Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/535

 49©

A LAWYER'S STUDIES IN BIBLICAL LAW. FAMILY SOLIDARITY. By David Werner Amram. THE union of all the members of the family under the supremacy of the patri arch was the archtype of the union of allied families under the clan chieftain, and in this manner family solidarity was broadened to tribal solidarity. At a later stage in the his tory of the Jews, this principle was extended to the union of the tribes forming a nation under the headship of the king. In all of these forms the underlying bond of union was be lief in the descent from a common ancestor, necessarily involving the blood relationship of all the persons constituting these several political divisions. Originally this kinship of the members of the family and tribe was actual, but in the course of time it became largely fictitious owing to the free admixture of alien blood. Many nations mingled their blood with that of the Hebrews throughout the long history ending with the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem. The theory of the kinship of all the members of the family was not affected by this adoption of strang ers, for the stranger by coming into the fam ily or tribe was, by a legal fiction, presumed to be of its blood. We see a similar process now going on in our own country. The Eng lish language and spirit predominate here and foreign elements rapidly lose their iden tity, and in so doing become completely in corporated into the American body politic. It is not unusual to hear recent immigrants speak of the adoption of the Constitution by "our fathers." Family, tribal, and national solidarity are by no means peculiar to the Jews, although from the strange and remarkable part that they have played in the world's history atten

tion has been attracted to them in an unusual degree, and they have been popularly accred ited with an especial racial affinity for each other, a notion that has been a fruitful theme for novelists and anti-Semitic agitators. This solidarity is peculiar to no race or people. It finds its origin in the constitution of human nature and not in the peculiar religious or political character of a people. Among the primitive Hebrews, as among other primitive peoples, the family was a petty political body, largely independent of all others, wandering about under the lead ership of its patriarch and looking upon other nomadic families with suspicion and distrust. It is not difficult to understand that under such conditions the instinct of self-preserva tion would strongly knit the members of the family together for their mutual protection. The necessity for mutual help and the feel ing of interdependence thus engendered among the members of the family spread to the tribe and the nation. Under such con ditions arose the notion of blood vengeance, and the Goel or redeemer whose duty it was to fight for his kinsmen, to ransom him, to protect his property, to marry his widow, and to avenge his death; he was a dramatic exponent of the sacred ties of blood relation ship. One interesting aspect of this question may be considered at length. Deuteronomy (xxiv, 16) has the following law : " The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin." The existence of this law necessarily implies that before its