TTIEZ

CRIMINAL CODE OF THE JEWS

A C C O RDING T O THE TA LM UD

A S SE C HE TH S YNHE DRIN

ET HLH’ BE RGE R. BE NNY

L O ND O N

S M IT H ; E LDE R , C O . , 1 5 WA TE RLO O PLACE1 880

A ND M RS J O SEPH N . LINDO ‘

T HIS SER IES O F PA P E RS

i s gxhitatth

“11TH EVE RY SENT I M ENT O F

KINDLY RE GA RD

P R E F A C E .

T HE following chapters appeared originally

as articles in the Pall Mall Gazette. ’ They

are here reprinted without material altera

tion , and with some few additions . To the

kindness of Mr. F . Greenwood , the writer

i s indebted for many suggestions , which

were fol lowed when preparing them for

publ ication .

C O N T E NT S .

CHA PTER I .

INTRO DUCTO RY

CHAPTER I I .

T HE DEVELO PMENT O F THE M O SA IC CO DE—O BS O

LETE LAWS—T H E LE x TAL IO N I S—PRE S C RIP

T IO Ns O F THE TA LM UD

CHAPTER I I I .

T HE CO N STITUTIO N O F T H E CO URTS—T HE QUAL IFIC A T IO N O F J UDGES— PERSO N S DI SQUAL I F I ED

CHA PTER IV .

T HE CO N STITUTIO N O F THE CO URTS—DIV I S IO NO F A UTHO R ITY— PRO CEDURE

CHAPTER V.

28

x C ontents.

CHAPTER VI.

FO RM O F TR IAL IN CAP ITAL CASES

CHAPTER VII.

T HE VAR IO US M ETHO DS O F E ! ECUTIO N

CHAPTER VI I I.

M URDER—A DULTERY—IDO LATRY

CHAPTER I! .

C ITIES O F R EFUGE—T HE PUN I SHMENT FO R PE R

J URY—FLO GGINO

CHAPTER ! .

M I SCELLANEO US LAWS—CO NCLUS IO N

T HE

CRIM INAL CODE OF THE J EWS .

C HA PT E R I .

I N T R O D U C T O R Y.

H E who would understand a people must

know its laws , especial ly i ts penal laws not

the mere dicta of its statutes , but their pra cti

cal appl ication and its scheme of judicial ad

ministration . The legal code of a community

is— to coin a pseudo-scientific term— but a sys

tem of appl ied morals . I n the criminal legisla

tion of a country is embodied the publ ic stan

dard of right and wrong. The organ isation of

its tribunals,the simpl icity of its procedure

,

the severity of its penalties, the nature of its

punishments,are so many l iving illustrat ions

B

2 C r z'

mz

’

na / C oa’e of M e 75 203.

of the wisdom and forethought and justice

and human ity of those who frame , in terpret ,

and abide by these laws . Nowhere are

national pecul iarities more Characteristi cally

prominent than in the jurid ical scheme and

penal practice of a people. E very detail is

instructive. What,for instance

,can be more

suggestive of the temper of the ancient

E gyptian , with h is high notions O f rectitude

and h is stern sense of justice, than the pro

h ibition of pleading on behalf of e ither plain

tiff or defendant P Sombre , impassive, and

undemonstrative sat the th irty judges and

their self-elected president in the hall of

assembly. With reverential awe for the

wise men , the su itors entered , each bringing

with him a written statement of the cause to

be adjud icated upon . The deposit ions were

handed to the ch ief of the tribunal , who re

ceived them without question or comment.

The parties as silently withdrew only when

the decision of the court had been arrived at

were the plaintiff and defendant re-admitted ,

Introduction. 3

i n order that the judgment might be commu

mi cated to them . The p icture of inflexible

impartial ity here presented to us is com

plete .

Again , can anyth ing be more charac

teristic of Assyrian l ife than the inequal i ty

between man and woman in the eyes of the

law wh ich we find ind icated in some of the

few fragments h itherto discovered of the

penal code of Ashur I f a husband,’ runs

a cuneiform text,say unto h is wife “ Thou

art not my wife,

” he shall pay half a minna of

s ilver. ’ But if a woman repud iate her hus

band , and say unto h im ,

“ Thou art not my

husband (inn na rn inadnssn) , he shall drown

her in the river.’ I n the criminal system of

the Athenians , too , i t i s not a l ittle indicative

of the refined , hypersensitive , and artificially

cultured Greek to find him attempting to

emulate the gods ’ by extending to the ch il

dren of an offender the pun ishment infl icted

on their parent . E ven when a crime had

already been expiated by death , the descend

B 2

4 C r imina l C ode of tne yen/s .

ants of the condemned suffered the penal ty of

legal disqual ification . S tudents O f antiqu ity

have been by no means indifferent to the

lesson thus conveyed . The legal codes of

most ancient peoples have been dil igently

examined . The laws of the Brahmans and

of the Parsis, of the Greeks and of the

Romans , of the C hinese and of the M ussul

mans,have found zeal ous exponents . The

judic ial system O f the Hebrews alone has

been neglected . Notwithstanding i ts value

as a record of J ewish thought and feel ing

and custom , i t i s almost unknown to E ngl ish

scholars and jurists .

I t i s probably no exaggeration to assert

that not a dozen O f the foremost B iblical

critics in E ngland know anything O f the legal

code of the Jews. The most profound igno

rance prevails regard ing the practical mode

of admin istering law and justice as i t oh

ta ined among the Hebrews during the pro

ph etic period and at the time of the destruc

t ion of the second Temple of jerusalem .

Introduction . 5

The notions of J ewish law and jurisprudence

generally current are extremely vague and

undefined . The popular conceptions upon

the subject are gathered from the injunctions

and ordinances of the Mosaic Pentateuch .

A s a matter of fact , the laws of Moses are

about as well calculated to give one an in

s ight into the H ebrew legal scheme as a

perusal of our statute—book— a collection of

our Acts of Parl iament, our written law

alone , without the aid of common law

and precedent, would give of the E ngl ish

system of jurid ical procedure . He who

would’

understand the penal code of the

H ebrews— the practical code , that i s, of the

people,as it was in operation during the

later period of J ewish national ity—must not

depend upon the Pentateuch . He must turn

to the Talmud—that much mal igned and

even more misunderstood compilation of

the rabbins ; that d igest of what C arlyle

would term a ller lei—wzksenscnaften ; which is

at once the compendium of their l iterature,

6 C r im ina l C ode of tne yews.

the storehouse of their tradition , the ex

ponent of their fa ith , the record of thei r

acquirements, the handbook of their ceremo

n ials,and the summary of their legal code ,

civi l and penal . Herein he shal l find a sys

tem of jurisprudence ingenious and elabo

rate ; a scheme of organ isation at once

simple and effective ; and a criminal law the

most interesting and probably the most hu

mane that antiqu ity has transmitted to us .

The sensation produced some few years

ago by the appearance of Dr. Deutsch ’s bri l

l iant article o n the Talmud is scarcely yet

forgotten . Had th is accompl ished scholar

been longer spared , l iterature would doubt

less have been enriched with many a mono

graph upon the thousand and one subjects

treated of in th is composition of the rabbins .

Fate has decided otherwise. But the seed

he cast abroad into the world has not al l fallen

into stony or sterile soil . He succeeded in

arousing a general and wide-spread interest

i n the Talmud and its contents ; an interest

l ntr odnetion. 7

which the modern spiri t of inqu iry has in

tens ified. We purpose , therefore, to devote

to the criminal law of the Talmud as laid

down in M a ssech eth S ynh edrinl—not wholly,

but princ ipally there— a few brief chapters

explain ing the organisation of tribunal s

among the J ews, the consti tution and juris

dict ion o f their S ynh edrin , their system of pro

cedure , their mode O f examin ing witnesses,

the ir class ification of crimes , the punishments

they infl icted , and their methods of executing

those cap i tally condemned. As we before

O bserved , the subject i s one entirely unex

plored and an exposition , however brief and

imperfect, cannot but throw additional l ight

upon the character, intellect, and pecul iari ties

O f a truly wonderful people.

Two noteworthy—we cannot say success

ful—attempts have of late been made to pre

sent to modern times a fair and impartial

v iew of the criminal legislation of the He

brews . O ne o f these is the monograph of

M . T h onissen,in h is Etudes sur l’H isto ire

8 C r imina l C ode of tae y ea /5 .

du Droit C riminel des Peuples Anciens .’ The

other is the Legis la tion C riminelle du Tal

mud ’

o f Dr. Rabbinowicz. Both must be

regarded as failures —the former conspicu

ously so . M . T h onissen , who is one of the

ablest C athol ic professors in Belgium,has

failed from want of special knowledge ; Dr.

R abbinowicz has failed in sp ite of profound

Talmudic knowledge and general erudition .

A few observations i n explanation of th is will

throw some l ight upon the peculia r nature

of the treatise which forms the basis of our

knowledge O f the J ewish penal code . M .

T h onissen has founded his study of the sub

ject upon the text of the Pentateuch , dis

regarding altogether the commentaries O f the

rabbins and the ir expositions . Now we have

no wish whatever to enter into any arg ument

as to the value of H ebrew tradition or the

D ivine origin of th e O ral Law. This,how

ever, we assert : that the enactments, C ivi l

and criminal, of the F ive Books of Moses ,

as they stand in the Bible are unintell igible

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

10 C r imina l C ode of tne yen/s .

number it would be impracticable. For ih

stance , a nonen— a priest,that is—was for

b idden to marry a woman who was d ivorced ,

or a widow who had performed the cere

mony of loosen ing the shoe of her brother-in

law. Should he in defiance of th is prohibition

marry such a female h is sons were debarred

from the priesthood. Assuming now that an

I srael ite Charged a nonen with being the issue

of such a union—a charge which , if proved ,

would remove him from his o ffice—and this

witness was subsequently convicted of per

j ury : how could the slanderer who had vio

lated his oath be degraded from what he was

not permitted to assume— the functions of

the priesthood ! No penalty i n such a case

is provided by the Mosaic code. Yet i t

could scarcely have been the intention of the

legislator to pun ish the ly ing witness in one

case and permit h im to get off scot free in

another. The tradi tionary procedure clears

up the difficulty. S imilar difficulties con

tinua lly arise in the practical appl ication of

Introduction . I I

most of the written enactments. I n all these

instances we are driven to the O ral Law for a

satisfactory explanation . The Hebrew law

giver foresaw probably the awkward contin

g encies which would inevitably occur con

sequent upon a hard and fast adherence to

ordinances formulated in the Pentateuch , and

su ited only to the C ircumstances and conditions

of the people under his personal guidance and

supervis ion in the Wilderness. Hence h i s

injunction that the Jews should , immediately

upon their settlement in Palestine appoint

them ‘judges and officers ,’

i .e. form regular

courts for the administration of just ice . This

of course necessitated the inauguration of a

recogn ised mode O f procedure formulated in

consonance with the traditions of the people ,

and varied as the exigencies of the nat ion

required and experience rendered advisable.

The nature of the arrangements made i n

compliance with the Mosaic injunction can

be gathered only from the Talmud . M .

T h onissen’

s essay upon the J ewish code re

I 2 C r imina l C ode of t/ce yea /s .

sembles most nearly that wh ich a foreigner

would write upon the E ngl ish criminal laws

after a perusal of our statute-book- our Acts

of Parl iament—disregarding such authorit ies

as Blackstone and C oke and Bra cton, and

their common-law system , and ignorant alto

gether of the pract ice of the courts and the

precedents they have establ ished . What such

an exposition would be worth may easily be

imagined. That M . T h onissen S hould under

these C i rcumstances have failed is scarcely to

be wondered at .

M . Rabbinowicz’

s failure is now to be

accounted for. He has given to the world

a d isqu isition upon the penal code of the

Hebrews in the shape of a critical tra ns la

t ion O f the treatise S ynh edrin,and of such

portions of M a kk o th as refer to the pun ish

ment of criminals . He is h imself a profound

Talmudist ; but he does not make allowance

for those who have not the advantage of

being intimately acquainted with the rab

binica l authorities . The Talmud,be i t O b

Introduction . I3

served,i s essentially argumentative ; th is

fact should constantly be borne in mind .

The M ischna no sooner lays down an axiom

than a Bera'

I’

th a (precedent or tradi tion Whose

origin is coeval with those contained in the

M ischna,but which the editor of the last

named collection decided to omit) i s brought

forward to contradict i t. Hereupon the com

menta tors set to work in order to harmon ise

the apparent inconsistency or disaccord . An

opponent will then urge against the agree

ment thus establ ished the O pin ion O f one of

the T h a na Im—rabbins , or heads of colleges ,who were anterior to, or contemporaries of,

the editor of the M ischna. The Amorai’m

—doctors whose d isqu is itions constitute the

Gh ema ra— thereupon take up the discuss ion

pro and con . Frequently the arguments

terminate , and apparently no conclusion i s

arrived at. I t is th is that renders the study

O f the Talmud so extremely difficult. I t

seems impossible to understand which of the

views enunciated by the respect ive auth ori

I4 C r imina l C ode of tne yea/s .

t ies we are to accept as decis ive . O nly

those accustomed to the mode of reason ing

adopted by the rabbins , and acquainted with

the relat ive value to be attached to the dicta

of the several doctors as explained in the

various commentaries , can deduce the laws

with any approach to accuracy.

Many points , however, are wholly unde

term ined, and probably always will remain

unsolved . I n giving a translation of the

treatise S ynh edrin M . Rabbinowicz has

therefore placed in the hands of the reader

the material whence he may derive a know

ledge of the criminal law. Some explana

t ions -O f seemingly difficult points are given

but the student must pick h is own way with

out the train ing or help which would enable

h im with profit to do so. O f the multifarious

O pinions expressed he nine times ou t of ten

knows not which to choose . Hence , despite

the undoubted abil i ty of the author, and the

acknowledged meri t of the work itself, Dr.

Rabbinowicz has not succeeded in giving a

Introduction . I 5

digest of the criminal law of the Talmud .

H is introduction is by far the best part of

the work ; but the views therein expressed

do not always merit complete and ent ire

acceptance . We shall , as we proceed , in

dica te here and there the doubtful points,

as they appear to us, of M . Rabbinowicz’

s

summary.

Having thus briefly, by way of intro

duction,explained the source whence our

knowledge of the H ebrew penal code is to

be derived,and pointed out what we regard

as the defects of those who have of late

attempted an exposit ion of the enactments

O f which it is composed , we may proceed to

the consideration of this interest ing judicial

system .

1 6 C r imina l C ode of tne 7ews .

C HA PTE R I I .

THE DEVELO PMENT O F THE MO SA IC CO DE—O BSO LETELAWS—THE LE ! TALIO N I S—PRESCR IPT IO N S O F THETALMUD .

T HE penal code of the H ebrews in the

Talmudic period had developed itself gra

dually in a manner somewhat similar to the

Athenian criminal law in the days of Demos

th enes . I n each of these legal systems we

can discover three elements superimposed .

I n the case O f the Greeks there had been

original ly the laws of Draco formulated abou t

six centuries before the C hristian era. They

consisted of a series O f rel igious ordinances

and traditionary practices . These were sub

sequently modified by Solon ; sti l l further

amended in al l probabil i ty by C l isthenes

after the triumph of the Democracy. This

period saw the institution of popular tribu

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

C r imina l C ode of tae yea/s .

for the admin istration of justice,as soon as

they were settled in Palestine. (Deut. xvi .

Lastly , we find in the Talmud,laws a ttri

butable evidently to the period which inter

vened between the destruction of the fi rst

and second Temples . About th is time a

number of the Mosaic ordinances had be

come utter anachronisms. Some were per

fectly impracticable ; one or two were no

longer even understood . The exigencies of

the age and the C i rcumstances of the people

necess i tated t h e adoption of several enact

ments unknown to the Pentateuch . Through

out , however, the whole of the penal code of

the Talmud— as in its various stages O f de

velopment— the D ivine origin of the Hebrew

legal system is never for a moment lost

s ight of. The abol ition of a Mosaic enact

men t is with the Rabbins s imply a state

ment that it has fallen into desuetude. I n

formulating a new law, rendered necessary

by the altered condition of their existence , i t

i s invariably founded upon some principle or

M osa ic a nd Ta lmudic L aws . 1 9

other contained in the Written Law,or de

ducible from the general dicta therein laid

down by their inspired legislator. L ike the

Greeks The Sons of Hesiod,

gave to man justice, the most precious ofgood

gifts — the J ews , i n the interpretation of the ir

ancient laws , as in the appl ication of new

ordinances , were ever mindful O f the D ivine

source whence their system of judicature

originated .

The Mosaic prescriptions , which in the

course of time had fallen into desuetude,and

had in fact become altogether obsolete , in

clude many O f the most characterist ic laws

of the Pentateuch . A mong such ordinances

was the injunction which determined the

pun ishment of a stubborn and rebel l ious son .

O f th is commandment the C hemara—by the

dicta of Rabbi S imon— observes ! ‘The

Bibl ical law concern ing a stubborn and re

bellious son never has been and never can be

pra ctically appl ied . I f we nevertheless study

i t , i t i s s imply as one does a l i terary ex

c 2

20 C r imina l C ode of tne Yews .

ercise .

’ S imilarly, the Mosaic enactment, in

accordance with which a city given to idol

atry was ordered to be destroyed , had be

come a pure anachron ism in the latter days

of the J ewish national ity. According to the

Talmud,th is law could not have been carried

into effect at any period . And the penal

code further took no longer a ny cognisance

of a large class of O ffences known as acts of

omission . An extremely important ord i

nance of the Pentateuch concerning the pu

nishment of perjurers was imperfectly under

stood by the Rabbins . The apparently simple

law which determined the penalty incurred

by witnesses whose evidence was proved to

be false was beset with d ifficulties,and found

inappl icable to the times . The Gh ema ra

declares through Rabba that th e ‘Mosaic

injunction which condemns the witness who

i s perjured , by proving an al ib i against him ,

i s a lcidousc/c— a law we are not able to ex

plain o r comprehend .

’

Among the ordinances of Moses,of wh ich

M osa ic a nd Ta lmudic L aws . 2 I

no trace is to be found in the Talmud, i s the

so -Called lex ta lionis . More nonsense has

probably been written respecting th is law of

retal iation (which crops up in every code

of antiqu ity) than would fi l l the proverbial

bushe l a goodly number of t imes . I t is gene

rally quoted as satisfactori ly demonstrating

the harshness and severity of the punish

ments ordained in the Pentateuch .

More than one theological school con

s ider the dicta ‘eye for eye,tooth for tooth ’

as the very qu intessence of J ewish legisla

tion . The O dium attached to the Mosaic

code , on account of th is law , furnishes a n

other i llustration of the vulgar adage about

giving a dog an ill name . C uriously enough ,

there i s a remarkable parallel to this miscon

ception i n the case of the Athenian jurist

Draco. H is code is fabled to have been

written in blood ; death was the least of the

punishments he infl i cted . H is name has fur

nish ed an appellation for al l that is harsh

even to cruelty, unmerciful even to barbarity.

2 2 C r imina l C ode of tae _

‘

7ews .

Y et what is the truth P H is laws relating to

homicide (graven on a pi llar at Athens) con

tinued in force as long as the city was inde

pendent. A murderer was permitted , under

this code, to fly in order to escape the ven

geance of the family of his victim . Sentence

of exile could be pronounced by the judges

in cases of manslaughter. Degradation from

the rank of citizen was one of the penalties

of his system . And more remarkable sti ll ,

Pollux ( ix. 6 1 ) distinctly says that the fine

for slaying a man was ten oxen ! S O much

for the reputed severity of the Dracon ic

Laws . The rid iculous and wholly absurd

nature of the prejudice anent that bugbear

of the F ive Books of Moses, the law of re

tal iati on , is even more unfounded than in the

case of Draco .

The lex ta l ionis was s imply a law by

which a person del iberately and purposely

and mal iciously infl i cting upon another cer

tain specified injuries , was l iable to have

sim i lar injuries infl icted upon his own person .

M osaic a nd T a lmudic L aws . 23

This penalty was directed against a mode of

vengeance extremely prevalent i n ancient

days. Mutilation , dismemberment, and s imi

lar eccentricities of our progenitors ,‘the chil !

dren of the world ,’ were common methods

of hurting one ’s supposed enemies , especially

in eastern lands . There such practices are

by no means forgotten even now. The O b

ject O f the criminal was to palpably and

visibly disfigure or emasculate h is victim. I n

such cases what would have been the deter

rent effect of a pecuniary indemnity, of inca r

ceration,or even of corporal punishment i’

None whatever, where a man had determ ined

upon injuring his O pponent in a manner suffi

c iently conspicuous to d isgrace or dishonour

him . Nothing but the lex ta l ionis was l ikely

to prove of service in preventing the commis

s ion of such inhuman and das tardly outrages.

That the law was not otherwise appl ied by

any nation we have ample evidence to S how .

Among the Greeks,for instance, who in

cluded this enactment in their ancient code ,

24 C r imina l C ode of tne yen/s .

E vi l for evil ,’ says IE sch ylus ,

‘was the sen

tence of ancient days ’

) one O f the princ ipal

functions of the second of the A thenian tribu

na ls was to arrange between the murderer

and the parents of h is victim the payment of

the blood-money authorised by thei r penal

laws . To suppose that a man guilty O f a

capital O ffence should be condemned in a

pecuniary penalty, while one accidentally in

j uring his neighbour was subject to the !ex

ta l ionis , would be the height of absurdity.

Among the Hebrews the necessity for pre

serving the law of retal iation as part of the

legal code had disappeared long before the

Talmudic period . I n accordance with their

traditions,all cases of assault or wounding

were punishable by fines , the O ffender making

ful l and ample indemn ity to the person hurt .

With regard to the new laws formulated

in the Talmud , and of which no trace what

ever is to be discovered in the Pentateuch,

there is one of the utmost significance ; one

that will admi t of a very simple explanat ion,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

26 C r imina l C ode of t/ce Yea /s .

Rabbinowicz points out. He regards th is law

of the Talmud as purposely enacted in order

to abol ish altogether the pun ishment of death .

I t would of course have th is effect. For no

individual would be l ikely to inform his

friends or neighbours,or acquaintances , that

he was about to commit a murder. The op

po rtunity to give h im this prel iminary warn

ing would never, i n point of fact, occur. The

same of adultery , or seduction with violence,

crimes which were also punishable with

death . By insisting upon this conditional

ci rcumstance as absolutely necessary to ensure

a capital conviction,the criminal would , as

intended , invariably escape the penalty of

death . Against the v iews of Dr. Rabbino

wicz we would urge two very simple facts.

I n the first place the ordinances and preca u

tions of the Talmud were already— and

without the pro viso referred to—more than

suffic ien t to prevent the sentence of death

from be ing pronounced except in extremely

rare cases . A nd in the second place, the

M osa ic and Ta lmudic L aws . 27

O pin ions of many of the T h ana im are, as we

shall in the proper place fully explain, Op

posed to the assumption of Dr. Rabb inowicz.

The true purpose and object of. th is curious

Institution of the Talmud will then appear.

28 C r imina l C ode of tne yen/s .

C HA PTE R I I I .

THE CO NSTITUTIO N O F THE CO URTS—THE QUAL I FICATIO N O F J UDGES—PERSO NS DI SQUAL IF I ED.

F O R the administration of justice there existed

among the Hebrews three kinds of tribunals :

1, Petty courts composed O f three judges , and

competent to adjudicate upon civil causes

only ; 2 , The provincial S ynh edrin,consisting

of three-and-twenty members,and having

criminal jurisdiction as wel l as the power of

deciding in ord inary matters ; and , 3, The

Great S ynh edrin of J erusalem ,which was the

supreme authority of the nation . I n contra

distinction to the practice of every other

ancient nation , the K ing, among the J ews,

was not permitted to exercise judicial func

t ions . Unl ike the H igh Priest,he could

neither judge nor could he be judged . Nor

O rg a ni sa tion of tne Tr iouna ls . 29

had the Sovereign any voice, prerogative, or

influence in the appointment of the judges ;

nor was it for h im to interfere in any way

with the organ isation of the various tribunals .

The people alone had the right to nominate

the members of the S ynh edrin. The scheme

of legal admin istration was based on the

representative system and what we should

nowadays term universal suffrage. I n the

case of the petty courts for the trial O f civi l

processes the mode of appointment was es

s entia lly primit ive and s imple. The plaintiff

and defendant in a cause nominated each of

them a competent person to act as judge.

The two who were thus selected together

named a th ird . O f course these tribunals

were not permanent. They sat only when

required .

I n the case of the courts of criminal juris

d iction the mode of organisation and the

manner in which they were constituted

were as fol lows z—E very town inhabited by

one hundred and twenty famil ies could have

C r imina l C ode of tne yews .

a S ynh edrin of three-and -twenty members

To each place thus qual ified the Great Syn

h edrin of J erusalem sent an order bidding the

residents assemble and nominate from among

themselves such as were learned and modest

and popular. ’ F i t representatives and apt

were accordingly elected . A return was

thereupon made to the Great S ynh edrin,and

the supreme body immediately despatched

an authorisation , in conformity with custom ,

which constituted the delegates named a cor

po ra te S ynh edrin. As a rule these tribunals

in the smaller towns sat only occasionally for

judicial purposes. But in large and im

portant centres there were , necessarily, per

m anent courts . In those cities where rabbini

cal colleges were establ ished for the study O f

the law , such institutions , by a natural transi

t ion and development , came to be charged

with the admin istration of justice. Such,for

example , were the academies O f Jabneh,

under th e famous Gamal iel ; O f Beni Berak .

under Rabbi Akiba ; of Lud , under Rabbi

07g a nisa tion of t/ze T r iouna ls . 3I

E leazar ; of S ikhni, under the direction of

Hananya ben T ’

ra dyon .

I n J erusalem there were three S ynh edrin

two ordinary, of twenty-three members each ,

and the Great S ynh edrin of the nation , con

s isting of seventy-one of the most eminent

judges of the country. The first sat in that

part of the Temple called the Har-h aba ith

the second , i n the court known as the

Azara ; and the supreme council in the L i sh

kat-h aga zith . The first consisted O f members

sel ected from the various provincial S ynh e

drin ; the second was recruited from the first ;

and the Great S ynh edrin, in turn , fi l led up

any vacancies in its numbers from those who

composed the second . This completed the

administrat ive system of the Hebrews for

judicial purposes . The organisation was ex

ceeding ly s imple , eminently representative ,

and it seems to have been thoroughly effec

t ive. E very su itor found at his own door a

tribunal competent to hear and decide his

plaint without delay or expense ; criminals

32 C r imina l C ode of tne yen/s .

were spared suspense and ignominy by being

able to secure an immediate trial ; and within

easy reach of either complainant or defendant,

prosecutor or prisoner, was a permanent Syn

bedrin to wh ich appeals could be made from

the sentence or decis ion of the local court.

Under th is scheme every man— every

J ew,that is—might asp ire to the dignity of a

judge. I n order, however, to prevent any

but competent and well-qua lified persons

from being appointed to the various tribunals

ample precautions were taken . I t was not

necessary in the case of the provincial Syn

h edrin to guard against sheer inefficiency.

N O I srael ite could be absolutely ignorant of

the law . I t must be remembered that educa

t ion was well advanced among the Hebrews,

especially after the first or Babylon ian cap

tivity . A system of compulsory instruction

had been introduced by J oshua, the son of

Gamala. There was a school-board for each

d istrict. E very child more than six years

of age was obl iged to attend the communal

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

34 C r imina l C ode of tne Yews.

extensive crim inal jurisd iction , to be qual ified

to act as judge in a trial involving the l ife

or dea th of a fellow-creature , was another

matter. Here legal acumen , proved abil i ty.

sound knowledge , and undoubted integrity

were required. Such men , ‘ learned in the

law ’ and versed in science , might subse

quently be admitted into the S ynh edrin O f

J erusalem , the supreme council of the na

tion . The sta ndard of qual ification wa s

therefore necessari ly high in every particular.

Accord ingly, when a mandate from the capi

tal authoris ing the formation O f a criminal

tribunal arrived in a town , the residents took

every precaution to nominate such men whose

antecedents and acqu irements guaranteed

their fi tness for the posts they were to occupy.

The election of representatives incompeten t

and inapt might have been followed by a

refusal of the certificate of legal ity from the

Great S ynh edrin .

Few things are more remarkable in the

Hebrew penal code than the clauses by which

O rg a nisa tion of tne Triouna ls . 35

certain persons were d isqual ified from acting

as judges , under any c ircumstances whatever.

All who made money by dice-playing, by

any games O f hazard,by betting on pigeon

matches , and s imilar objectionable practices ,

were not only. incapable of becoming members

of a tribunal, but were not permitted to give

ev idence in a trial. The Gh ema ra regards a

man who gains money by the amusements

named as actually dishonest. A J ew who

was in the habi t of lending money upon

usury was in l ike manner d isqual ified . The

disqual ification extended not only to those

who took interest of their brethren , but even

to cases where the money had been borrowed

by a heathen . Nor could a slave-dealer s it

as judge. The Talmud stigmatises such a

person as inhuman and unfeel ing, and inca

pable therefore of deciding an issue involving

the l ife or l iberty or even property of another.

O f course this ordinance appl ied to the traffic

in human creatures who were not J ews ; the

kidnapping O f an I srael ite be ing punishable

D 2

36 C r imina l C ode of tne yen/s .

with death . The following were also regarded

as jud ic ially incapacitated those who dealt in

the fruits of the seventh year, for they could

not be deemed conscientious those who were

in any way concerned in the cause to be adju

dica ted upon , for they were interested ; all

relatives , no matter what the degree of con

sanguin ity, of the person accused ; al l who

would inherit property from the criminal who

was on trial , or would benefit by h is condem

nation or loss ; and persons who had been

guilty of seduction or the lesser form of adul

tery which was pun ishable by fine or flogging.

O ne other d isqual ification , noteworthy in

its way, also existed . A man who had not,

or had never had , a fixed O ccupation,trade

,

or business, by which he earned a l ivel ihood ,

was not allowed to act as judge. He who

neglects to teach h is son a trade,’ say the

rabbins, ‘ i s as though he ta ught h im to steal.

’

Such a lad had no resource in manhood but

to beg or r ob . A man without a cal l ing or

profess ion was moreover regarded as not cal !

O rg a nisa tion of til e Tr iouna ls . 37

“

cula ted to have consideration or sympathy

for those exposed to the hard contingencies

of l ife . I n trials where capital punishment

might be infl i cted in case O f Convict ion the

following also were disqual ified —A n aged

man , because his years and infirmities were

l ikely to render him harsh , perhaps obstinate

and unyielding ; a judge who had never had

any ch ildren of h is own , for he could not

know the paternal feel ing which should warm

h im on behalf of the son of I srael who was

in peril O f his l ife ; and a bastard ; not an

i llegitimate son— for such a relationship could

not exist among the J ews— but one born of a

forbidden or criminal connection . Nor under

any circumstances was a man known to be

at enmity with the accused person permitted

to occupy a posit ion among h is judges . Such

enmity was , by the way, presumed to exist

when the judge or witness had not spoken to

the person charged with any offence for a

period of more than three days .

According to M a ssech eth S ynh edrin,

38 C r imina l C ode of tue 7ews .

mental qual ities and intellectual acquirements

of no ordinary character were necessary to

constitute a competent judge. He was , i n

the first instance, to be modest, of good re

pute among his neighbours,and generally

l iked. He must have been intimately a c

qua inted with the written enactments of

the lega l code,i ts traditional practices , the

precedents of the col leges, and the accepted

decis ions of former judges. He must have

studied not alone the laws appl icable to the

times in which he l ived,but those wh ich from

altered circumstances had fallen into desue

tude . He was requ ired to be a proficient in

various branches of scientific knowledge , es

pecially i n m edicine and astronomy. That

the rabbins were well grounded in phys iology,

pathology, and such modes of chemical and

organic analysis as were then understood can

be shown by many instances . Thus we find

Rabbi I smael and his pupils engaged in dis

section in order to study the anatomy O f the

human frame (Bekoroth ) Baba bar Boutah

O rg anisa tion of flu Tr iéuna ls . 39

(Gh ittin) i s recorded to have demonstrated ,

i n a case before h im , that a witness had

attempted to impose upon the court, by

bringing the albumen of an egg, and falsely

representing i t to be spermatic fluid. And

the Academy of H il lel is said to have con

ta ined among its disciples e ighty who were

acquainted wi th every branch O f science

known in those days . A knowledge of lan

guages,too

,was indispensable fo r those who

aspired to the membe rship of a S ynh edrin.

The services of an interpreter were never

pe rmitted . The judges were therefore bound

to be acquainted with the tongues of the

neighbo uring nations . I n the case of a

foreigner being called as witness before a tri

bunal i t was absolutely necessary that two

members should understa nd the language in

which the stranger’

s evidence was given that

two others should be able to speak to h im ;

while another was requ ired to be both able

to understand and to converse with the wit

ness . A majority of three judges could

C r imina l C ode of tne 7ews .

always thus be O btained on any doubtful

point in the interpretation of the testimony

submitted to the court. At E i ther there

were three rabbins acquainted with every

language then known while at Jabneh there

were said to be four similarly endowed with

the gift of al l the tongues .’

As regards the general abil i ty of the

j udges,Rabbi J eh uda asserts that they should

be such apt and skilful logicians that they could

demonstrate from the written text of the Pen

ta teuch i tself that all the reptiles therein de

cla red to be impure were pure I ndeed , to

those acquainted with the Talmud , noth ing

i s more startl ing than the resources of argu

ment displayed by the rabbins. That i t is in

many cases purely sophistic does not detract

from their h igh character any more than the

forensic casu istry of a modern counsel de

tracts from the moral ity of the man . And

their intellectual acumen , their logical powers,

were employed on behalf of the criminal ,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

C HAPTE R IV.

THE CO N STITUTIO N O F THE CO URTS—DIV I S IO N O F

AUTHO R ITY—PRO CEDURE.

T HE ju risdiction exercised by each of the

three kinds of tribunals engaged in the admi

nistra tion of the penal laws was clearly de

fined . A confl i ct O f authority was imposs ible .

E ach court took cognisance of certain speci

fied offences , and of these only ; each court

possessed the power of infl icting certain

punishments or of imposing certain penalties ,

and none other. E ven the amount O f fine

or indemn ity payable in the majority O f cases

was already determined by written enact

ment. And where th is was not so fixed or approximately indicated , the constitution O f the

tribunals permitted of arbitration , and an

estimate O f the pe nalty incurred by an O ffender

could readily be arrived at.

y ur isdiction of tne C our ts . 43

Before describing the authority and privi

leges attached to the respective tribunals it

is necessary to note that,owing to the pre

scriptions O f the Mosaic code , the cla ss ifica

tion of crimes among the Hebrews was some

what d ifferent to that generally prevail ing in

modern times . Many offences which in our

days are considered to infringe only the

moral code were regarded among most an

cient peoples in a very different l ight. Such ,

for example , are adultery and idolatry.

These among the J ews entailed death.

Again , many crimes now generally punish

able with imprisonment were,according to

the Hebrew laws , only punishable by fine or

pecun iary indemnity to the prosecuting party.

Among these are theft of all kinds, assaults,

injuries to the person,and damage to pro

perty.

Another large class of O ffences wa s un

known to the Jews . There were in Pales

t ine no game laws ; there could therefore be

no poaching. The rel ief O f the poor was

C r imina l C ode of t/ce yen/s .

compulsory ; there was no pilfering. I t was

permitted to enter a neighbour’s garden or

orchard or vineyard and eat one’s fi l l petty

larceny and trespassing were therefore impos

s ibilities almost in rural d istricts . Hence the

penal code of the Hebrews dealt practically

with a comparatively small number of o f

fences briefly specified , clearly defined , and

entail ing in each case a fixed punishment or

penalty, which could not be varied . The

jurisdiction of the respective courts admitted,

therefore, O f easy definition . The ordinary

tribunals , composed of three judges , a djudi

ca ted summarily upon all cases of assault, al l

cases of theft, all cases of robbery with vio

lence , and all cases of injury to person or

damage to property. I n fact, all crimes em

tail ing pecuniary penalties upon those con

v icted O f their commission were tried before

the courts of three members . I n every in

stance it was deemed an advantage , in later

Talmudic times, to have at least one mumcna

(authorised jurist) among the three . The

7ur isdiction of tile C our ts . 45

presence of such a rabbin added , of course , to

the local repute of the court in which he sat.

I t may be worth wh ile pointing out here that,

apart from the legal jurisd iction pertain ing to

them , these bodies performed when requ ired

certa in other funct ions , some of them semi

religious. They could,for instance , estimate

the worth of the fourth year’s produce , which

had to be paid to the priests ; they acted as

arbitrators ; they formed a court of equ ity ;

they could pronounce judgment in ordinary

business l it iga tion ; they could absolve an

I srael ite from a rash vow ; and (a rather

di fficult task,i f the J ews of old resembled in

some respects their modern representatives)they could declare the personal worth of a

Hebrew when he had sworn to give an equ i

valent sum to the Temple.

A S ynh edrin of three-and-twenty mem

bers was competent to judge al l criminal

cases , involving ( 1 ) capital punishment ; (2 )internment in a c ity of refuge ; (3) imprison

ment or seclusion for l ife ; and (4) corporal

4 6 C r imina l C ode of tne 7ezos .

punishment. To these four classes of

offences belong murder, adultery, blasphemy ,

i dolatry,incest, manslaughter, and seduction

with violence . An animal (an ox that had

gored a man so that he died) was also con

demned to be slaughtered by a tribunal of

three-and-twenty judges . The beast was in

some sort put on trial because of the heavy

pecuniary penalty imposed where the owner

could be proved to have known the vicious

propensities of the animal . The value of a

l ife had to be estimated by the court in such

cases. The S ynh edrin (l ike the smaller

courts of three) sat whenever occasion re

qu ired,and always en perma nence on Mon

days and Thursdays . These days were se

lected for the regular admin istration of justice

on account of their convenience to judges,

su itors,and the publ ic. O n the mornings

named the inhabitants of the outlying dis

tricts and suburbs came into the towns for

the purpose O f attending the reading of the

law in publ ic assembly . E very adult ma le,

7ur isdiction of tne C our ts . 47

unless incapacitated by s ickness, was present

on these occasions . Here , then , was an ex

cellent opportun ity for the settlement of dis

putes and the trial of offenders. But there

were other reasons for the regular bi-weekly

meeting of the S ynh edrin. These courts of

three-and-twenty members constituted the

local governing body of thei r d istrict or d ivi

s ion . Their functions were important and

multifarious . They estimated the amount of

the taxes to be imposed they organ ised the

distribution O f communal chari ty they were

charged with the management and adm inis

tra tion of the publ ic elementary schools ; they

saw that weights and measures were care

fully inspected from time to time,affixing

their seals to all legal standards ; they con

structed , examined , and repaired the defences

of the walled towns ; they were the localhighway board they were san itary auth o ri

t ies ; they discharged the thousand and one

duties of local government.

The mode of procedure in ordinary trials

C r imina l C ode of tne 7ezos .

was very simple . The prosecutor attended

before the S ynh edrin and lodged h is com

plaint the officer appointed by the court for

that purpose sought the accused person and

brought h im before the tribunal . The wit

nesses were summoned and heard . Both

parties then quitted the hall where the trial

took place. The judges del iberated,and

afterwards readmitted the prosecutor and

the defendant. Judgment was then pro

nounced. NO advocates were heard ; the

members O f the tribunal deeming it meri

torious to exercise the utmost ingenuity in

order to discover mitigating facts or ex

tenua ting circumstances when the law was

clearly against the accused . R ight of appeal

existed and had to be acted upon with in

thirty days of the original hearing. I n such

cases the cause was taken to a ne ighbouring

S ynh edrin,which , from its contain ing a

greater number of more learned and prae

tised j urists , was deemed of superior a uth o

rity. I n all instances, whether the trial was

before a ful l cou rt or an ordinary tribunal of

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

C r imina l C ode of tne yews .

capital were : to exerc ise a Species of super

vis ion over the provincial S ynh edrin ; to

grant the certificates authorising their con

s titution and confirming their legal i ty ; to

furn ish precedents and traditions whenever

required by the subordinate courts , and to

give satisfactory interpretations of doubtful

and difficult points . I f a case, civi l or

criminal,was brought before an ordinary

tribunal of three-and-twenty judges,and

these found themselves without a registered

decis ion which enabled them to pronounce

an authoritat ive sentence, a statement of

the facts was carefully prepared and sub

m itted to a neighbouring S ynh edrin supposed

to be O f greater repute. I f these found a re

corded precedent o r accepted judgment in an

ana logous case, i t was explained to the dele

gates O f the other court. I f, on the other

hand,no such tradition was forthcoming

,

appl ication was made to the first of the

S ynh edrin i n J erusalem , that s itt ing in the

Har-h aba ith . Should these find themselves

j7ur isdiction of tne C our ts . 5 I

unable to give the required assistance,an

appeal was made to the second S ynh edrin ,

located in the A za ra h . I f, again , th is court

was not in possession of a satisfactory trad i

t ion,the matter was brought before the Great

S ynh edrin. I n all cases where no precedent

existed thi s body decided in accordance with

justice and equ ity. The case was laid before

them , carefully d iscussed , and after due de

l iberat ion the assembly voted. The views of

the majori ty were cons idered binding. Non

compl iance with a judgment of the Great

S ynh edrin was pun ishable with death . An

elder,or judge , who acted or taught in

contravention O f the decis ions of this august

council was by the Mosaic code to be con

demmed to die. The Talmud made a notable

distinction in the appl ication of th is law. I f

the heterodox teaching of the recalcitrant

individual was directed against an injunction

of the Pentateuch he was not condemned ;

if against the tradition , or precedent, or inter

preta tion of the S ynh edrin he could be capiE 2

C r imina l C ode of tne 7ews .

tally convicted . This apparently places the

dicta of the rabbins above the words of the

sacred and insp ired text . The explanation,

however, i s s imple. C ontrary to the received

impression that the Talmudists adhered to

the letter and neglected the spirit of the Law ,

the reverse was the case. They investigated

the motive and endeavoured to ascerta in

the object of each enactment. Now,Moses

wished only to prevent an elder from lead

ing the people astray by teaching what was

il legal . A lawyer who nowadays advised a

Cl ient that forgery and embezzlement were

under certain circumstances not criminal

would scarcely succeed in deceiving the

most addle-pated individual who came to

h im for counsel ; but the same authori ty

might do serious injury, even to educated

men , by misrepresenting the decisions of the

law-courts on matters of common interest

or private concern . S O the rabbins argued .

An elder who taught in oppos ition to an

expl icit command of the Pentateuch could

7'

ur isdiction of tne C ourts . 53

do l ittle or no harm , for everybody knew

the injunctions of Moses ; but he who mis

interpreted to his community the decisions

O f the S ynh edrin might cause i rreparable

mischief to his brethren generally. Hence

the practice of the Talmud. The Great

S ynh edrin at J erusalem possessed l ikewise

the power to condemn or exile in t imes of

danger, or for the publ ic good , any person

who was considered dangerous to the com

munity. No tribunal,i t must also be noted ,

could try or punish a person for an offence

perpetrated in its own presence . I f a murder

was committed in full view of a S ynh edrin,

the criminal had to be taken before another

court of three-and-twenty judges in order to

be examined , and if found gu ilty convicted .

I t will be seen that a trial before a Syn

bedrin was virtually a trial by jury. The

members of the court were moreover the

prisoner’s counsel as well as h is judges.

They sought to interpret the law in h is

favour ; fail ing th is, they endeavoured to

54 C r imina l C ode of tne yea /s .

find extenuating circumstances . As jury

men they could make such recommendations

of mercy as their own feel ings dictated : as

judges they could give practical effect to

these recommendations . I n fact,the trial

was a trial by jury without the anomalies

which in modern times dist inguish the func

tions of th is venerable and useful institution .

Those who are judges of fact, and belong

presumably to the same social class of the

community as the prisoner before them ,

should al so,i n justice, be the best judges

of the degree of culpabil i ty attached to the

commission of any part icular crime . With

the -minimum and maximum O f pun ishment

which the law permits placed before them ,

the jury wh o find the accused guilty should

in equity determine the sentence to be pro

nounced. Modern codes relegate th is power

in criminal cases— not in c ivil causes—to the

j udge.The results are extremely curious ;

were it ‘not for the gravity of the wrong

infl icted,one m ight add diverting. I n most

7ur isdiction of tne C our ts . 5 5

ancient penal systems the judge was regarded,

and very properly, as competent to decide

upon matters O f fact as well as in questions of

law. But the right to apportion punishment

was not always conceded to h im . I n the

best days of the Roman Republ ic the Questio

perpetua presided over the trial of a criminal ;

but the jury— the citizen judges , numbering

thirty-two , or forty, or n inety, or even a

hundred—convicted the prisoner and pro

nounced the sentence of death . The pre

s iding magistrates were in real ity but legal

assessors or advisers . I n the Hebrew sys

tem such division of labour was rendered

unnecessary. The members of a S ynh edrin

were in themselves the judges as well as the

jury ; and the characteristi c rel igious b ias

of every I srael ite , the des ire to emulate the

m idda tn r a k/zamin— the heavenly attribute

of mercy—was of O bvious effect. I t led

them in every instance to place the most

favourable construction possible upon the

conduct of an erring brother.

C r im ina l C ode of tne yea /s .

C HAPTE R V.

THE RULES O F EVIDENCE.

T HE rules of evidence,as formulated in

the Talmud , are of a remarkable character.

They are in most respects unl ike those of

any ancient legal code ; and are diametri

cally opposed to our modern E ngl ish prae

t ice in every important particular. The

primary object of the Hebrew judicial sys

tem .wa s to render the conviction of an inno

cent person impossible . All the ingenu ity of

the Jewish legists was directed to the attain

ment of th is end . E verywhere the punish

ment of the guilty seems subordinated to th is

principal consideration. The credibil i ty of

witnesses must be establ ished beyond doubt ;

their impartial ity must be placed above sus

picion the l ikel ihood of prejudice animating

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

C r imina l C ode of t/ze yews.

had not spoken to the prisoner for a period

of three days, owing to disl ike or hatred or

on account of differences ; a creditor ; any

person to whom the accused had lent

money ; all who publ icly and derisively

af ra se— acted in contravention of the M O

saic laws regarding food , cleanl iness , and

decency ; all such as had been convicted

of attempting to wrong or defraud a neigh

bour (the Talmud regards such persons as

worse than those who sin against Heaven

only) —these, and all others who were dis

qual ified from acting as judges in a Cause ,

were declared incompetent to appear as wit

nesses . The rabbins carefully made allowance

forh uman weakness and natural promptings .

They did not expose relat ives to the tempta

t ion of violating the sancti ty of their oath ;

and they spared father, or son , or brother

the pain of being compelled to speak the

damning word which should consign,perhaps

to death , one near and dear to them . Thus ,

the part ial ity of friends, the affection of

Tne R ules of E vidence. 59

relatives,or the enmity of opponents , could

in no wise affect the issues of a trial .

The mode of examining witnesses , as

prescribed by the Hebrew code , i s probably

without a parallel . I t consisted,i n the ab

so lutely essential portion , of a series of

leading quest ions propounded by the judges .

These questions were fixed by law , and no

deviat ion was permiss ible. There were two

sets of questions : the first , known as the

Hak irah , investigation as to t ime and place ;

the second , termed Bedikah , investigation as

to relevant c ircumstances and corroborative

facts The fundamental principle of the

J ewish law of evidence was that the testi

mony against a prisoner should , i f i t be false,

admit of being overthrown by proving an

al ib i against the witness , entail ing upon the

perjurer the penalty of death in al l purely

criminal cases. This condition was a bso

lutely essential . I t is clear that the only

statements capable of being contradicted in

th is manner must confine themselves to de

C r imina l C ode of tne yen/s .

tails as to time and place ; that is , the evi

dence must s imply declare that the witness

saw the crime committed at a certain hour,

on a certain day, i n a specified place . Such

test imony only was considered satisfactory.

The Ha k iroth consisted of seven questions

- never more,never less— put to each wit

ness privately, and in the absence of other

witnesses .

The appoin ted members of the S ynh e

drin,as a necessary prel iminary, asked the

person about to give evidence whether he

a ctually saw the accused commit the crime

with which he was charged . O n receiving

an answer in the affi rmative the Ha k iro th

were put in the following order —( I )‘I n

what S ch em ita h’— cycle of seven years ,

reckon ing from the last J ubilee was the

offence perpetrated ! ’

(2 )‘I n what year

of the S ch em ita h ” (3)‘In what month

of the year !’

(4)‘O n what day of the

month ! ’

(5 ) O n what day of the week

(6)‘A t what hour of the day ” and (7)

T lie R u les of E vidence. 6 1

‘ I n what place Repl ies to these seven

questions were indispensable and imperative.

Failure to answer any one rendered the tes

timony null and void . The responses thus

el ic ited were regarded as furnish ing val id

and trustworthy evidence ; i f untrue it could

be fal sified by proving an al ibi against the

witness . Any one of these seven questions

unanswered , or unsatisfactorily answered ,

would preclude the possibil i ty of adopting

this course in cases where perjury had been

committed .

To procure the condemnation of an a c

cused person , two competent witnesses , in

dependent and not related , were absolutely

necessary . E ach must have satisfactorily

repl ied to the Hak iro th . Agreement of the

evidence offered by each was O f course a s ine

gud non . To provide, however, for mistakes

into which a witness might unintentionally

fall , a special series of rules was framed as

to questions 6 and 4. These wil l presently

be indicated . From the nature of the

C r imina l C ode of tne yen/s .

Hak iro th i t fol lows that to convict a criminal

i t was necessary that two competent persons,

to all appearances unprejudiced and impar

tial , should have detected the offender in

flag ra nte delicto.

The second set of questions , the Bedi

koth,consisted of inquiries referring to cir

cumstances connected with the commission

of the crime. They were not, l ike the

Hak iro th , l imited to number. The S ynh e

drin might ask any number, provided they

were relevant ; subject, however, to the

following conditions : NO evidence as to

the prisoner’s antecedents was admitted ; no

previo us convictions might be urged against

h im ; no proofs of character, good or bad ,

were allowable. E xtenuating circumstances

were noted , but only by the judges . The

Bedik oth were always strictly confined to

details connected with the actual perpetra

tion of the crime . For instance,in a charge

of murder the judge would ask whether the

witnesses had been acquainted with the per

Tne R u les of E vidence. 63

son assass inated ; if they had cautioned the

prisoner as to the gravity of the offence ; i f

they had warned him of the punishment to

which he was l iable upon conviction ; whether

they thought the accused was h imself cogu i

zant O f the serious nature of his crime with

what weapon the deceased had been slain .

I n cases of Paganism the inquiries would be

what div in ities the culpri t had worsh ipped ;

what acts constituted the worship ; had he

prostrated himself before the images ; had

he offered incense to the strange gods ; had

he immolated sacrifices in their honour,or

poured out l ibations upon the forbidden

altars . I n no case was a witness permitted

to.make a statement for or against the

accused. The evidence was strictly con

fined to repl ies el ic ited in response to lead

ing questions from the judges . Hearsay and

presumptive evidence was rejected as worth

less ; and circumstantial evidence was inad

miss ible. I n the Bedik oth i t was of course

requ isite that the statements of th e witnesses

C r imina l C ode of tfie’

yen/s .

should agree in all essential details ; but i t

was enough if the main facts coincided . I f,

for instance, a witness in a case O f murder

testified that the criminal was attired in a

black coat, and another asserted he was at

the time dressed in a wh ite coat, their evi

dence was admitted . I f, however, one said

the murder was committed with a spear and

the other with a knife,their evidence was

rejected ; there was a material contradiction

of a material fact. So , too, in a civil cause ,

if one witness swore that a certain sum of

money was contained in a blue bag, and

another said it was a red bag, the testimony

was g ood . If, however, one asserted the

sum to have been a thousand pieces of s ilver

and the other two thousand pieces , the evi

dence of both was set aside. Probabil ity

was never cons idered by Hebrew judges .

The Jewish lawyers, moreover, held fast by

the Mosaic injunction that twd or more

credible witnesses were required in every

case. Where a marked discrepancy was

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

66 C r imina l C ode of tne Yen/s .

i n reply to any one question would neces

s a rily inval idate the whole of the evidence

brought forward . But such non—agreement

in the responses el icited must have been

sufficiently marked to constitute a defini te

d isaccord,an unmistakable contradiction .

But, of course, the rabbins were aware

that stupidi ty or un intentional error might

account for trifl ing differences O f statement.

That any such unimportant variations should

not bring about a miscarriage of justice,cer

tain rules were framed appl icable to questions

4 and 6, regarding the day of the month and

the hour of the day. A mong the Hebrews

the number of days in a month was not fixed .

Sometimes a lunar month consisted of twentyn ine

,occas ionally of thirty days. When the

new moon was announced the publ ic were

l ikewise informed how many days the month

would include . I f a man happened to be

absent when the bodesn—new moon— wasproclaimed , he might easily go astray in

h is reckoning. He might have forgotten

Tne Rules.

of E vidence. 67

whether the preceding month consisted o f

twenty-nine or of th irty days ; as a resul t

he might be in error to the extent of a day.

Accordingly the law enacted that,provided

the repl ies of the witnesses coincided in al l

other respects,a day’s difference in the two

answers to question 4 should not inval idate

the evidence. I f, therefore , one asserted

that the crime was committed on the first

of the month and the other on the second,

the testimony held good . But if the former

said the second of N issan and the latter the

fourth of N issan,the evidence was altogether

void . A man,urges one of the rabbins ,

might perhaps make a mistake two months

running. To th is,however

,the majori ty

demur. A conscientious person was not to

be lightly suspected of having on two suc

cess ive occasions neglected the performance

of what was regarded as a rel ig ious duty.

Again , a mistake might eas ily be made when

replying to question 6, that is regarding the

F 2

68 C r imina l C ode of tne 7ezvs.

hour of the day . The sun was the town

clock in those times an error in respect of

an hour, or even two , was by no means im

possible. Accordingly, the rules of evidence

permitted of a difference or discrepancy of

two hours in the respective answers to the

Hak iroth . But this was not permissible if

the two hours specified were between what

to moderns would be eleven in the morning

and one o’clock in the afternoon . Here

such non-agreement was not allowable. No

E astern was l ikely to mistake the position

of the sun about noon to the extent O f two

hours .

- Such , briefly summarised , are the prin

cipa l injunctions of the Talmud regulating

the admissibil i ty of evidence and the qual i

fica tions of witnesses, and specifying the

mode of examination . They were calculated

to s impl ify procedure , expedite just ice , pre

vent undue pressure of judic ial authority,

and,more than all , render impossible those

‘hard constructions and stra ined inferences ’

Tlze R ules of E vidence. 69

o f which Bacon so eloquently bids judges

A sketch of the proceed ings in a capi tal

trial wi ll il lustrate the practical appl ication

of the laws we ‘ ha ve already described.

C r imina l C ode of tne 7’

ezvs.

C HA PTE R VI.

FO RM O F TR IAL IN CAP ITAL CASES.

A CAPITAL trial was conducted with al l thesolemn ity O f a rel igious ceremony. The

exercise O f judicial functions was at al l t imes

regarded as a sacred privilege ; and the

responsibil ity incurred in criminal cases was

ever present to the Hebrew mind.

‘A

judge,

’ says the Talmud , should always con

sider that a sword threatens him from above,

and destruction yawns at his feet. ’ R is ing

betimes in the morn ing, the members of the

S ynh edrin assembled after prayers in the

Hall of Justice . Pending the arrival of the

culprit and the preparations for the trial,they

commented among one another on the serious

nature of the duties they were called upon to

discharge . The judges were so a rranged as

Form of Tr ia l in C apita l C a ses. 71

to s it in a semicircle . Immediately in front

of them were three rows of disciples. E ach

row numbered three -and - twenty persons .

Thus every judge was ‘ass isted by three

j un iors . These d isc iples were not young

and inexperienced students, but were many

of them in no wise inferior to the membe rs ofthe court i tself. A ny vaca ncies in the first

row were fi l led up from the second ; any

required in the second were suppl ied from

th e th ird rank ; and the th ird was recru ited

from the numbe r of lea rned men to be found

in every place having a permanent S ynhedrin.

Three scribes were present one was seated

on the right, one on the left, the third in the

centre of the hall . The first recorded the

names of the judges who voted for the acqu it

tal of the accused , and the arguments upon

which the acqu ittal was grounded. The

second noted the names of such as decided

to !condemn the prisoner and the reasons

upon which the Conviction was based . The

th ird kept an account of bo th the preceding,

72 C r imina l C ode of M e years.

so as to be able a t any time to supply omis

s ions or check inaccuracies in the memoranda

of h is brother reporters . The culprit was

placed in a conspicuous position,where he

could see everyth ing and be seen by all .

O pposite to him and in full view of the court

were the witnesses . Thus constituted and

arranged,the S ynh edrin commenced its in

vestiga tions .

The procedure in a capita l trial d iffered

in many important respects from that adhered

to in ordinary cases. I n an ordinary case the

discussions of the judges commenced with

arguments for or against the accused ; in a

capital charge it could only begin'

with an

argument urged in behalf of the prisoner. I n

an ordinary case a majority of one was suffi

cient to convict ; in a cap ital charge a majority

O f one could acquit, but a majori ty of two

was necessary to condemn . I n ordinary cases

j udgment pronounced could always be a n

nulled upon discovery of an error in cap ital

cases the decis ion was irrevocable once th e

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

74 C r imina l C ode of tne yen/s.

S ynh edrin should not be influenced by the

views or arguments of the ir more ' mature ,

more experienced colleagues, the jun ior judge

was in these cases always the first to pro !

nounce for or against a conviction .

A s soon as the S ynh edrin was ready the

examination O f the witnesses commenced .

The first who was to give evidence was taken

into an adj oin ing chamber and carefully a d

monished . He was asked if he had not per

chance founded his conviction of the prisoner’s

gu i lt upon probabil i ty, on circumstantial proof,

or by hearsay whether he was not influenced

in h is opin ions by persons whom he regarded

as trustworthy and reputable. Did he know

he would be submitted to a search ing and

rigorous ex amination and was he acquainted

with the penalty enta i led by perjury ! The

most venerable of the judges then addressed

the witness, solemnly adjuring h im to truth

fulness. Do you know,

’ said the rabbin,

the difference between a civil and a criminal

case I n the former case an error is always

F orm of Tr ia l in C afi ita l C a ses . 75

reparable ; restitution can always be made .

But in the latter an unj ust sentence can never

be atoned for ; and you are responsible for

the blood of the condemned and al l h is pos

sible descendants . For th is reason God

created Adam—whose posteri ty fi l l s the

earth—alone and sole, in order that we mightunderstand that he who saves a s ingle soul is

as though he saved an enti re world ; and he

who compasses the destruction of a single

l ife i s as though he had destroyed a world .

That the Almighty formed but one man in

the beginn ing is moreover intended to teach

us that al l men are brethren,and to prevent

any individual from regarding h imself as

superior to a person belonging to another

nation . Nevertheless,

’

continued the judge,

‘if you witnessed the crime and conceal the

facts you are culpable. Have no fear there

fore of the responsibil i ty you incur ; and

remember that as a city rejoiceth when the

righteous succeed,so doth a town shout when

they that wrought wickedness are punished !

76 C r imina l C ode of M e

Upon the conclusion of th is ex hortat ion the

examination commenced . The Hak iroth ,

questions as to time and place,were put to

each of the witnesses,and subsequently the

Bedikoth , inqu iries relative to the commission

of t h e crime. A s soon as the answers con

stituting the evidence against the prisoner

had been received they were submitted to

the S ynh edrin. The cons ideration of the

case was thereupon proceeded with . As we

before pointed out, the rebutting testimony

could only be directed against the Hak iroth

by proving an al ib i against one or both of

the witnesses. I f the accused succeeded in

so doing he was of course at once acqu itted .

I f there was a marked discrepancy in the

Bediko th—sufficient,i n fact, to render the

statements of the witnesses contradictory

the trial equally of course immediately termi

na ted. There would be,under the circum

stances named , no evidence legally admiss ible

no val id testimony to lay before the S ynh edrin.

Supposing , however, th e facts el ic ited from

Form of T r ia l in C apita l C a ses . 77

the witnesses were such as could be brought

into court in support of the charge, then the

tribunal commenced the discuss ion prelimi

nary to voting .

The del iberat ions could only begin with an

argument in favour of the accused . Nothing

was therefore urged unti l one of the judges

found some fact or facts tel l ing against the pro

secution. The member of the S ynh edrin then

rose and , allud ing to the circumstances, said

According to such and such a statement, i t

appears to me the prisoner must be acquitted .

’

The discuss ion thereupon became general.

E very i tem of evidence was carefully over

hauled each of the answers given by the

witnesses was subjected to minute criticism .

Apparent inconsistencies were dilated upon,

and extenuating facts pleaded . The culprit

h imself was permitted to urge anything in h is

own favour or against the evidence of the pro

secution. I f a disciple found a cogent or val id

argument on behalf of the prisoner, he was

placed among the judges, and regarded as a

78 C r imina l C ode of tfie yews .

member of the court during the entire day.

I f,on the other hand , one of the disciples

noticed anything calculated to injure the

defence , he was not permitted to call atten

t ion thereto . As soon as the discuss ion ter

m ina ted the preparations for recording the

votes C ommenced. The scribes were ready,

and each judge,beginn ing with the youngest

,

pronounced h is decis ion for or against the

accused . A t the same time each stated the

facts upon which h is conclusion was grounded .

The observations of the members were care

fully recorded and preserved . A s soon as

the whole of the S ynh edrin had voted , the

numbers were announced . I f eleven con

v icted and twelve acqu itted , the prisoner was

without delay d ischarged , a majority of one

voice be ing sufficient for this purpose. I f

twelve convicted and eleven acqu itted , -th e

accused could not be condemned, a majority

of at least two being required. I n such a

case the ‘ following expedient was adopted

two additional judges were added,these being

F orm of Tr ia l in C apita l C a ses. 79

selected from the first row of disciples . Voting

then recommenced . I f a majority of two

against the prisoner was thus obtained he

was convicted . I f not, ‘the process of in

creasing by twos the number of the S ynh edrin

continued until the requ is ite preponderance

was gained . Should the tribunal by this

means come to consist of seventy-one mem

bers, of whom thi rty-s ix voted for a conv iction

and thi rty-five against, the matter was re

argued until one of the former gave way and

declared in favour of an acqu ittal . Shouldthe six-and-th irty adhere to their opin ion s

the prisoner was d ischarged. I f at the original

voting th irteen members of the S ynh edrin

decided to convict, or if after the subsequent

additions a majority of two was O btained in

favour of the same course, the accused was

found gu ilty. Sentence, however, could not

be pronounced until the following afternoon .

The s itting was therefore suspended unti l

next morn ing.

I n such cases,that is

,when sentence of

80 C r imina l C ode of tne yea /s .

death appeared inevi table , the S ynh edrin ad

journed immediately the majority that deter

mined a conviction was announced . S lowly

the members qu itted the hall wherein the trial

had been conducted . Gathering in knots of

three and more , they remained for some l ittle

time in the street d iscuss ing among them

selves the misfortune impending over their

city— for as such al l Hebrews regarded the

execution of a fellow man . Gradually the

groups broke up ; the j udges proceeded to

their homes . They ate but a small quantity

of food , and were not permitted to drink

wine during the remainder of the day or

evening. After sunset they made calls upon

each other,again debating the various argu

ments adduced during the trial . At n ight

each retired to h is chamber and gave him

self up to meditation or so i t was bel ieved .

The knowledge that a l ife—a l ife declared

by their traditions to be equal to a worlddepended upon their verdict would lead them

to ponder upon the judgment of the morrow.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

C r imina l C ode of ti n yen/s.

ceding day was not permitted to change hi s

determination . But any one who had decided

to convict m ight,upon furn ish ing the S ynhe

drin with the arguments inducing h im so to

do, vote on th is occas ion in favour of an a o

quittal . Again the number for and against

the accused was announced . S t il l the sen

tence was deferred . The prisoner might

bethink h imself of some val id plea in ex tenu

atio n of his crime ; unexpected witnesses

might be forthcoming the S ynh edrin might

produce some favourable arguments. S lowly

the sun gained the meridian . S til l the courtsat ; none thought of quitting the hal l of

judgment. Gradually the sun decl ined and

even ing drew nigh . There was to be no in

terva l between sentence and execution ; the

hour that heard the doom pronounced would

see i t carried into effect. Sunset was the timefixed for both . As the afternoon wore on

th e doors of the court were opened. A man

stationed himself at th e gate , carrying in h i s

hand a flag. I n the distance was a horse

Form of T r ia l in C apita l C a ses . 83

man , so placed as to perceive readily the

least movement or agitat ion of the bunting .

With a solemnity becoming the occasion, the

S ynh edrin, after praying that they m ight

commit no s in thereby,decreed the pun ish

ment of death . Accompanied by two rab

bins, the convict was led to the place of exe

cution without the walls . Hope was not even

yet abandoned . I f one of the judges be

thought h im of an argument in favour of the

criminal the flag at the door was raised and

the mounted messenger prepared for such

an emergency galloped forward to stop the

execution . I f the culprit requested to be

reconducted to the court, he was taken backas often as he furn ished any val id excuse.

The S ynh edrin sat until the hazan— mes

senger of the court— returned with a noti

fica tion that the condemned man was no

more. Again uttering a prayer that the

judgment that day pronounced might not have

been in error, the members rose and silently

qu i tted the hall of justice.0 2

84 C r imina l C ode of tée 7ezvs .

C HA PTE R VII.

THE VAR IO US METHO DS O F E! ECUTIO N.

T HE rabb ins were the first among ancient

legists to render the infl i ct ion of the death

penalty as painless as possible. The manner

in which the sentence of the law in capital

cases was carried into effect was regulated by

a series of enactments . E very detai l was

preordained. The place of execution was

always beyond the l imits of the town gener

ally at some distance from the hall where

judgment had been pronounced. There were

two reasons for th is—first, that a certain in

terva l of time should elapse between sentence

and execution so as to permit the court to

examine any evidence that m ight yet be forth

coming ; and , secondly, that the S ynh edrin

should not witness the execution . A s soon

T li e Va r ious M etfiods'

of E x ecution . 85

as the punishment of death was decreed,the

criminal was conducted from the court. Two

elders , the witnesses , and the officers of the

tribunal accompanied Him . I n advance of

the cortege walked an attendant, proclaiming

aloud , S O -and-so i s to be executed for such

and-such an offence ; so -and-so are the wit

nesses the crime was committed at such a

place , on such a day, at such an hour. I f any

person can urge anyth ing against the inflic

t ion of the punishment, let him go to the

S ynh edrin now sitting and state his argu

ments . ’ Thus the party proceeded through

the town . Arrived with in s ix yards of the

place of execution the sages who were with

the condemned man pressed him to confess his

crime . They told him that whosoever makes

confession is privileged to share in the olam

lzaoa fi future existence ; s ince death was an

expiation for all in iqu ities . I f he refused to

acknowledge h is guilt he was asked to say ,

May my death prove an atonement for all

my transgress ions.’ He was then conducted

C r imina l C ode of tbe yen/s .

to with in four yards of the place where the

sentence was to be carried into effect. The

death-draught was here administered. This

beverage was composed of myrrh and frank

incense (leéa na ) , i n a cup of vinegar or l ight

wine. I t produced in the convict a kind of

stupefaction , a semi-conscious condition o f

mind and body, rendering h im indifferent to

his fate and scarcely sensible to pain. The

drink wa s—in J erusalem—provided by the

women , who considered this one of the great

est mitzvotn—meritorious deeds. I n pro

v incia l towns the local communal authorities

were required to furnish the criminal with

the—

draught the ingredients were purchased

at the publ ic expense. As soon as the cul

pri t had partaken of the stupefying draught

the execution took place.

I n accordance with the Mosaic code four

kinds of death were infl icted , each appro

pria te to a distinct series of crimes. These

were stoning, strangl ing, burn ing, and decapi

tation. Nothing can be more absurd than

Tne Va r ious M etnods of E x ecution. 87

the notions generally current respecting the

manner in which these punishments were

carried out among the J ews . The ston ing of

the Bible and of the Talmud was not, as

vulgarly supposed,a pell-mell casting of

stones a t a criminal the burning had noth ing

whatever in common with the process of con

suming by fire a l iving person as practised

by the churchmen of the M iddle Ages nor

did the strangl ing bear any resemblance to

our E ngl ish mode of putting criminals to

death .

The S ton ing to death of the Talmud was

performed as follows : The criminal was

conducted to an elevated place , divested of

h is attire if a man,and then hurled to the

ground below The height of the eminence

from which he was thrown was always more

than fifteen feet ; the higher, within certain

l imits, the better. The violence of the con

cuss ion caused death by dislocating the spinal

cord . The elevation was not,however, to be

so h igh as to smash or greatly disfigure th e

C r imina l C ode of tne yen/s .

body. This was a tender point with the

J ews ; man was created in God’s image , and

i t was not permitted to desecrate the temple

shaped by Heaven ’s own hand . The first of

the witnesses who had testified against the

condemned man acted as executioner,in a c

corda nce with Deut. xvi i . 7. I f the convict

fell face downward he was turned on his

back . I f he was not quite dead , a stone, so

heavy as to requ ire two persons to carry i t,

was taken to the top of the eminence whence

he had been thrown the second of the wit

nesses then hurled the stone so as to fal l

upon the culprit below. This process, how

ever, was seldom necessary the semi -stupe

fi ed condition of the convict and the heigh t

from which he was cast ensuring in the

general ity of cases instant death .

The bodies of those condemned for blas

ph emy or idolatry were subsequently hung

upon a gallows unti l dusk . Immediately

after execution the corpse was interred. O u'

t a

s ide every town there were two cemeteries

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

90 C r imina l C ode of tne 7a m.

Talmuddag rotn) ; any person seducing another

to idolatry ; and a stubborn and rebell ious

son. Some other offences specified in the

Penta teuch were also punished by ston ing.

A crim inal sentenced to death by burn ing

was executed in the following manner. A

shal low pit some two feet deep was dug in

the ground . I n th is the culprit was placed

standing upright. A round his legs earth wa s

shovelled and battered firmly down until he

was fixed up to his knees in the soi l. Movement

on the part of the condemned person was of

course imposs ible ; but care was ta ken that the

l imbs should not be painfully constrained. A

stro ng cord was now brought, and a very soft

cloth wrapped round it. This was pas sed once

round the offender’s neck. Two men then

came forward ; each grasped an end of the

rope and pulled hard. Suffocation was im

mediate . As the condemned man felt the

s train of the cord , and insensibi l i ty super

vened,

“

the lower jaw dropped . I nto the

mouth thus O pened a l ighted wick was qu ickly

Tbe Va rious M etnods of E x ecution. 9 1

thrown . This constituted the burn ing. After

death ensued the body was buried in the

cemetery for criminals . This manner of

death was prescribed by an injunction of the

Pentateuch for those committing adultery in

certa in specified cases—notably where the

married daughter of a priest was found guilty

of the crime .

Decapitation was performed by the J ews

after the fashion of the surrounding nations.

I t was considered the most humil iating, the

most ignominious and degrading death that

any man could suffer. I t wa s the penalty in

cases of assassination and del iberate murder.

I t was incurred by those who wilfully and

wantonly slew a fellow-man with a stone or

with an implement of stone or iron . I t was

l ikewise the punishment meted out to al l

persons who resided in a town the inhabitants

of which had allowed themselves to be se

duced to idolatry and paganism.

S trangulation was a form of death by

suffocation . I t was effected as in burning.

9 2 C r imina l C ode of tfie 7ezvs .

The culprit stood up to h is knees in loose

earth . A soft cloth contain ing a cord was

wound once round his neck. The ends being

tightly pulled i n opposite directions , l ife was

soon extinct. This mode of death was the

punishment of one who struck h is father or

h is mother ; of any one steal ing a fellow

I srael ite ; of a false prophet ; of any one

committing adultery (as we understand this

crime nowadays) and of the elder or pro

v incia l judge who taught or acted contrary to

the decis ion of the Great S ynh edrin of J eru

salem .

I t h as before been said that in certain

cases the bodies of malefactors were hung

after execution . The reverence for the dead

characteristic of the Rabbins , i s nowhere

more markedly apparent than in the manner

in which th is Mosaic ordinance was carried

out. A beam was embedded endwise in the

ground . F rom it a branch of wood projected

l ike an arm . This extended above the place

where the corpse was lying. The two hands

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

94 C r imina l C ode of tne 7ezvs.

of a criminal suffered to rema in unburied

until the day after death .

The ari a m itnotn éet/i -din the four

deaths decreed by the courts of justice—as

herein described, are the only modes of

ex ecution in accordance with Hebrew law .

C rucifixion , as practised by the Romans and

C arthaginians, i s unknown to the Scripture

equally unknown to the penal enactments of

the Talmud . Horrible and unnatural pun ish

ments, such as those prescribed by the

E gyptian laws in cases of parricide and se!

duction with violence, were unknown to the

J ews . Boil ing criminals al ive in oil , as pra c

tised by more than one ancient nation bury

ing al ive,not by any means unknown to the

Romans—nay, the d isembowell ing and quar

tering of our last-century executions—would

have horrified a J ewish S ynh edrin, who

would have regarded such outrages upon the

dignity of man’s body as , in their own expres

s ive phrase,a lzil lul na snem, a publ ic desecra

crat ion of the Godhead .

‘We are enjoined

Tne Va r ious M ethods of E x ecution. 95

to love our neighbour as ourselves , says N a h

ma n in the name of Rabbah, the son of

A bouh ou,

‘and therefore it i s our bounden

duty always to endeavour to mitigate by

every means possible the sufferings of a fel

low-creature condemned to death .

’

C r imina l C ode of tne 7ezvs.

C HA PTE R V I I I .

WHAT CO N STITUTED MURDER—ADULTERY AND ITSPUN I SHMENT— IDO LA TRY.

T HE whole of the crimes already enumerated

as enta il ing the penalty of death are pra cti

cally but varieties of three offences only

murder, adultery, idolatry. To these must

be added the case of an elder who taught

contrary to the judgment of the Great Syn

bedrin of Jerusalem . Murder, the first of

these and the most serious everywhere, i s

carefully discriminated in the Talmud . Under

certa in conditions only was it punished with

death . To explain this ful ly we must ask

the question , What const itutes murder a c

cord ing to the H ebrew penal code P

To constitute murder i t was necessary to

prove mal ice and intent. In the words of

the B ible the criminal must have hated his

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

98 C r imina l C ode of tko _

‘

7ezvs.

to secure a conviction i n certain cases, proof

had to be forthcoming that the witnesses had

warned the accused prior to the commission

of the offence with which he was charged,

and informed him of the gravity of the crime

he contemplated and the penalty attached to

i ts perpetration . M . Rabbinowicz, as we be

fore observed , regards th is injunction o f the

rabbins as des igned to abol ish altogether the

penalty of death . He th inks that in a case

of assass ination failure of evidence to prove

that the culprit had received this prel iminary

warn ing ’ would constitute one of the ex

tenua ting ci rcumstances which evi tate cap i tal

punishment. We venture to think that M .

Rabb inowicz misapprehends the real pur

pose and intent of th is curious proviso.

I n the first place , an important oer a étna

declares in the words of J osse, the son of

J udah , that the only O bject of th is enactment

was to prevent the condemnation of a person

ignorant of the gravi ty of the offence he had

committed . He adds that i n the case of a

M urder , A dultery ,a nd Idola try . 99

properly instructed man , proof of the ‘pre

l iminary caution was not necessary in order

to procure a conviction . A gain , the Talmud

emphatical ly declares that an acqu ittal con

tra ry to an expl ic i t injunction of the Penta

teuch , or written law, had to be annulled .

Now, the Mosaic code constantly assumes

that every man is cognisant of the penal pro

visions of the B ible . The Talmud always

acts upon th is assumption ; notably in the

enactments respecting the contumacious

elder. E very J ew is supposed to know

what constitutes murder, and what is the

penalty incurred thereby. The Pentateuch

says nothing of any prel iminary caution

whatever. I n a case of premeditated and

wilful assass ination , proved by witnesses i n

accordance with the rules of evidence, an

acquittal grounded upon this provis ion of the

rabbins only, would be manifestly opposed to

the letter and spiri t of the written law . Such

a judgment would therefore,as the oera i‘tna

expressly states, be illegal and void . TheH 2

100 C r imina l C ode‘

of t/ze Yeti/s.

real object and intention of the prel iminary

warning will be presently indicated.

O rdinary cases of murder (i.e. not a ssa ssi

nat ion under the circumstances above men

tioned) were punished with imprisonment for

l ife or perpetual seclus ion . Here the absenceof long-harboured mal ice , nourished enmity,

and premeditated design constituted val idarguments against a capital conviction . As

sa ssina tion, Clearly proved , but not witnessed

by persons qual ified to give val id evidence,

was also punishable in the same way. I n

every charge of murder (common homic ide)i t was ind ispensable to prove that the con

duct or action of the culprit was the direct

cause of death . The intent of the deed , the

design of the prisoner at the moment of com

mitting the crime to take away l ife, must be

incontrovertibly demonstrable and clearly

establ ished . A s a contributory, or as one

among many others who slew a man,he

could never be convicted of murder. For

instance,a man and his neighbour quarrelled

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I02 C r imina l C ode of t/ce Yea/s .

caused the m isch ief is perhaps known . Y et,

desp ite th is fact, the whole five could be found

gu il ty of murder,and hanged ! Such a con

v iction was impossible accord ing to the Tal

mudie laws . I f three,five , or any number of

men attacked a s ingle person and slew him ,

only the assailant whose hand actually in

flicted death could be found gu ilty O f murder.

Where, on the other hand , the man who

actual ly killed the victim could not be distin

guish ed among the others , a ll of them were

imprisoned for a fixed period , and could be

compelled to support the family of the de

ceased person . The perpetual incarceration

of _a murderer had noth ing in common with

the modern systems of penal servitude . M .

Rabbinowicz, with much discrimination , con

tra sts the seclus ion of a convict as ordained

by the Hebrew code for the protect ion of

society and such systems of l ife-long inca r

ceration as prevail in our own time. The

mere deprivation of l iberty was considered

by the Rabbins the severest punishment a

M urder , A dultery , a nd Idola try . 103

human being could undergo . The penalty of

murder is , in the characteristi c phrase of the

Talmud , that the murderer be put in prison

and they give h im the‘

bread and water of

misery.

’

Adultery was , as stated , pun ishable with

death . To secure a conviction , i t was impe

ra tive that evidence be adduced conclusively

showing that two witnesses had cautioned

the accused of the gravity of the crime he

or she was about to commit. I n connection

with this offence the primary and real inten

t ion of the prel iminary warning insisted upon

by the Talmud wil l be clearly understood .

I n other crimes men alone, as a rule, were

the culpri ts . I n adultery women would ne

cessa rily come prominently before the Syn

bedrin as the accused. Now,a vast amount

of nonsense has been written regarding the

pos ition of females among the Hebrews .

Argument ample and instance abounding

have been produced to demonstrate the

l ight esteem in wh ich women were held by

104 C r imina l C ode of tae Yea/s .

the J ews . A deal of misdirected ingenuity

has been appl ied to refuting these assertions .

L ike the !ex ta l ionis , the subject has never

been properly explained . The Talmud is no

orderly digest or methodised summary of

laws such as moderns are accustomed to. I t

i s a veri table garden of wild growths a lux

uriant wilderness . Argument and dicta and

enactment and proverb and legend are mixed

and commingled in a harmonious confusion .

I t requ ires some amount of dexteri ty to pick

one ’s way. Throughout th is medley women

are regarded from two points of view—the

legal and the social. The references to

women require, therefore , to be sorted and

strung together in two separate series . As

to the social position of women,a few quota

tions will suffice to show the h igh regard in

which they were held. The verse in the

Book of J ob (v. which says “ thou shal t

see prosperity in thy tents refers ,’ explains

the Talmud , to h im who, loving his wife as

h imself, has more regard for her honour than

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

106 C r imina l C ode of tne Yeats .

of the penalty entailed thereby, unless evi

dence to tne contra ry was forthcoming. To

condemn an untaught person was opposed to

the princ iples of Talmudic laws. I n order,

therefore, to convict an adulteress i t was ia

dispensable , owing to her legal posit ion , that

competent witnesses should have warned her

prior to the commission of the crime of its

serious character and i ts punishment Such

testimony was not l ikely to be produced in

these cases . I ts absence declared the a c

cused not respons ible for the offence . The

enactment of the ‘prel iminary caution’

was

therefore an argument in favour of the a c

quittal of a woman charged with any crime ,

notably with adultery . This may all seem

very strange—perhaps not quite credible ;

but i t is true , nevertheless.

I dolatry was considered the most heinous

offence of which a J ew could be gu il ty.

Among a people profess ing a monotheisti c

fai th , hedged in by nations given to every form

of paganism , prone to abominations of every

M urder , A dultery ,a nd Idola try . 107

kind , i t was thought necessary that any publ ic

desecration of rel igion should be severely

punished . E very Jew was perfectly well

acquainted with the grand principle of his

creed , the a’

nidus kusnem— the un ity of the

godhea d , and the spiri tual i ty of the C reator.

E very Hebrew knew that idolatry in each

and every form was an utter abomination in

the sight of heaven . Hence in such cases

ignorance could not be pleaded in extenua

tion of the crime ; nor was any prel im inary

warning requ isite in order that j udgment of

death might be legally pronounced. I n ord i

nary affairs , as in the more serious matters

capital ly pun ishable,the H ebrew code did

not permit of any sort of detective system .

A man was not. perm i tted to secrete h imself

i n order to watch his neighbour. A witness

who had acted i n such a manner would not

have been permitted to give evidence .

When , however, a J ew was bel ieved to have

publ icly devoted h imself to idolatry, and to

have endeavoured to seduce h is neighbours

108 C r imina l C ode of t/ce Years .

to the same practices, any ruse was perm itted

for the purpose of demonstrating h is gu ilt.

I f, for example , he declared’

to one person

only that in such and such a grove an image

was erected , and attempted to persuade him

to join in worship there, the latter was per

m itted to h ide a friend wherever convenient,

and call ing the idolater, might say to h im ,

Now tell me more about that image you

worsh ip .

’ I f the backsl ider repeated hi s sol i

c i tations the testimony of the two witnesses

was procured , which was necessary for con

demna tion. But previous to laying the mat

ter before a S ynh edrin i t was imperative upon

both these witnesses to reason with the idol

ater. They were , according to the Talmud ,

to speak kindly with him. They should ad

dress h im and say : How would you have

us forsake our God who is in heaven to follow

deities who are made of wood and stone ! ’

I f the erring brother gave ear to their ex h o r

ta tion and qu itted his pagan practices, the

witnesses who knew of his backsl iding were

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 10 C r imina l C ode of tne yea/s .

The penalty was necessary in th is case , not

solely on account of the mischief resulting

from an elder or judge, having influence and

authority, acting and inducing others to act

contrary to tradition, but for another reason .

I t must be borne in mind that the S ynh edrin

at J erusalem was the parl iament of the nation ,

and disregard of its authori ty was , in point

of fact , a pol itical crime equivalent to h igh

treason . A n execution for such an offence

could only take place in J erusalem ; and

only during the celebration of one of the

Shalosh Rega lim— three great festivals of

the year—when every male came up to the

capital . By this arrangement the injunction

of the Pentateuch was fulfil led (Deut. x vi i .

and All I srael heard .

’

Two other punishments are prescribed by

the Hebrew code internment in a city of re

fuge,and flogg ing

—the former for accident

al ly kill ing a neighbour the latter for a large

number Of serious offences. These we shal l

now proceed to discuss .

H omicide (a ccidenta l ) , a nd P erj ury . 1 1 1

C HA PT E R I! .

C IT IE S O F REFUGE—THE PUN ISHMENT FO R PERJURYFLO GGING.

H O M ICIDE by misadventure- that is , the a ccidenta l kill ing of a fellow-man—entailed

upon the offender the penal ty of internment in

a city of refuge. The slaying of a neighbour

by mischance was not, however, regarded as

a crime properly so -called ; nor does the Tal

mud consider the penalty thereby incurred in

th e l ight of a pun ishment. The Pentateuch ,

i n common with all ancient legal systems,

recogn ised the right of private vengeance in

cases of murder and manslaughter. The

family, relatives, and connections of the

deceased could slay the culprit, wherever dis

covered . But most nations arranged the

matter satisfactori ly by a pecuniary payment.

The A thenians, for ex ample , placed the nego

1 I 2 C r imina l C ode of tde years.

tia tions for th is purpose in the hands of the

E ph etes . This was a progress ive step . The

Mosaic code went further. I t abol ished the

blood-money altogether ; but this left the

offender at the mercy of those who were en

titled to avenge the death. Recol lecting

probably his own misadventure with the

E gyptian whom he accidentally slew, and h is

compulsory fl ight in consequence, Moses pro

vided in h is legislative scheme for the estab

lishment of cities of refuge. To these the

H ebrew who by mischance kil led his neigh

bour was permitted to proceed. Here he

was in safety— secure from the vengeance of

the O de!nadam , the redeemer of the blood .

’

The arrangement was, therefore, rather in the

nature of a privi lege than a punishment.

I nternment in one of the cit ies of refuge

was not the scampering process dep icted in the

popular engraving a man in the last stage of

exhaustion at the gate of an E astern town ;

his purS Iiers close upon him , arrows fixed and

bows drawn ; h is arms stretched imploringly

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 14 C r imina l C ode of t/ze years.

the whole distance by two ta lmide-cfia cnamim

-disciples of the rabbins. The avengers of

the blood dared not interfere with the offender

on the way. To slay him would have been

murder, punishable with death . The cities

of refuge were s ix in number—three on th is

s ide J ordan , three on the other. They were

so situate as to be almost opposite each

other. Hebron in J udah , over against Bezer

in the Wilderness ; S ech em i n E phraim ,

against Ra amath Gilead ; Kadesh Naph th a li,

against Golan . These places divided Pales

tine into four equal portions, being so arranged

that the distances from the southern bound

ary to H ebron , from Hebron to S ech em ,

from S ech em to Kadesh , and from Kadesh

to the northern frontier, were nearly identical .

There were excellent roads from one to the

other ; at intervals s ignposts were erected

indicating the way to the nearest ci ty of

refuge. Arrived at whichever of these he

had selected , the conductors handed the

offender into the charge of the Levites.

H omicide (a ccidenta l ) , a nd P erj ury . I 1 5

These allotted to him a dwell ing place. H e

was in every respect free but not permitted

to go beyond the boundaries of the terri tory

pertain ing to the town . Here he remained

unti l the death of the high priest . Whenever

th is occurred he was at l iberty to return to

h is home . The Hebrew who had the m is

fortune to slay accidentally a fel low man

could l ikewise seek refuge, temporari ly, i n

any one of the forty-two levi tical c ities of

Palestine.

The Talmud dist ingu ishes two kinds of

accidental homicide—one where the death is

due to the conduct or negl igence of the a c

cused only ; the other, where the deceased

contributed thereto by some act of his own.

For instance,a man is engaged bu ilding a

house in a publ ic street ; he is carrying a

heavy stone on to the roof. This falls upon

a neighbour passing below and kills h im .

The victim here is not to blame . I n such a

case the culprit would have been interned in

a city of refuge. Again , a person is occupied

1 2

1 1 6 C r imina l C ode of tne yews .

i n repairing an edifice s ituated in a private

court to which no one but the owner has the

right of access . A stranger enters ; as he

does so a stone falls and kill s h im . I n a case

l ike this the deceas ed was considered as

having contributed to h is own death and no

punishment whatever followed . A father

who chastised his son and undesignedly killed

h im ; a teacher wh o punished a pupi l and

unintentionally caused h is death and the

person who , by order of the S ynh edrin, in

flicted corporal punishment upon a culprit ,

which unfortunately terminated fatally—these

l ikewise were not interned in a city of refuge.

The reason of these three exceptions in the

appl ication of th is law is self-evident. But in

al l other cases of homicide coming under the

category before mentioned , where the victim

was not a contributory to his own death , the

penalty was enforced . A noteworthy ex cept ion is

,however, found in the Talmud. There

re sided among the J ews a great number of

so—called proselytes of the gate—strangers

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 1 8 C r imina l C ode of fl u f en/s.

a high priest dying after the condemnation ofa criminal , but before he arriv

’ed at the city of

refuge , the latter was free. I f a new high

priest had been elected before judgment was

pronounced in a trial for homicide, the intern

ment took place . I f any person was so un

fortunate as to kill accidentally the high

priest, or if th is functionary was h imself the

culprit,he was confined to one of the ap

pointed towns during the whole of his l ife

time. Those who were conducted to the

c ities of refuge for the inadvertent murder of

a fellow-man entailed no expense upon the

S tate or their friends. The mother of the

high priest supplied these offenders with food

and Clothing, in order that they might not

pray for the death of her son !

The pun ishment provided for perjurers

by the Pentateuch is pecul iar. L ike another

Mosaic ordinance it was probably suggested

to the Hebrew legislator by the practice of

the ancient E gyptians . A false witness was

condemned to suffer whatever pains and

H omicide (a ccidenta l ) , a nd P erj ury . 1 1 9

penalties a conviction would have entailed

upon those whom he wrongfully accused .

Theo retically th is appears extremely s imple ;

i ts practical applica tion’

wa s beset with diffi

culties . Nor is the language o f the B ible

sufficiently expl ici t in the case of sentence o f

death to render misinterpretation impossible .

We have before indicated one case where a

result of th is inj unction would prove a sheer

absurdity, and the perj urer escape withou t

any punishment whatever . O ther instances

are readily furn ished. A man,for example ,

accuses another of accidental homic ide ; the

penalty of th is O ffence is internment in a c ity

of refuge. The testimony . i s proved to be

false ; the witness perjured . I s he therefore

to be conducted to a city of refuge ! An

offender confined to one of these places was

not undergoing a species of imprisonment.

He was perfectly free. The only influence

that induced—nay , compelled— him to remain

was the dread of being sla in by the avenger

of blood. A fa lse witness, if condemned to

I 20 C r imina l C ode of tne You/s .

th is internment, would have no fear of any

such consequences the punishment would

be ridiculous . I n such a case the perjurer

would laugh at the sentence and practically

escape scot free. Again , a man accuses one

of h is neighbours of steal ing a sheep . The

law in this case enjoined fivefold resti tution .

I f the th ief be unable to pay the amount he

could be sold into servitude until the next

jubilee in order to furn ish the money . The

prisoner in th is case is found to be poor.

The witness is proved to have committed

perjury : the accused is set free . How was

the individual gu ilty of a false oath to be

puni shed in th is instance ! He might fairly

O bject to being sold ; the neighbour whom

he sought to ru in might justly urge that a

money penalty was by no means equivalent

to th e yea rs of servitude he could have been

compelled to endure had the charge against

h im been establ i shed. The judges would

find themselves in a difficulty. Yet more

compl icated was th e appl ication of the Mosaic

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 2 2 C r im ina l C ode of tne yews.

pounded the law to h is colleague . F rom

thenceforward the son of Tabai never pro

nounced a judgment in the absence of Shimon

ben Shatah ; and every day as long as he

l ived he visi ted the cemetery and threw h im

self upon the grave of the witness whom he

had condemned . To obviate any difficulties

the Talmud prescribed for all cases of per

jury one uniform pun ishment stripes— that

is,flogging.

According to the prescription of the

Pentateuch an offender sentenced to be

flogged was always pun ished in the presence

of the S ynh edrin that condemned him . The

stripes,which might not exceed thirty-n ine in

number, were i nfl icted mercifully. A post

was fixed in the earth ; to th is the hands of

the offender were tied . The hazan— door

keeper,attendant, messenger, and in modern

times the reader of the community—performed the duty o f executioner. The culprit

was first stripped to the waist. Two qual i

fied judges then examined h im to determine

H omicide (a ccidenta l ) , a nd P erj ury . 1 23

how many stripes he was strong enough

to endure. I f these experts d isagreed in

their estimate the smaller number was a c

cepted. I f they decided that the offender

was capable of enduring the whole th irty-n ine ,

and i t was subsequently found that he was

not sufficiently robust to do so, punishment

ceased . I f, on the other hand , they consi

dered that, say, only eighteen stripes should

be infl i cted , and it was afterwards seen that

the criminal could bear the full quota , no

add ition might be made to the original esti

mate . I n al l cases the number fixed must

be divisible into three even portions that is ,

i f the judges decided the offender could bear

twenty stripes , they must only award eighteen

i f eight, only s ix . The handle of the whip

was four fingers’ breadth long ; the thong of

the same breadth and long enough to cross

the body. O ne of the judg es gave the word

strike ,’ as the s ignal for each stripe another

kept reckoning of the number a th ird read

three portions of Scripture aloud during the

1 24 C r imina l C ode of tne yews .

pun ishment ; the concluding verse being from

the Psalms (lxxvi i i . 38) But He,being

merciful , forg iveth in iqu ity .

’ I f at any time

during the flogging involuntary s igns of

weakness were observed the‘ culprit was at

once released . I f he succeeded in free ing

h imself from the post or managed to escape ,

the punishment could not again be infl i cted .

I f the whip broke during the flogging, i t was

not permitted to repair the lash and continue

the stripes. I n the Talmud stripes are pre

scribed as the penalty of nearly all ord inary

offences of which the criminal code in those

times took cognisance. A dultery,immoral i ty,

sacrilege, and publ ic desecration of the Mosaic

ceremon ial laws were al l in the later period

of J ewish national ity pun ishable in th is man

ner. Practically though, flogging seems to

have been confined to perjury.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I 26 C r imina l C ode of ti e Years .

I f a man was threatened with death unless

he consented to assassinate a neighbour,he

was directed rather to die than slay an inno

cent person . S imilarly, the Talmud enjoins

every man to prefer death to dishonouring

under compulsion an innocent woman. I n

times of rel igious persecution i t was for

b idden to violate in publ ic the ordinances of

the B ible. But the conditions constituting

such violation were clearly discriminated. A

man might attend to an idol , he might wash

and anoint it, bring wood and l ights to

pagan temples but if ordered under penalty

of death to publ icly acknowledge an image as

h is God he was bound to refuse . I f a pagan

commanded a J ew to cut grass for his horse

on a Sabbath day he might do so ; but if

ordered to cut the fodder and throw it into

the river (i .e. needlessly to desecrate h is faith)he was not permitted to comply.

Another injunction of the Mosaic C ode

copied from the laws of the E gyptians

required a man to risk even h is l ife when

M iscel la neous L aws. 1 27

he saw a fellow-man in danger, under the

penalty of flogging. (The E gyptians punished

the omission with stripes or three days’ im

prisonment without food. ) S teal ing a fellow

J ew and sell ing him was, as we have already

said,a capital crime. S teal ing and con

cea ling a man entailed upon the O ffender

publ ic flogging. An elder or judge who

simply taught in contravention of the tra

ditions of the Great S ynh edrin of J erusalem

was not condemned to death unless he ren

dered decisions in accordance wi th his heter

odox views and saw his judgments carried

into effect. A criminal three t imes con

v icted and pun ished for an offence—adul

tery, paganism , perjury, &c .—entail ing flog

ging,was imprisoned for l ife . An offender

who succeeded in escaping when led to exe

cution was not reconducted , when captured ,

to the tribunal by which he was tried and

condemned . Two witnesses deposed to the

fact of his convict ion before the nearest

S ynh edrin,and the sentence was thereupon

1 28 C r imina l C ode of tue yen/s.

carried out. A person tried for two crimes,

each entail ing a different kind of death,and

convicted of both , was pun ished with the

least painful of the two modes of execution .

Two persons charged with a capital offence

would not be heard and judged on the same

day ; not even if paramours in adultery.

C onfiscation of property was unknown to

the Hebrew law, a malefactor’s possessions

always descending to the natural heritors .

Double pun ishment—dis in idem—such as

the payment of a pecuniary penalty in addi

tion to flogging, was not permiss ible, except

in the one instance where the infl i ction of

both is specially prescribed in the Pentateuch .

The survey, necessarily brief and imper

fect, here completed of the C riminal Laws of

the Talmud , will enable even those who run

and read ’ to form some idea of the Hebrew

Penal C ode and the practical mode of ad

ministering justice as it prevailed among the

I srael ites of old. The simpl icity of the

organ isat ion , the mildness of the punish

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

130 C r imina l C ode of t/ze 7ezvs .

Moses is d istinctly suppl ied with motive

the K ing is commanded not to take unto him

a number of wives , i n order that he may not

be corrupted and led away to idolatry. Here

the reason of the precept is d istinctly given .

The sp iri t, the essence of the enactment is

that the Sovereign be not seduced to pa

ganism . The Talmud points out that the

indication of the motive in th is instance is

calculated to produce the very contrary effect

to that intended . For the following reason‘A good man reading it will say, as K ing

Solomon did,The object of th is command

is to preserve me from idolatry ; surely I

need not fear being seduced to the worship

of strange deities . I am not afraid of vio

lat ing the sp iri t O f the law therefore I need

not adhere to the letter of the precept, pro

v ided I bear in mind its purport . Yet the

very self-confidence engendered by regarding

the motive only caused the fall of the wisest

of men . For he took h im many wives and

they did corrupt him .

’ The argument of the

M iscel la neous L aws . I31

rabbins in reference to this precept shows a

sound knowledge of human nature and its

pecul iar weaknesses .

A s regards th e narr‘ow prejudices of the

rabbins, it may be worth whi le again to call

attention to the charge addressed to wit

nesses when about to give evidence , cau

tioning them against supposing that a J ew

was superior to the men of other . nations .

Time after time the Talmud emphatically de

clares anent proselyti sm that i t is not meces

sary to become a Hebrew in order to par

ticipa te i n a future existence The M ishna,

moreover, narrates how on the Day of Atone

ment, the most sacred and solemn fast of the

year, when the I sraeli tes sought pardon for

their transgress i ons , seventy additional sacri

fices were offered in the Temple to procure

remiss ion for the in iqu ities committed by the

seventy nations then supposed to exist.

I n the practical regulations of every-day

l ife the same l iberal ity is apparent. A pagan

l iving among the J ews was not perm itted toK 2

l 32 C r imina l C ode of tne 7ezvs .

keep the seventh day as a Sabbath if he

rested upon another day in accordance with

the custom of his own people. No man

must be idle two days ,’ remarks the Talmud ,

i n each week .

’ A pagan who blasphemed

the Almighty was not punished ; for,’ say

the rabbins , he does not bel ieve in our God .

’

These are somewhat unusual modes of mani

festing narrow-mindedness and prejudice and

bigotry.

O f the criminal code formulated by these

rabbins i t may fairly be said, in the words of

an old C hinese adage, that the pen O f the

law fears the thunder of Heaven .

’ Nothing,

perhaps,can be more characteristic of the

sp iri t of the H ebrew penal system , of its

treatment of offenders , and of its modes of

punishment than the graceful saying a ttri

buted in the Talmud to Berurah , wife of the

pious Rabbi Meier and daughter of the no

less renowned C h anina ben T ’

radyon . The

Rabbi Meier was plagued with some ex

tremely wicked neighbours Angered at

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SMITH, ELDER, coxs NEWBOOKS .

Under tfie S a nction (y’

HE R M A yE S T Y THE QUE E IV.

In the press, demy 8y o . with Portrai ts,a Facsim i le

,and an Index , 1 8s .

TH E F I FTH A ND LAST VO LUME O FTHE LIFE OFHIS ROYALHIGHNESS THE PRINCE CONSORT.

By THE O DO RE MART IN .

THE THA C KE RA Y GIF T -B O OK

NEW ILLUS T RAT E D E D I T I O N O F THAC KE RAY'S’8 A LLA DS .

'

J ust pub l ished , smal l 1 6s .

BA LLADS .

BY WILLIAM MAKE PE ACE THACKE RAY .

WITH A PO RTRAIT O F TH E AUTHO R ,And 56 I llustrat ions by the Au thor, Mrs . BUTLER (Miss E l izabethT hompson) , GEO RGE DU MAURIER , J O HN CO LL I ER, H . FuRN Iss , G. G .

KILE URNE , M . F I T Z GERALD,and J . P. ATKIN S O N . Printed on toned

paper by CLAY , SO NS , 8: TAYLO R ; and e legant ly bound in cloth ,g i lt edges, by BURN .

GIFT -B O OK F OR L O VE RS OF RURA L LIFE .

I L L U S T RA T E D E D I T I O N O F'T H E G A M E K E E P E R A T H O M E .

’

Larg e crown 8y o . ros . 6d .

THE GA M EKEEPER A T HOM E ;O R

, SKE T CHE S O F NAT URAL HIST O RY, RURAL LIFE ,

AND PO ACHING.

With 4 1 I l lustrations specia l ly drawn for the work by CHARLES WHYM PE R .

LIFE OF LIEUT.

-GEN. SIR J A M ES OUTRA M .

By Major-General S ir FRE DE RIC J . GO LDS M ID, C .B.,

2 vols . demy 8y o. !In M epress .

THE A M ATEUR POA CHER.

By the Au thor of T h e Gamek eeper at Home, ’ ‘W ild L ife ina Sou thern County .

’

Crown 8vo . 5s .

A RULE OF PROPORTION FOR THE HUM AN FIGURE .

By J O HN MARSHALL, F .R . C S Profe ssor of Anatomy,Royal Academy of Arts.I l lustrated by J OHN S . CUTHBERT. Fol io, in wrappe r, 8s . in portfol io, 9s .

THE POE TRY OF A STRONOM Y.

By R ICHARD A. PRO CTO R, Au thor of ‘Th e Borde rland of Sc ience , ’Sc ience Byways, ’

&c . Crown 8y o .

London : SM IT H,E LDE R , C O . , 1 5 Waterloo P lace .

SMITH, ELDER,CO . S PUBLICATIONS .

W O RKS BY M A TTHEW A RNO LD.

LAST E SSAYS O N CHURCH AND RE LIGIO N. By MATTHEWARNOLD. !Vi th a Preface . Crown 8vo. 7s.

M I! E D E SSAYS . Crown 8vo . 9s .

CONTENTS —Democracy—Equal ity—I rish Ca thol ic ism and B ritish Libe ra l ism P or r o

Unum es t N ecessa r zum—A Gu ide to Eng l ish L ite rature—Falk land—A French Critic onM ilton—A French Cri t ic on Goe the - Georg e Sand .

LITE RAT URE AND DO GMA an E ssay towards a Better A ppreh ension of th e B ible . F ifth Ed it ion. Crown 8vo . 9s .

‘g.’ Th eReferences to a l l th e B ib le Quota t ions a re i n this Ed it ion added for th e fi rst t ime .

GO D AND THE B IBLE : a Review of O bject ions to ‘Li terature andDogma. ’ Reprinted from th e C ontempora ry R ev iew . Entire ly Revised , with3 Preface . Crown 8vo . 9s .

ST. PAUL AND PRO TE STANT ISM. W i th an E ssay on Puri tan ismand th e Church of Eng land. Third Edi t ion, Revised . Smal l crown 8vo 4s . 6d .

CULT URE AND ANARCHY : an E ssay in Pol i t ical and SocialCri t ic ism. Reprinted from th e C orn/ril l M ag a zine. Wi th 3. Preface a nd A l terat ions. Second Ed it ion, 7s .

O N THE ST UDY of CE LT IC LIT E RAT URE . 8vo . 8s. 6d.

FR IE NDSHIP ’S GARLAND ; being the Conversa tions , Le t ters, andO p inions of th e late A rmm ius Baron Von-Thunde r-T en-T ronck h Collected andEd ited, with a Ded icatory Le tter to A do lescens Leo, E sq , , of th eDa i ly Teleg raph .

Smal l Crown 8vo . 4s . 6d .

W O RKS BY T HE LA TE G E O RGE HE NRY LEW E S .

THE ST O RY O F GO E THE ’S LIFE . By GEO RGE HENRY LEWES .

Crown 8vo. 7s . 6d .

THE LIFE O F GO E THE . T hird E d i t ion , revised accord ing to thelate st Documents . 1 vol . With Portrai t . 8vo . 1 6s .

ARIST O TLE a Ch apter from the H istory of Science. NVi-th Analysesof Aristotle ’s Scient ific Writing s. Demy 8vo . 1 5s .

STUD IE S IN ANIMAL LIFE . W i th Coloured Frontispiece andother I llustrat ions Crown 8y o . 5s .

O N ACT O RS AND THE A RT O F ACT ING. Crown 8vo . 7s . 6d.

W O RKS BY LE S L IE S TE PHE N .

A H I ST O RY O F E NGLISH THO UGHT IN THE E IGHT E ENTHCE NTU RY. 2 vols. Crown 8vo . 28s .

HO UR S IN A LIBRARY. F irst S er ies . By LES LIE STEPHEN .

Second Ed i t ion Crown 8vo . 9:

CONTENTS —Defoe s N ove l s—Richardson’s Nove ls—Pope as Moral ist—M r . E lw m’

s

Ed i t ion of Pope—Some Words abou t S ir Wa l ter Scott—Na than ie l Hawthorne—Balzac ’sN ove l s—De Qu incey.HO UR S IN A LIBRARY. S econd Series. Crown 8y o . 9s.CONTENTS —S ir Thomas Browne—J onathan Edwards—W i l l iam Law—HoraceWa lpo le-Dr. J ohnso n’s Wn ting s

—Crabbe ’s Poe try—Wi l l iam Hazl it t—M r . D israe l i ’s Nove l s.HO UR S IN A LIBRARY. T hird Series . Crown 8vo . 9s.

CO NTENTS —Ma!s in er—F ie ld ing Cowpe r and Rousseau—Ed inburg h ReviewersWordsworth’s E th ics ndor—Macau lay—Char lot te Bronte—K ing sley.

London : SM ITH , E LDE R,C O . ,

1 5 Waterloo Place .