Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/62

 Chapters from the Biblical Law. cution of his vow was granted to her, and at the end of that time, she returned to her father, "And he did unto her according to his vow which he had vowed." Human sacrifice is Several times alluded to in the Bible, and it required positive legisla tion to put an end to it. These laws were not passed until after the time when the theory of the rights and duties of the patri archal family had undergone considerable modification. As long as the father was the master of his family, accountable to no man for his actions concerning it, there was no way in which his power could be limited. This theory remained in full force as long as the Hebrews lived a nomadic life, and even some time after they had settled in Palestine; but gradually the requirements of a milder civilization, and the influence of agricultural life which required men to dwell together in harmony and peace, modified the ancient rights of the patriarch. Public opinion became possible under such conditions, and eventually public opinion became law. The father could no longer put his children to death because public opinion would not per mit it; and thus gradually the unrestricted right of the patriarch was modified, and the members of his family obtained a legal status and legal rights independent of him until eventually the individuality of each human being was respected and protected by the law. The views of the Rabbinical authorities on the law of the case of Jephthah's daughter are very curious. The Rabbis were notably great lawyers, but they lacked one important qualification for the proper understanding of this case. They had no true historical per spective. They viewed the facts of Jeph thah's case without regard to the time when it occurred, and hence were unable to under stand the reasons and the motives behind it. It is exactly the same fault that modern lawyers have when they fill their briefs of argument with citations without regard to chronological or historical order. Their purpose is a practical one; to wit, to

39

strengthen a certain argument in the case in which they are interested, and in the pursuit of their practical ends, they lose sight of much that distinguishes the cases cited by them from the case in which they are cited. The old Hebrew lawyers whose opinions are recorded in the Talmud looked upon the case of Jephthah's daughter as though it had occurred in their own days. They were oblivious of the fact that it is a record of an incident in a civilization that had entirely passed away, and that it reflects customs and laws that had been superseded and made obsolete a thousand years before their day. The result is a curious confusion of ideas. For instance, there is a law that certain ani mals are unclean and therefore unfit for sacrifice; a law that was entirely unknown in Jephthah's day. But the Talmudist very pertinently, from his point of view, asks: Suppose an unclean animal had come out of Jephthah's house to meet him, would he have offered it as a sacrifice to the Lord? The reply was that as an unclean animal was unfit for sacrifice, Jephthah would not have offered it had it come forth to meet him. Another Talmudist raises a more important question. It was possible under the Tal mud ic law for a man to have his vow annulled if it was made under mistake or under duress,—a proceeding somewhat sim ilar to the rescission of a contract in our own days, upon the ground of accident, mis take and the like. Of course, in Jephthah's day this refinement of the law was unknown; but the Talmudist to whom it was well known was unmindful or perhaps ignorant of the fact that the law was not the same in Jephthah's day as it was in his own; hence he asks: "Why did not Jephthah go to the high priest and have his vow annulled?" According to tradition, Phineas, the grand son of Aaron, was high priest in those days, and Jephthah might have applied to him as the supreme judicial authority to annul his vow and thus save his daughter's life. Another Talmudist answers that Jephthah must have had some special reason for not