: For Sheep feeding in Flocks, may be all in view of the Shepherd; but Oxen feeding, ſcattered one from another, are not ſo eaſily obſerved and kept by the Netherd. Thus Maimonides More Nevoch. P. III. c. 41. But the true reaſon of the difference between an Ox and a Sheep ſeems to be, That an Ox was of greater value, and likewiſe uſeful to more purpoſes in Husbandry, (as ploughing, carrying in, and treading out the Corn, &c.) which made the Puniſhment of ſtealing an Ox, greater than that of ſtealing a Sheep. Yet there was a difference between a Thief, who came and confeſſed his Sin of his own accord; and him that ſtood out till he was apprehended and convicted of it: For in the former caſe, Moſes ſeems to require only the Reſtitution of that which was ſtoln, with the addition of a fifth part of the value, and a Sacriſice, VI Lev. 4, 5. All this is far more equal than Plato's Conſtitutions, which for all Thefts require the ſame Puniſhment, which was paying double; foreign, &c. L. IX. de Legibus, p. 857.
Ver. 2. If a man be found breaking up.] Some tranſlate it, If a Man be found with a digging Instrument; or, it may ſignifie any ſort of Weapon: yet he was to be taken in the very act of breaking up, or digging.
And be ſmitten that he die, &c.] The Maſter of the Houſe might kill the Robber in this caſe; becauſe it might well be thought he intended to kill him, rather than loſe his booty. The Law of the XII. Tables allowed this, as A. Gellius relates, L. XI. c. 18. Duodecim Tabulae nocturnum furem quoquo modo, diurnum autem, ſeſe telo defenderit, interfici impunè voluerunt. It was one of Plato's Laws alſo, That if a Thief entred a Man's Houſe in the Night, he might innocently kill him: foreign L. IX. de Legibus, p. 874. But the Hebrew Doctors make ſome Exceptions; as, if he did not fly; and if there were no Witneſſes preſent: for if there were, then it was like Theft in the day time. See Grotius L. II. de Jure B. & P. cap. 1. ſect. 12.
Ver. 3. If the Sun be riſen, &c.] When they might poſſibly know who he was; and it might be preſumed he intended only to ſteal, not to kill; then to kill him was to be accounted Murder.
He ſhall be ſold for his theft.] For ſix years. But the Hebrew Doctors have many molliſications of this Law: For they ſay, a Woman was not to be ſold; nor a Man, but for the principal Sum. For double, or four or ſivefold, he was not to be ſold; but have credit for it, till he was able to pay. And he was not to be ſold, who rob'd a Samaritan; nor if he had ſtoln leſs than he was worth, when ſold, &c. with many other, which ſo mitigate, that they almoſt abrogate it. But the Law of the XII. Tables thought it reaſon, a Thief ſhould be delivered to him whom he rob'd, to be his Slave, as A. Gellius tells us, L. XX. c. 1. See Bochart. Hicrozoic. P. I. L. II. c. 40.
Ver. 4. If it be certainly found in his hand alive, &c.] There was a great difference between Killing or Selling after the ſtealth; and having theſe Cattle ſound alive with him. In the former caſe he was puniſhed four or ſive-fold, v. 1. but in this only double. Becauſe the former concealed his Theft with more induſtry, and left leſs hope of diſcovery and reſtitution than in the latter, as Bochart there obſerves. Where he alſo takes notice of the like Law at Athens, mentioned by Demoſthenes, and by A. Gellius, L. XI. c. 18. But the Hebrews here alſo have their Exceptions; and will not have this extended to Women, Children, and Servants.
He ſhall reſtore double.] In caſe he did not confeſs the Fact himſelf, but was otherwiſe ſound out. For if he did accuſe himſelf, and had neither ſold nor kill'd that which he ſtole, he was not to reſtore double. He that ſtole from another Thief, was not bound, as Maimonides thinks, to reſtore double. But in caſe a Thief kill'd what he had ſtoln, and after that conſecrated it to God, he was obliged notwithſtanding to reſtore fourfold: though if he conſecrated it before he kill'd or ſold it, only to reſtore double. For though the Sanctification of a thing, after the Sin was committed, did not take away the guilt: yet before he aggravated his Fault by Killing or Selling what he ſtole, the Sanctification leſſened the Puniſhment. See L'Empereur in Bava kama, cap. 7. ſect. 1, 2.
Ver. 5. If a man ſhall cauſe a field or vineyard to be eaten.] This our Rabbins, ſaith R. Levi of Barcelona, underſtand concerning the Damage done by Beaſts eating another Man's Graſs or Corn, &c.
And ſhall put in his Beast.] This they underſtand of the Damage that may be done by their Feet, in treading down the tender Graſs or Corn.
Of the best of his field, and of the best of his vineyard, ſhall be make reſtitution.] What is determined in this caſe, the Jews extend to all other: That Men ſhould make ſatisfaction for the wrong done to their Neighbour in any kind, with the beſt of what they poſſeſſed of that kind. So the Miſma in Bava kama, cap. 1. ſect. 1. and Abarbinel on this place, Damages are paid out of the best. Which made Men very careful in looking after their Beaſts, that they did no hurt in their Neighbours Grounds. For which Plato orders only ſuch Satisfaction to be made as the foreign ſhould judge meet, L. VIII. de Legibus, p. 843. But the Jews were ſo ſcrupulous in this matter, that to prevent the Damage one Man might do another, they made a Conſtitution that no Man ſhould keep Goats, or Rabbits, or any ſuch like ſmall Creatures, near the Corn-ſields, or Vineyards or Oliveyards of his Neighbour; no, nor in any parts of the Land of Iſrael, (as the Miſna hath it in the Bava kama, cap. 7. ſect. 7.) but in Syria, or in the Deſerts of their own Land. This the Talmudiſts carry ſo far, as to urge it to inept Superſtition; as L'Emperour obſerves on that place.
Ver. 6. If fire break out, &c.] The Hebrew word properly imports that which breaks out of it ſelf (as R. Levi Barzelonita obſerves) ſo that the meaning of this Law is, that though a Man kindle a fire within his own bounds, and it ſpread further to the damage of his Neighbour, he ſhall be guilty, though he had no hand in putting the fire to the Stacks of Corn which were burnt by it; becauſe he ſhould have lookt better after it, when he had kindled it. For every Man, ſaith he, is bound to watch the fire that he kindles, leſt it do miſchief; it being its nature to break out, and catch hold of any thing that is near it. And therefore Plato ordains (in the place mentioned upon the former Verſe) that foreign, &c. if a Man ſet fire to any combuſtible matter, and do not take care his Neighbour receive no harm by it, he ſhall pay ſuch Damages as the Magiſtrates judges juſt. But here the Jewiſh Lawyers conſider, at what diſtance the fire was kindled; and reſolve, that if there was a Fence of four Cubits high, or a publick High-way, or a River, between the Fire and the Field, or Stack of Corn that was burnt, the Man that kindled it was free. See Bava kama, cap. 6. ſect. 4, 5. and L'Empereur in his Annotations there.
Ver. 7. If a man ſhall deliver unto his neighbour money, or ſtuff to keep, &c.] The Equity of the Law contained in this and the following Verſe, is very well explained by Maimonides; P. III. c. 42. More Nevoch. He that takes a Neighbour's Goods or Money to keep for nothing, and hath no profit thereby, doth a kindneſs to his Neighbour, and therefore is not to bear the loſs of them; which muſt fall upon the Owner himſelf. But he that deſires to be the keeper of his Goods, and receives a benefit by the uſe of them, or is paid for his care, muſt make them good if they be ſtoln. Or if the owner and the keeper equally partake of the profit, they muſt equally bear the loſs. R. Levi Barzilonita interprets this place of that which a Man takes into his cuſtody, chinnam (as his word is) gratis, as we ſpeak, without any reward for his care in keeping it.
Ver. 8. Shall be brought to the Judges.] The principal Judges were called Elohim, Gods. And there were to be three of them at leaſt; who were to examine upon Oath, (v. 11.) and endeavour to find out the truth. See Selden L. II. de Syned. c. 5. p. 232.
To ſee.] i. e. Find out.
Whether he hath put his hand unto his neighbours goods.] Or, whether through negligence he ſuffered them to be ſtoln. In which he was bound to make them good, as Maimonides ſaith, in the place before mentioned; who will have the Name of Elohim originally belong to Judges; and from thence to be tranſlated to God the Judge above all, P. II. c. 2. But of this ſee XX. 2.
Ver. 9. For all manner of treſpaſs, whether it be for ox, or aſs, or ſheep.] Though theſe be only mentioned, yet the Law reaches to all Cattle whatſoever.
Which another challengeth to himſelf.] There is great variety in the Tranſlation of theſe words, (as Mr. Selden ſhows L. II. de Synedr. c. 12.) but, according to ours, the meaning is, When a Man affirms that he either depoſited ſuch things with his Neighbour, or lent them to him, or that he took them, (as R. Levi Barzelonita interprets it, Praecept. LIV.) both Parties were to be brought before the Judge; that he might examine where the Right lay.
He ſhall pay double unto his Neighbour.] i. e. He who pretended to have depoſited the Goods (ſuppoſe) was to pay double if he brought an unjuſt Action againſt his Neighbour; or he with whom the Goods were depoſited was to pay it, if it appeared he had dealt fraudulently: But if it were found, that the Goods were loſt by meer chance, he was not bound to pay any thing.
Maimonides explains it thus, according to the Opinion of the Talmudiſts (as Mr. Selden obſerves in the place now mentioned) when a Man brings an Action againſt another, about ſuch things as are here mentioned, and the Defendant confeſſes part of the Charge, but denies the reſt; he was to reſtore as far as he confeſſed; but for the other which he did not confeſs, he was to be put upon his Oath. Or if he denied the whole, and be that brought the Action had but one Witneſs againſt him, he was to purge himſelf by an Oath: For by the Law, no Man was compelled to clear himſelf by an Oath, but in three Caſes, of which this was one, when a Man was guilty by one Witneſs.
Ver. 10. If a man deliver unto his neighbour an aſs, or an ox, or a ſheep, or any beaſt to keep, &c.] If he lend any of theſe things to his Neighbour upon certain Conſiderations, or let them for hire; and his Neighbour affirms that they died, or were hurt, or driven away by Enemies, who carried them Captive; but there was no Witneſs of any of theſe Allegations, then the Cauſe was to be brought before the Judge to find out the Truth, in the manner following:
Ver. 11. Then ſhall an oath of the LORD be between them both, &c.] If there was no other way to diſcover the Truth, then he to whom they were delivered, was to purge himſelf by an Oath, that he had not killed the Beaſt, nor done any thing to hurt it: and the Owner was to trouble him no further; nor was he bound to make any Satisfaction: Provided he had uſed theſe Goods according to the Agreement between them: for if he had imployed them contrary to their Contract, then he was bound to make them good to the Owner, of whom they were borrowed or hired. If he refuſed to take the Oath, he was pronounced guilty; and Reſtitution was ordered to be made out of his Goods. But there were ſome temperaments of this Law; for every Man was not admitted to purge himſelf by an Oath. For inſtance; he that was of ſo bad a Reputation, that they had a ſuſpicion he would not ſtick to Perjure himſelf, was not admitted to be adjured; no, though he that brought the Action required it, &c. See Mr. Selden L. II. de Synedr. c. 12. p. 520.
Ver. 12. And if it be ſtoln from him.] Through his negligence, who was intruſted with it,
He ſhall make reſtitution to the owner thereof.] Becauſe he was bound to have lookt better after it; by receiving wages for his care and pains in keeping it (as ſome interpret) or ingaging to make it good, if he did not take the ſame Care of it, as if it had been his own.
Ver. 13. If it were torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witneſs, &c.] If he could produce any part of it, as an evidence that it was torn, and he endeavoured to reſcue it, he was not to make it good. But here the Hebrew Doctors make many Exceptions: For they would have him make good what was torn by one Wolf alone; becauſe they think he might have been able to defend the Cattle againſt one, though not againſt many. If alſo he put the Oxen or Sheep into a Paſture, wont to be infeſted with wild Beaſts or Thieves; or if he did not call in the help of his Neighbours, &c. in theſe, and ſuch like caſes, he was to make good that which was torn, as Maimonides reports their Judgment. See Bochart. Hierozoic. P. I. L. II. c. 44.
Ver. 14. If a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt or die.] This the Hebrew Doctors think concerns ſuch things as were lent to another out of kindneſs, without any conſideration for the uſe of them. About which, if there aroſe any controverſie by reaſon of ſome maim that it received, or its death, it was to be determined by the Rule following.
The owner thereof being not with it, he ſhall ſurely make it good.] Theſe words, and thoſe in the beginning of the 15th Verſe, (but if the owner be with it, he ſhall not make it good) ſeem to ſignifie, that if the Owner was with the thing that was lent, at the time of its hurt or death, it was to be preſumed he would do his beſt to preſerve it, and ſee it was not ill uſed, and ſo muſt bear the loſs: But if he was not preſent at that time, then the contrary was preſumed, that the borrower was in fault, and therefore bound to make it good. Which, though it may ſeem hard, was but neceſſary to make Men careful, and do their beſt to preſerve what was lent them in pure kindneſs. R. Levi of Barcelona (Praecept. LVI.) interprets it quite another way, in this manner; That if the Owner was with it, at the time it was borrowed, though not preſent at the time of its hurt or death, the borrower was free: but if the Owner was preſent at the time of the hurt or death, but not at the time of lending, he was bound to make it good. For the matter (ſaith he) depends upon the beginning of it.
Ver. 15. If it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.] Some make the Hebrew word Sachir (which we tranſlate hired thing) to relate unto the Perſon; If he be a Mercenary; i. e. the Man who lends, agrees to let the borrower have it, at a certain price, &c. But this is the ſame, in effect, with the ſenſe of our Tranſlation, which makes this word relate to the thing it ſelf: which, if it were borrowed with a Condition to pay ſo much for the uſe of it as the Lender demanded, then the Man who hired it was not bound to make it good, whether the Owner were preſent, or not, when it was hurt or died. But the Owner was to run the hazard, becauſe of the hire which he received for the uſe of the thing.
Ver. 16. If a man intice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her.] Whoſoever lay with ſuch a Maid in the City, was thought to have been an inticer only (unleſs Witneſſes came and proved that he forced her) becauſe it might be well ſuppoſed her Voice would have been heard, if ſhe had cried out upon the Force in the City. But if he lay with her in the Field, where no Body could hear, it was preſumed to be a Rape. Thus Maimonides, and other Hebrew Doctors.
He ſhall ſurely endow her, to be his wife.] This Law doth not ſay, as the Old Tranſlation hath it, he ſhall ondow her, and take her to be his Wife; but only, endow her to be his Wife: that is, give her ſuch a Dowry, that ſhe might be his lawful Wife. So the ſame Hebrew Doctors underſtand it; who will not have it to be a Command that he ſhould marry her (though that was beſt) but only that he ſhould make Satisfaction for taking away her Virginity; which was, by paying ſo much, in the nature of a Dowry, as would render her fit to be his Wife, if both of them could agree. Yet ſo, that if either he, or ſhe, or her Father refuſed (for it was in the power of any of theſe, as they ſay, to hinder the Marriage) he paid this Mulct, as the Dowry of a Virgin, to her Father. See Selden's Ʋxor Hebr. L. I. c. 16. There is another Law of this Nature, XXII Deut. 28, 29. but it ſpeaks of a Virgin deflowred by force: of which ſee there.
Ver. 17. If her father uiterly refuſe to give her unto him.] Here is mention made only of the Father; not of the Man that deflowred her: who, one would think, ſhould have been bound to marry her, if ſhe and her Father pleaſed. And ſo Joſephus, foreign, &c. foreign. But if the Father of the Damoſel did not like to give her to him, he was to pay as here is directed.
He ſhall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.] That is, ſaith Joſephus, fifty ſhekels, foreign, as a Satisfaction for her Reproach, L. IV. Archaeol. c. 8.
Ver. 18. Thou ſhalt not ſuffer a Witch to live.] This Law about Witches follows the other about Virgins; becauſe Witches, among other practiſes, helpt by …vil Arts to allure and entice ſilly Virgins to conſent to Mens Solicitations. Epiphanius reports from one that ſaw it, ſuch a Magical Operation uſed by a Jew, to procure the Love of a Chriſtian Woman, who was preſerved from the foreign, power of his Witcheraft, by the Seal of Chriſt (as he calls the Sign of the Croſs) wherewith ſhe fortified her ſelf, at the firſt attempt made upon her, Haereſ. XXX. n. 7, 8. But ſuch wicked Wretches did a world of other Miſchief, and therefore were to be put to death, whether they were Men or Women. The Scripture indeed mentions a Witch only (ſaith the Gemara of the Sanhedrim, c. 7. n. 10.) becauſe for the moſt part, they were Women, who were addicted to Magick. So Maimonides alſo, becauſe the greater part of Evil Works are performed by Women; therefore the Law ſaith, Thou ſhalt not ſuffer MECHAS SHEPHA, a Witch to live; P. III. c. 37. More Nevochim. Where he diſcourſes of the ſorts of Witchcraft: and in general affirms, that there were no Magical Works performed, without reſpect to the Stars. For ſuch People held that every Plant had its Star, and ſo had every Animal, and all Metals. For Example; they ſaid, Pluck ſuch a Leaf, or ſuch an Herb when the Sun, or any other Planet is in ſuch a place; let ſuch a Metal be melted under ſuch a Conſtellation, or ſuch a Conſtitution of the Moon; and then ſay ſuch and ſuch words, and let a Fume be made with ſuch Herbs or Leaves, and that in ſuch or ſuch a form, and then this or that will follow. This was their Doctrine, and ſuch Works as theſe were the peculiar worſhip of the Stars, who were delighted, they fancied, with ſuch Actions, Words, or Fumes, and for the ſake of them would do whatſoever was deſired.
All this, he ſaith, he took out of their Books then extant; from which he concludes, That the Scope of the Law being, that all Idolatry ſhould be taken out of the World, and that no vertue ſhould be aſcribed to any Star, of doing good or hurt to Men, (which opinion led Men to their worſhip) it neceſſarily followed, that all Witches and Wizards ſhould be put to death, becauſe they were Idolaters; though after a peculiar and different way from that, wherein the Vulgar worſhipped Idols. And he thinks that a Witch is rather mentioned than a Wizard, (though both intended) becauſe Men are naturally more tender towards the Female Sex, and apt to favour them: and therefore it is as if Moſes had ſaid, Thou ſhalt kill even a Woman that is guilty of this Crime. But afterward, XX Lev. 27. he commands both Men and Women to be ſtoned.
Others of the Hebrew Doctors (particularly R. Levi Barzelonita) give this Reaſon why Witches were not to live, Becauſe they directly thwarted God moſt bleſſed, who made all things when he created them, for ſuch and ſuch purpoſes: which they perverted, and by devices of their own, made to ſerve other ends, which God never deſigned; Praecept. LXII. But this they could not do without the help of Evil Spirits; and therefore their Crime conſiſted in entering into a Familiarity and a League with them, whoſe aſſiſtance upon ſuch occaſion they invoked: which was, in effect, a renouncing of God.
This was an Impiety which had overſpread the whole World, eſpecially the Eaſtern parts of it. And as for the Romans, we find a Law, as old as the XII. Tables, againſt Witchcraft; Apud nos in duodecine Tabulis cavetur, ne quis alienos fructus excantaſſit, as we read in Seneca, L. IV. Nat. Quaeſt. c. 7. where he mentions the like Law among the Athenians. For the Greeks were extreamly addicted to this, eſpecially in Theſſaly. Of which none, that I have read, ſpake ſo plainly as Plato in his Eleventh Book of Laws, p. 932, 933. where he orders Puniſhments, not only for thoſe who deſtroyed others by Potions; but for thoſe who pretended to be able to revenge themſelves or others, foreign, either by certain Inchantments, or by Charms, or by thoſe Spells which are called Ties, or Knots. Concerning which, he acknowledges, it is hard to know any thing, or to perſwade others there is nothing in them. For if a Man ſee any where foreign, &c. waxen Reſemblances, made and ſet either at their doors, or in the turning of the ways, or at the Tombs of their Anceſtors; none can prevail with him to neglect theſe things, becauſe he knows not what efficacy is in them. And therefore he would have even ſuch People, who uſed theſe ſorts of Witchcrafts, to be put to death, if they were Profeſſors of any ſort of Knowledge, (as foreign) but if they were ſimple People, he leaves the Judges to puniſh them, as they found reaſon.
Ver. 19. Whoſoever lieth with a beaſt, ſhall ſurely be put to death.] This is ſo infamous a ſin, and ſuch a diſhonour to Nature, and the Author of Nature (as Conr. Pellicanus well gloſſes) that it was not fit ſuch a Perſon ſhould live upon the face of the Earth, but die without mercy. See XVIII Lev. 23. XX. 15, 16. where this is more largely handled.
Ver. 20. He that ſacrificeth unto any god, ſave unto the LORD only, he ſhall be utterly deſtroyed.] Sacrifice being the principal act of Worſhip in thoſe days, includes in it all other acts of Worſhip and Divine Service; which they were required to pay to the LORD alone, XX. 2, 3, &c. but the Puniſhment of doing otherwiſe, was not enacted till now. Of which he treats more largely XVII Deut. 2, 3, &c. See there.
Ver. 21. Thou ſhalt neither vex a ſtranger, nor oppreſs him.] Here are two diſtinct Commands. The firſt of which [not to vex a ſtranger] the Hebrews will have to conſiſt in not upbraiding him with his former ſtate of Heatheniſm, nor giving him any approbrious words: as ſaying, remember what thou wast; or what thy father did. And this was neither to be done to a Proſelyte of Juſtice, nor to a Proſelyte of the Gate, as far as Mr. Selden could judge of their opinion herein, L. II. de Jure N. & G. c. 4. The ſecond [not to oppreſs him] conſiſted in not uſing him hardly, in their dealings with him; by making him pay, for inſtance, for any thing, more than it was worth. Which, the ſame Mr. Selden (L. VI. c. 5. p. 690.) thinks, the Hebrews were of opinion, belonged only to their uſage of Proſelytes of Juſtice, who were perfectly in their Communion. But this is very unreaſonable: for (as R. Levi Barzelonita himſelf obſerves) by thus treating any Proſelyte, they might endanger their return to Paganiſm again, out of indignation to be ſo deſpiſed: and much more when they ſaw they were wrong'd. Which God took care they ſhould not be, becauſe they were more helpleſs than other Men, and had fewer Friends. Which is the reaſon that this Precept (as the Jews themſelves have computed) is inculcated in one and twenty places. See particularly XXIII. 9. XIX. Lev. 33.
For ye were ſtrangers in the land of Egypt.] There could not be a more powerful reaſon to more them to treat Strangers kindly, than the remembrance of their own Oppreſſions in Egypt, from which they were delivered by the meer Mercy of God, which they ought to imitate.
Ver. 22. Ye ſhall not afflict any widow, or fatherleſs child.] Give them no trouble, either in word or deed as the ſame R. Levi interprets it (Praecept. LXV.) but in all their Commerce with them, in buying, felling, or any other intercourſe, to treat them not only civilly, but kindly and benignly. And the reaſon of the Precept, ſaith he, is the ſame with the former; becauſe Widows and Orphans have few or none to protect them, or plead their Cauſe; and therefore the Law took care of them, as if their Huſbands and Parents were yet alive.
Ver. 23. If thou afflict them in any wiſe.] By giving them ill Language, or by infulting over them, or deſtroying their Goods: much more if … Man ſmote them, he was liable to the Judgment of God, as Nachmanides interprets it.
And they cry at all unto me.] A Child, ſaith the ſame R. Levi, cries to his Father, and a Wife to her Husband: but the Widow and the Fatherleſs cry unto me, and I will hear them, for I am merdiful.
I will ſurely hear them.] Puniſh you for your ill uſage of them, as it follows in the next Verſe.
Ver. 24. And my wrath ſhall wax hot.] This ſignifies their Puniſhment ſhould be foreign, ſent upon them from God; who orders no Penalty to be inflicted by their Judges, becauſe he intended himſelf to be their Avenger, and that in a very remarkable manner, by ſerving them in their kind; as it here follows.
And I will kill you with the ſword, and your wives ſhall be widows, and your children fatherleſs.] Here the Hebrew Doctors cry out, Meaſure for Meaſure (as R. Levi obſerves) for he threatens that the Wives of thoſe that afflicted them ſhould be Widows, and their Children fatherleſs, and find none to take pity upon them. For with the Meaſure that men mete withal, others ſhall mete to them: If a woman (as he goes on) ſhall afflict them, ſhe ſhall die, and her husband ſhall marry another wife, which ſhall afflict her children.
Ver. 25. If thou lend money to any of …ny people.] That is, to an Iſraelite.
That is poor by thoes] By a poor Man, they do not underſtand one that goes a begging; but one in ſuch want, that he is more to be pitied, than thoſe who have the confidence to beg in the Streets. The foundation of this Precept (as the before mentioned R. … obſerves) was to fix in them the great vertue of Mercy, Kindneſs, and Clemency: whereby poor People being helpt, in this way of lending them Money gratis, might recover again to a better condition, by the goodneſs of God to them.
Thou ſhalt not be as an uſurer to him.] Neither domineer over him, nor make him pray, and intreat, and wait long, as if he were a Slave; nor exact any thing for the uſe of the Money.
Neither ſhalt thou lay upon him uſury.] Not make him find Sureties: Or, as ſome of them interpret it, this is a Precept requiring all Iſraelites to have no hand in letting out Money to Uſury; either by writing the Bonds, or by being a Witneſs to them; or by being bound with others for the Intereſt of the Money: for the word they obſerve is in the Plural Number, Ye ſhall not put upon him Ʋſury. Which Law, concerning Uſury, is fully handled by Mr. Selden, L. VI. de Jure N. & G. c. 9, 10. where he ſhows that ſome Uſury was forbidden by the Law; and other by the Decrees of their Wiſe men. The Law forbad them to contract to receive back again, any Sum of Money more than they lent. But it was further required by their Wiſe men, that they ſhould not receive any Gift before hand, to induce them to lend: nor any thing afterward by way of Gratuity, or to expreſs their Thankfulneſs. Yet this laſt was permitted, in the Lone of Orphans Money, as Maimonides ſaith. And what was thus forbidden to be done to an Iſraelite, was permitted to be done to a Gentile. Nay, ſome will have that to be an affirmative Precept which we read XXIII Dent. 20. obliging them to take Uſury of a Gentile, if they lent any Money to him. But that Maimonides contradicts. And there are thoſe who think this Law only forbad them to take Uſury of a poor Iſraelite, but not of a rich: it being unreaſonable that he ſhould increaſe his Wealth by the uſe of his Neighbour's Money, and he have no profit thereof.
Ver. 26. If thou at all take thy neighbours raiment.] His Coverlid, as we ſpeak, or Bed-clothes. For it is plain by what follows, he ſpeaks of that which was to keep him from the cold in the Night.
To pledge.] As a Security for the payment of the Money which he lent him.
Thou ſhalt deliver it to him by that the Sun goeth down.] This ſhows that he ſpeaks of a poor Man; which is more fully declared XXIV Deut. 12, 13.
Ver. 27. For that is his covering only, &c.] It was contrary to Humanity, to keep from him the only thing he had to keep him warm in his Bed; for it was in effect to kill him.
And it ſhall come to paſs, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear him.] Puniſh thee for thy barbarous Cruelty, (v. 23.) and beſides, the Hebrew Doctors ſay, he was to be beaten, by order of the Court of Judgment.
For I am gracious.] And would have you like my ſelf.
Ver. 28. Thou ſhalt not revile the gods.] i. e. The Judges, as no doubt it is to be interpreted. See Mr. Selden L. II. de Jure Nat. & Gent. c. 13. p. 268. And the Hebrew Doctors give this reaſon for it; becauſe it tends to terrifie them from doing Juſtice, and expoſes them to the contempt and hatred of the People; whom it alſo inclines to Sedition. But many of them (See him c. 1. p. 9.) will have another Precept contained in this, That they Blaſpheme not the Name of the moſt High. Some few alſo (among whom is Philo) fancy it to be a Command not to revile the Gods that other People worſhip, though they be falſe ones. And ſo Julian the Apoſtate took it; who is confuted by St. Cyril, as Mr. Selden there obſerves.
Nor curſe the ruler of thy people.] That is, either the Prince of Iſrael, or the Preſident of the great Sanhedrim. So R. Levi Barzelonita (Praecept. LXXVII.) The intention of the Scripture is to admoniſh us of our Duty to him, who is the Prince of the Empire of Iſrael; with reſpect both to the Dominion of the Kingdom, and of the Law (as his words are) it being a great Crime to ſpeak evil of him, by whoſe care all Differences were compoſed, &c.
If any Man was guilty of this Crime, he was to be ſcourged three times: and if he were the Son of a Prince, he had four Scourgings. And that very juſtly; for Heathens themſelves reckoned this among the greateſt Offences. It was one of the Laws of Charondas (as Hen. Stephanus obſerves in his Fontes & Rivis Juris Civilis) foreign, let theſe be reckoned the greatest Crimes; Contompt of the Gods, and voluntary abuſe of Parents; diſreſpect to Rulers and Laws; and voluntary diſhonour of Juſtice. In like manner Zalenous ordains, that next after the Gods, and Daemons, and Heroes, foreign, Parents and the Laws and Rulers, ſhould be equally had in honour. And Plato thought thoſe that would not be ſubject to them, were unſufferable; becauſe they had the Spirit of the old Titans, who would have pull'd the Gods out of their Thrones, foreign.
Ver. 29. Thou ſhalt not delay to offer the firſt of thy ripe fruit, &c.] The Hebrews will have this to be a direction, for the bringing unto God, in due order, thoſe things which were to be offered to him. As firſt the Trumah; which was the firſt Oblation that was made out of the Corn, when it was newly thraſhed out: which was to be, they ſay, a fiftieth part; which was given to the Prieſt. Then the firſt Tithe, which was given to the Levites; and the ſecond Tithe, which the Poſſeſſors eat at Jeruſalem, when the Tabernacle was ſetled there. This order, they ſay, God here requires them not to invert, by offering that laſt which ſhould have been firſt. So R. Levi of Barcelona, Praecept. LXXVIII. But, from what follows, it ſeems to relate only to the Firſt-fruits of their Harveſt, and of their Vintage; which they were bound to bring as ſoon as they were ripe; and it was the Portion of the Prieſts. See XVIII Deut. 4. There was no determinate Portion preſcribed: but they who were tollerably good (as the Hebrews ſay) gave a fiftieth part; liberal Men a fortieth; and covetous Men a ſixtieth; leſs than which was not accepted for a Trumah.
The firſt-born of thy ſons ſhalt thou give me.] The reaſon of this is given Chap. XIII. when it was firſt enacted.
Ver. 30. Likewiſe ſhalt thou do with thine oxen, &c.] See XIII. 2, 12, 15.
On the eighth day thou ſhalt give it me.] It was not acceptable to God, becauſe not fit to be offered to him, till the eighth day; for the ſame reaſon that Children were not Circumciſed till the eighth day. For all Creatures when they are newly born, ſaith Maimonides, (P. III. More Nevoch. c. 49.) by reaſon of their abundant moiſture, are ſo weak and feeble, that it is doubtful whether they will live or no: and therefore, till ſeven days be over, they are lookt upon as but Abortives, (ſo his words are) and ſcarce numbred among the Living. Beſides, they are not ſufficiently purged till then, from the foulneſs of their Stomach and Bowels: which is another reaſon they were not to be offered unto God; who did not accept that which was imperfect or impure. Whatſoever was the reaſon, this Law was obſerved alſo among the Gentiles, as Bochart ſhows out of Pliny in his Hierozoic. P. I. L. II. c. 50.
Yet there was this difference between theſe, and the Firſt-fruits mentioned in the foregoing Verſe; that though theſe Creatures were ſit for Sacrifice on the eighth day, yet they might ſtay longer before they were offered, though not beyond the year, for then they were not accepted, (as was obſerved before, XII. 5.) but the Firſt-fruits of Corn, Wine and Oyl, were to be offered preſently, as ſoon as they were ripe.
Ver. 31. And ye ſhall be holy men unto me.] Becauſe the Iſraelites were a peculiar People, ſeparated to God by peculiar Laws and Rites by him inſtituted, (and thence called an holy Nation, XIX. 6.) therefore God commanded them to diſtinguiſh themſelves, even in their Diet, from other People: and look upon it as below their Dignity, to eat ſuch things as the Gentiles did. This is the meaning of their being holy to God, as appears from XIV Deut. 2, 3, 21.
Neither ſhall ye eat any fleſh that is torn of beaſts in the field.] Both becauſe the Blood was in it, and it was devoured by unclean Creatures. R. Levi, before mentioned, ſaith it was unwholſome; which he makes the reaſon of the Prohibition. But whether it was torn by a Wolf, a Lion, or a Bear, or any other Beaſt, it made no difference, if ſo be it died preſently, or not long after. So the Jews interpret the Hebrew word Terephah, as L'Empereur obſerves out of Moſes Mikkotſi (in his Notes upon Bava kama, cap. 7. ſect. 2.) who faith it ſignifies that which a Beast tears, or bruiſes, ſo that it is near to death, though it be not actually dead. For if it was dead, they call it foreign Nevelah, a Carcaſe: which in their Language ſignifies not only that which dies of it ſelf, but which is killed with a Weapon, or torn by a wild Beaſt. Accordingly they take Terephah here to ſignifie not only that which is torn by Beaſts, but that which any other way is ſo hurt, that it is near to death. As if it fall from an Houſe, and break its Ribs, or other Members; or an Arrow be ſhot through its Heart or Lungs; or any Diſeaſe have affected choſe Vital parts. If Death were likely to inſue upon ſuch things, it was not to be eaten.
In the field.] Whether it were torn in the Field, or any other place, it made no difference: but the Field is mentioned, becauſe there commonly ſuch things happen.
Ye ſhall cast it to the dogs.] R. Solomon ſaith, they might ſell it to the Gentiles, whom the Jews counted no better than Dogs. Which agrees with the Decree in the Miſna, (Bava kama, cap. 7. ſect. 2.) that though it appeared afterward, a Thief had ſtoln what was torn, yet he was to make the Legal Reſtitution: contrary to the Opinion of R. Simeon, who abſolved ſuch a Thief, becauſe he might not eat it, and conſequently have no benefit by it. But moſt thought he might ſell it; and therefore was liable to make Satisfaction. If any Iſraelite did eat of it, he was to be Scourged. Sir J. Marſham quotes the like Precept out of Phocylides his Verſes, which end thus, —foreign. Let Beaſts be eaten by Beaſts. Chron. Egypt. Sec. IX.