Ancient Near Eastern Index – Parashat Mishpatim/0

Ancient Near Eastern Index – Parashat Mishpatim

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Law: General

• See M. Greenberg, Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law, for discussion of the contrasts between the underlying values of Biblical law and laws of surrounding Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Greenberg demonstrates that Biblical law is unique in identifying God, rather than the king, as its source. Consequently, adultery is viewed by Tanakh as a sin against God, not simply an affront against the husband. Similarly, the sanctity of human life, and the fact that it is not comparable to the value of property, is a basic premise of Biblical law but not of other ancient law codes. Tanakh is also unique in prohibiting vicarious punishment. All of these differences derive from the belief that law derives from God’s will, and the corresponding notion of sanctity in the legal context.
• See Tanakh and the Literature of the Ancient Near East I and Tanakh and the Literature of the Ancient Near East II, by R. Amnon Bazak, for comparison and contrast of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern law in general. He, too, notes that a fundamental difference between the two is that Tanakh views law as deriving from the will of Hashem rather than that of the king, which leads to many practical ramifications.  Among these are that Tanakh includes apodictic laws such as those of the Ten Commandments, whereas Ancient Near East laws are consistently expressed casuistically.  
• See The Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes which analyzes points of contact and difference between the various law codes, noting that the variations reflect both the different underlying values and principles of the cultures, and their different conceptions of justice and punishment. While the Torah attempts to lay forth principles of right and wrong and to set up a just society, the primary goal of the other codes is to preserve law and order. The topic also includes a case study comparing the laws of the goring ox in various codes.
• See Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes, by Raymond Westbrook, for information about the Ancient Near East law codes that have survived and analysis of their nature and purpose.
• See Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law II, by R. Chaim Navon, for comparison and contrast of several of the individual laws of Parashat Mishpatim (including the laws of the Hebrew manservant, the goring ox, theft, pledge-taking and hurting a pregnant woman) with Ancient Near Eastern legal sources.
• See The Code of Hammurabi, by J. Dyneley Prince, for information about various legal points of comparison and contrast between Biblical law and the Code of Hammurabi specifically. He compares laws of adultery, rape, disobedient children, false witnesses, divorce, kidnapping, theft and the notion of lex talionis, the principle of retaliatory/proportional punishment, which he suggests underlies much of the code.¹

Idolatry

• See Idolatry, by Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit, for a comprehensive analysis of paganism from the perspective of monotheistic religions, with a focus on Judaism.
• See The Biblical Idea of Idolatry, by Jose Faur, for information about Ancient Near Eastern notions of idolatry and Tanakh’s rejection of idolatrous beliefs. This article briefly outlines and rejects Yehezkel Kaufmann’s theory that “Israel was totally unaware of the nature of pagan beliefs.” Kaufmann’s The Religion of Israel is available here.

Theft and Kidnapping

• See The Meaning of Theft in Ancient Near Eastern Law, by Hossein Badamchi, for analysis of different types of theft and their punishments in ancient law codes, including kidnapping.

Slavery

• See Slavery in the Ancient Near East, by I. Mendelsohn, for information about various forms of slavery that were practiced.

Laws of Animals

• See Animals in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law: Tort and Ethical Laws, by Idan Breier, explores the various laws related to animals in Torah and other legal codes of its time, including stealing and finding animals, watching over and renting animals, and responsibility for damage caused by animals (including goring oxen). The author notes that there is an entire category of laws found almost exclusively in Torah, those which might be known as “humane” laws, intended to protect and promote animal welfare. He suggests that the difference between the codes, and Torah's ethical bent, stems from its Divine authorship. The "ethical principles that encompass the animal as well as human world is a function of God’s status as a merciful and compassionate creator who is concerned about and takes care of all his creatures."
• See also Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law II, by R. Chaim Navon, and AlHatorah's The Torah and Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes mentioned above, which both discuss the laws of goring oxen.

Accidental Murder

• See Killer on the Run, by R. Zvi Shimon, for analysis of the laws of accidental murder, an avenger of blood, and the city of refuge in light of similar institutions in the ancient near east. He notes that while Tanakh utilized a pre-existing framework, it overhauled and adapted it to Torah values.  Thus, for instance, Torah distinguishes between a willful and unintentional killer, granting refuge only to the latter, while other law codes do not differentiate. While other codes allow the blood avenger to kill any member of the murderer's family, Tanakh limits the avenging to the culprit himself.

Capital Punishment

• See Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law, by Edwin M. Good, for discussion of the crimes for which capital punishment was mandated in ancient societies, in an effort to deduce from this the varying values of these cultures. [The author suggests that the more severe the punishment, the worse the society views the offense]. The author notes: “One finds in Israel a religious ethic that is sometimes explicitly adduced in explanation of legislation, whereas Babylonian ethics would seem to be based entirely upon social or utilitarian considerations.”

¹ See also "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן" – An Eye for an Eye for analysis of commentators’ interpretations of the various verses in the Torah, including Shemot 21:22-25, that seem to indicate that the Torah mandates lex talionis as well.