Ill If 1 1 1 111' s
iiiiiitiUi '
1 liliiii
B3 Jill
ffllll
"■MM
i !!!!!!
!i!
1
:;:
1 lilll
i llllfl pp
II ill Hill!
li | ;iii!
mis
lip
■■r
* ¥
I I Pi-
tt li: 1111
lipl
■llliiiilil
lii !l m ! ill
ill!
wm
llllll
111
HI
III:
iliiiilii
m
iiliil
Pill'
II il jiiilli '} ! I I ' fiW '
f ; ;;
I iiliil
H Hiiilili
■HHPHH
ill I II
:
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
GIFT OF
HORACE W. CARPENTIER
' c
THE POLITY
OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS
BY
MAYER SULZBERGER
PHILADELPHIA
JULIUS H. GREENSTONE
1912
CAKPENTIER
PRESS OF
CAHAN PRINTING COMPANY
218 S. FOURTH STREET
PHILADELPHIA. PA.
* I
The following lectures were read before
the Dropsie College for Hebrew and
Cognate Learning, Philadelphia, in the
month of March, l9l2. They are mere
studies in the public law of the ancient
Hebrews. The author hopes to supple-
ment them by further studies on other
branches of that interesting system of
jurisprudence.
354
THE POLITY OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS*
By Mayer Sulzberger, Philadelphia
I
In accepting the flattering invitation of this learned
institution to deliver a course of lectures on the Institutes
of Government of the Ancient Hebrews, the natural re-
luctance to assume a novel duty was overcome by the
earnest suggestion that at least so much was due to the
cause and to the venerated Founder of this college. In
the course of a long and active life, he always found time
and opportunity to further the cause of Hebrew learning,
and this munificent endowment by his last will and testa-
ment was the fitting crown upon his lifelong labors in the
cause.
The western world — the world of modern civilization
— has always felt and evinced a transcendent interest
in the polity of the ancient Hebrews. The books in which
it is recorded were once universally accepted as literally
inspired, and although the modern course of thought has
tended to raise important dissents from this view, it is
still widely accepted, and even those who reject it have
contributed some of the most valuable aids to the under-
standing of the biblical literature.
*A course of four lectures delivered before the DROPSIE COLLEGE
FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING, March 18, 21, 25 and 28.
2 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
A phenomenon so remarkable cannot be merely casual
or accidental. Whereas the legislation of the great Asiatic
empires of India and China has merely aroused the curi-
osity of the scholar, the polity of the Hebrews has awak-
ened the earnest attention of learned and simple, of cleric
and layman, of statesman and poet. There is a feeling
that the ancient Hebrew ideals of government concur with
our own in their deepest meanings. Absolute autocracy,
the lordly disregard of the humble, the exclusive concern
of the individual for himself, these are all attributes which
appear to us to be present in the great and powerful of
Eastern lands, and they repel us. In the Hebrew polity
the ideals are the reverse. The King was to live for his
people, was governed by a fixed law which he had not made
and which he could not unmake, and was checked by a
national council, representative of the people.
The judicial function was, as time progressed, severed
from the general sovereignty and became a power which
owed allegiance to the law above all other masters, antici-
pating in this respect that distribution of sovereign func-
tions which is an essential attribute of modern constitu-
tions.
Aliens were no longer looked on as enemies, but were
to be treated with fairness and regarded as friends.
Slavery was abhorred, and the abuses of capitalism were
deplored and restrained.
A few years ago I had the honor to deliver a lecture
before the Jewish Theological Seminary at New York, in
which I endeavored to show that this trait was present in
the Hebrew people from the earliest times ; that the aver-
sion to absolute kingly authority was not modern or transi-
tory, but could be traced back historicallv to the election
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 3
and control by the people's representatives of the kings
from the very first of them, Saul, to the very last, Zedekiah ;
that is, through a period of more than four centuries. I
also endeavored to demonstrate that this representative
council, which had essential qualities of modern parlia-
ments, was for long known as the 'am ha-arcs, a technical
term which, in the mutations of time and circumstance,
acquired other and totally alien connotations, until at last
the true meaning was forgotten. The very simplicity of
the words, the ease with which a mere tyro can translate
them with the help of a dictionary, became, in later times,
a powerful obstacle to the recovery of the true meaning.
On that occasion I said (The Am-ha-arctz, Philadel-
phia (Greenstone), 1910, page 58): "The Parliament of
Israel had its humble beginnings at the city gate, where the
elders of the town, 'comers to the gate,' sat to hold the Town
Council and the Municipal Court. Gradually there was
evolved, from this institution, the tribal 'Am, which dealt
with the larger matters of the district inhabited by the
tribe. Friendliness among neighbors, and the necessity of
defense against enemies, produced alliances between sev-
eral tribes, and finally there resulted a union of all or
nearly all the tribes of Israel. Then only could there have
been formed a general gathering of delegates, an 'Am of
the land, our 'Am ha-aretz."
Further investigation has not resulted in finding
evidence that a tribal 'am ever existed. Perhaps such evi-
dence may be forthcoming in the future, but it is just as
likely, and even more so, that the actual development of the
'am did not follow the symmetrical and logical course I
had marked out for it. Life with its rich and varied aspects
has a way of disappointing the most rigid and exact logical
4 POLITY OE ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
processes. This fact, however, in no wise renders doubtful
the main thesis that the 'am ha-arcs, a great representative
body, played an important part in the government of
ancient Israel.
This present course will be limited in the main to the
examination of the "city gate," where the council (sckenim,
be'alim, anasJiim) sat, not only to hold the Town Council
and the Municipal Court, but to exercise much higher
powers. I shall endeavor to show that in pre-Israelite
times Palestine was composed of many little city kingdoms,
independent of one another, sometimes leagued together
for offence or defense, sometimes arrayed against one an-
other. They lacked large ideals. Their heaven, like their
earth, was parceled out among many, each with limited
local jurisdiction. Gods and Kings alike were profusely
numerous.
Upon them came down the Hebrews with their large
religious and national ideas. They believed at least that
Jhvh was the true and only God who had rule over Pales-
tine, and that all other Gods were in that domain rebels
and usurpers. The heathen's thought that the land be-
longed to many gods and many kings came in conflict with
the Hebrew notion of Canaan as one land, the portion of
one God (Jhvh), for the use of one nation, Jhvh's own,
his helek (Deut. 32, 9), his segullah (Exod. 19, 5).
"When Elyon divided to the nations their inheritance,
When he separated the sons of Adam,
He set bounds for the (seventy) peoples, (Gen. 46, 27).
Their number even as the B'ne Israel
Jhvh's portion is his people,
Jacob the lot of his inheritance.
He found him in the desert land,
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 5
And in the waste, howling wilderness ;
He led him about, he instructed him,
He kept him as the apple of his eye.
As the eagle stirreth up her nest,
Fluttereth over her young,
Spreadeth abroad her wings,
Taketh them,
Beareth them on her wings,
So Jhvh alone did lead him;
With him there was no alien God" (Deut. 32, 8-12).
The Hebrews came as an army. Their purpose was
to wrest a country from its possessors, a task that could
only be accomplished by war. If they had hopes of sudden
and complete conquest, these were soon dissipated. The
strife went on for decades, if not longer, and even at the
end the goal was never quite reached. Some parts of the
country always continued in the possession of the natives,
while in others a mode of compromise was found which
enabled the natives and the invaders to live together in
peace. While on the march it was well for Moses to pray
Jhvh to scatter Israel's enemies and to protect the myriads
(divisions) and regiments of the Hebrew armies (Num.
IO> 35-36), but when they were being settled on the land,
they were confronted with the many perplexing problems
with which peaceful governments must deal.
The task of ruling a country is far more complex than
that of governing a camp. The compactness and the unity
of the camp are its essential features, while the former
demands the scattering of the people into a thousand sev-
eral places, separated from each other by obstacles, natural
and artificial.
6 POLITY ni- ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
The actual condition of the country and the people, old
and new, had to be considered in framing the new govern-
ment. That they met the difficulties and practically over-
came them, history shows. The new territory was in the
end welded into a solid Hebrew state. The city-kings and
city-gods disappeared, and in their place came a true nation
and a national God — a conception which ultimately ex-
panded more and more until the idea of one humanity and
one God became deeply rooted.
Our task in this course is to ascertain what were the
early stages of this development, dealing in the first place
with the common theory of tribal organization, ascertaining
its true nature, and showing that its duration was less than
is usually believed. We shall next examine the pre-Israelite
city-states and their mode of government, following this up
by a view of the Hebrew statesmanship which, retaining the
form of organization of city-states, materially modified its
essence. The notices preserved in the Bible of the actual
exercise of the jurisdiction bv the Hebrew cities will next
be considered, to be followed by a consideration of the
legal provisions concerning these Hebrew city-councils
which still survive in the Pentateuch. And lastly we shall
endeavor to show that by degrees the national religious
idea was spread by the Levites and the Nebiim, until a true
Federal state evolved, with incidental remarks as to the
mode by which these great changes were effected.
I need scarcely say that in an inquiry like this into
obscure points of Hebrew Constitutional history, any lan-
guage I may use must not be construed into dogmatic as-
sertion. We are all fellow-students, earnestly striving for
light and knowledge, with the consciousness that the task
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 7
is difficult and that the work of many minds is required to
give it even a semblance of completeness.
The common opinion undoubtedly is that the Hebrew
commonwealth was formed by the union of twelve tribes
[mat tot. shebatim), which were subdivided into clans
(mishpahot), the latter into families (bct-abot), and these
in their turn were composed of warriors (gebarim).
The classical text on the subject is in the seventh chap-
ter of Joshua, which relates that the war for the conquest
of Canaan was auspiciously begun by the capture of the
walled city of Jericho ; that by Divine order, its inhabitants
(save a few favored for cause) were doomed to extinc-
tion, and, moreover, it was commanded that the victors
should avoid taking booty, since it was hcrcm and as such
would contaminate not only the taker, but the whole camp
(Josh. 6, 18). A soldier yielding to temptation captured
and hid away a goodly Babylonish garment, two hundred
shekels of silver, and a golden ornament of fifty shekels
weight.
Instantly the Divine favor was withdrawn. The city
of Ai, the point of next attack, which seemed easy of
capture, resisted and defeated the Israelite force. Joshua,
perturbed, inquired of the oracle and was informed that
the disfavor was due to the breach of the order against
booty. It became his task to discover the guilty person.
The mode of consulting the oracle is given at length (Josh.
7, 16-18). A series of questions is asked, and the oracle,
through the priest in charge of the Ark of the Covenant,
makes reply.
Incidentally, too. we learn the scheme of army organ-
ization. A representative of each tribe being brought
before the Ark, the question was put: To which of these
8 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
tribes (shebatim) does the offender belong? The answer
was, Judah. Thereupon the representatives of the several
clans of the tribe of Judah were placed before the Ark, and
the question propounded : To which of these mishpahot
does the offender belong? The answer was, Zerah. The
representatives of the several families of the Zerah clan
being placed before the Ark, the next question was : To
which of these bet-abot does the offender belong? The
answer was, Zabdi. Thereupon the gebarim (individual
warriors) of the Zabdi family, being put before the Ark,
the question was put : Which of these gebarim is the guilty-
man? And the answer was, Achan, ben Karmi, ben Zabdi,
ben Zerah, of the tribe (mattch) of Judah. The text is
slightly defective, but a careful reading of it justifies this
translation.
We have here a perfect scheme of organization : tribes
(mattot, shebatim), clans (mishpahot), families (bet-
abot), gebarim (individual soldiers).
It does not, however, stand alone. The scheme put
before Moses by Jethro is different. It divides the hosts
into thousands (alaphim), hundreds (me'ot), fifties
(hamishim) and tens ('asarot) (Exod. 18, 21).
At the selection of Saul for King (I Sam. 10, 17-25)
at Mizpeh the people were divided into tribes (shebatim)
and clans (mishpahot). The bet-abot are not mention-
ed, Saul being picked out of the mishpahah of Matri.
And there is still another difficulty. In verse 19, the word
alaphim is used for the mishpahot, a phenomenon which
occurs also in the story of Gideon (Judges 6, 15), who says
that he belonged to a poor clan (cleph). To add to the
confusion, the passage Numbers 1, 16 seems to identify
V
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER Q
the nesi'itn of the tribes with the rashim of the alaphim,
and would make the latter word mean trihes.
In later times the word eleph obtained a meaning even
more extended. When Saul was eager to seize David, he
promised to hunt him out of the fastnesses or districts
(alaphim) of the Judean wilderness, while Micah 5, 1
speaks of the city of Bethlehem as among the cities
( alaphim) of Judah.
Whether the systems of Joshua (7, 14-18) and of
Jethro (Exod. 18, 21) existed contemporaneously, may be
incapable of determination on the evidence, but the fact
seems scarcely probable. It may be a fair conjecture to
believe that the tribal system came first, and as time went
on the organization of the army became more perfect. So,
likewise, as the Hebrew army occupied and settled the land
piecemeal, an organization quite unlike the military organi-
zation in either shape would take its place.
The Jethro organization being military, pure and
simple, would go down first, while the tribal organization,
founded on notions of kinship and to a certain extent by
neighborhood settlement, would last longer. As the civil
government became more and more powerful, it would
easily appropriate old tribal military terms and attach them
to officers and circumstances of civil life, creating at the
same time new meanings, wholly or partially unrelated to
their original meaning.
So only can we explain the confusion in the term
eleph, which, meaning at first a regiment of soldiers, is in
antiquarian records confounded now with tribe, now with
clan, and in the speech of the day comes to mean a district
of land, or even a city.
IO POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
On this principle Jethro's scheme becomes plain. He
would form regiments of a thousand (alaphim), divide
them into companies of a hundred {me'ot), divide each of
these again into half-companies of fifty (hamishim), and
then subdivide the latter into squads (corporal's guards)
of ten, each division and subdivision having a proper officer
Or).
Some such arrangement appears indicated in Judges
20, 10, where a squad of ten men out of every hundred
(company) are designated to provision the army, and the
statement is incidentally made that there are companies
(me'ot), regiments (alaphim), and divisions (rebabot,
10,000).
There are other passages confirming this view. In the
Song of Moses (Deut. 32, 30) the poet asks: "How should
one chase a regiment (eleph) or two a division (rebabah) ?"
And in Deut. 33, 17, the military prowess of the house of
Joseph is based on the rebabot (divisions) of Ephraim, and
the alaphim (regiments) of Manasseh. The enmity con-
ceived by Saul for David is related as having originated in
the former's mortification at the extravagant language of
a popular song which represented David as slaughtering
whole divisions (rebabot), while Saul had only decimated
regiments (alaphim) (I Sam. 18, 8).
Perhaps even the term hamushim (soldiers) originated
from these half-companies of fifty (Exod. 13, 18; Josh.
1, 14; 4, 12; Judges 7, 11). And the word sar long con-
tinued to be applied to military officers (Isai. 21, 5; II
Chron. 32, 21).
If this theory be correct, we are entitled to believe
that as early as the time of Saul the tribal system had so
weakened that they used mishpahah and eleph indifferently
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER II
for each other and did not keep bct-abot in mind, and
that in later times there were still wider divergences from
the ancient meaning.
The whole history of the shophetim also tends to con-
firm this view. Gideon, whose connection with any other
tribe than Manasseh is not made clear, was early considered
the shopliet of all Israel. And the same is true of his son
Abimelech (Judges 9, 22), as also of Jephthah (Judges 11,
11). More significant still is the fact that we are not told
to which tribe Shamgar, Deborah, Ibzan, or, Abdon
belonged, an omission scarcely explicable if we assume that
each tribe had some kind of a government of its own
within its own territory.
There is no difficulty in concluding that the real tribal
organization disappeared with the conquest and survived
only in names and in fragments of institutions. As early
as the time of David, the census lumps the ten tribes to-
gether as Israel (II Sam. 24, 9; I Chron. 21, 5-6).
Solomon's government seems to have ignored tribal
authority. His twelve nissabim had jurisdiction over terri-
tory, but their tribal connection is not mentioned (I Kings
4, 7-19). Jeroboam was. Solomon's supervisor of labor for
Beth- Joseph (I Kings 11, 28), which seems to have been an
alternative name for all Israel outside of Judah-Benjamin
(I Kings 11, 28). The narrative concerning the latter's
strange investiture into the kingly office by the prophet
Ahijah would seem to allow of no other conclusion (I
Kings 11, 31). And finally, when the rebellion breaks
out, there is no mention of any tribe. All Israel (kol-
Israel) shouted: "To your tents, O Israel!" (I Kings 12,
16).
12 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
Still more significant of the effacement of tribal lines
is the fact that we do not know to which tribe belonged
Omri, Ahab, or Jehu, the three most notable kings of the
northern line. The evidence seems conclusive that this
effacement of tribal lines had gone on for a few centuries,
that we see the movement in progress* in the Song of
Deborah, and that it was nearly accomplished by the time
of the pviest-shophet Eli. At all events, the tradition was
that Deborah judged not a tribe or a small group of tribes,
but the B'ne-Israel (Judges 4, 5) and that Eli (I Sam. 4,
18) and Samuel did the same (I Sam. 7, 16-17). And
although it may well be that some of the military chiefs,
called shophetim (judges), ruled only a section of Israel,
the evidence that this rule was tribal in its nature is very
scanty. Jephthah, one of the most renowned of them, was
the head of Gilead, which was not a tribe but a territory.
At all events, the oldest traditions of Israel were that there
was in those old times a national union with a national
head.
Assuming, then, that this military organization for
conquest became gradually modified as the invasion grew
more and more successful, it becomes interesting to learn
how and why such changes took place.
The objective purpose of Moses was to overcome and
possess Canaan, the territory between the Mediterranean
and the Jordan, and to establish therein the B'ne-Israel
as a unified commonwealth with righteous aims and sound
laws. For reasons which seemed to him good and sufficient,
he determined that the attack should be made from the
east, by fording the Jordan. In a friendly way he requested
the powers controlling the eastern territory to grant him
leave to pass. This being refused, he fought his way, and
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 1 3
thus the war began in a country on which he had no hostile
designs and at a time earlier than he had planned. Sihon,
king of the Amorites, was the' first to go down before the
invaders. At the battle of Jahaz he was defeated, and in
consequence lost his land from Arnon to Jabbok. Israel
took all his cities with their banot and occupied them
(Numb. 21, 24-25, 32). Og, king of Bashan, was the next
to suffer. At Edrei he was totally routed (Numb. 21, 33,
35), and Israel took possession of his domain, as it had
before dealt with the Amorite land (Numb. 21, 34).
The advance was then made to the Jordan, opposite
Jericho, from which point it had been designed to begin
the war.
At once the important question obtruded itself, whether
it were wise to abandon the conquered territory for an
enemy to re-occupy, or to retain it and thus enlarge the
portion of land which would fall to each. The B'ne
Reuben and the B'ne-Gad offered to send their military
contingent to aid in the conquest of Canaan proper, and
to waive their share of that land, if the territory east of
Jordan were assigned to them as their portion. Their offer
was accepted and they, together with the half-tribe of
Manasseh (which appears to have joined them in their
project), received the territory which had been reft from
Sihon and from Og, with the cities thereof (Numb. 32.
1-33), their dependencies (banot) (Numb. 32, 42), and
their villages (hazvzvot) (Numb. 32, 41), or haseHm (Josh.
13. 28).
The momentous nature of the question facing Israel
was soon realized. Two tribes and a half were to leave
their wives, their children, and their cattle in the conquered
territory, while the active warriors, all the men between
14 POLITY OE ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
twenty and fifty years of age, were to leave the country to
carry on in the land west of Jordan a war that might last
for years. The necessity of providing for the government
of this East-Jordanic territory was obvious. Order had to
be preserved, enemies guarded against, quarrels adjusted.
The duty naturally devolved on the sekenim, the men over
fifty, who had become exempt from active military service
in the field. Circumstances did not favor the immediate
establishment of a permanent tribal government in the
East-Jordanic territory. The vigorous and ambitious mili-
tary chiefs were about to depart on a long and perilous
expedition ; the country was already organized into a series
of city-states or district states, and, however faulty the
system, it had worked somehow. As a temporary arrange-
ment it may have commended itself to the best minds of
Israel. This nascent nation had great ambitions but no
past history. It had never owned land or cities, but it
sacredly cherished ancient ambitions which told of divine
promises of both.
Now it suddenly and unexpectedly became the master
of these little city-kingdoms.
Sentiment doubtless soon became active. Men recalled
the legends of old, that the first man who left Eden built
a city (Gen. 4, 17) ; that the patriarch Abraham sojourned
in the city of Gerar (Gen. 20, 1) ; that Isaac was concerned
in the founding of Beersheba (Gen. 26, 33), and that Jacob
had stopped at Luz and had given it a new name (Gen. 28,
19).
But whatever the power of sentiment, there was always
in Israel a certain practical judgment which regulated it.
The great obstacle to the adoption of the mode of govern-
ment which had satisfied the aborigines, was that Israel
POLITY OE ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 1 5
was in its governmental notions republican and not mon-
archical ; in its social views democratic and not aristocratic.
The Canaanite city-states were founded on principles which
revolted the Hebrews.
The twelfth chapter of Joshua (vv. 9-24) gives us a
list of thirty-one city-states, each governed by a king
(melek) and the inference is not remote that the cities east
of the Jordan were similarly governed, Sihon and Og being
overlords, kings of the federations of city-states, each of
which had a kinglet of his own. The expressions "Heshbon
and all her cities" (Josh. 13, 17), "the cities and their
villages" (Josh. 13. 23. 28) used of places east of Jordan
give support to this view.
Such a city-state was composed in general of at least
three constituent elements: the fortified city proper, with
walls and towers of defense; several neighboring towns,
and a number of outlying villages. The fortified city itself
sustained the relation of mother (em) to the neighboring
towns and villages. The towns were called daughters
(banot), and the outlying villages hawwot or hascrim.
In the absence of powerful kingdoms, the formation
of such small city-kingdoms, or more properly, district
kingdoms, was inevitable. The relatively small territory of
fertile land betwen the Mediterranean Sea and the Eastern
Desert was then, as now, subject to incursions from the
Bedouins in years when a decreased rainfall narrowed their
grazing-ground. Driven westward by the mere instinct of
self-preservation, they would swoop down upon the settled
land and strip it bare. The shepherds and agriculturists
had to take measures to save themselves. Of this necessity
the fortified city was born. The inhabitants of villages
and towns were compelled to have a protected place of re-
l6 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
fuge where their lives and as much of their property as
they could store would be safe against the maurauding
hordes. This they found in the walled city, wherein the
inhabitants of a district within easy call could promptly
gather for defense against the dreaded enemy.
These overmastering necessities affecting both sides
created an irrepressible conflict, which was waged for ages
and the memory of which is preserved in the undying
hatred denounced against the nomadic Midianites and
Amalekites (Judges 6, 1-6; 7, 23-25; Isai. 9, 3 (4) ; Exod.
17, 16; Deut. 25, 19).
It is probable that the kings of these numerous city-
states governed despotically by the aid of ministers of their
own selection. If they were aided or restrained by a con-
siderable body of councillors, representative of th^ com-
munity, the evidence of the fact does not survive in our
records.
However this may be, the advent of Israel swept away
all these kinglets. Whenever a Hebrew army captured and
occupied a city, a government by elders was at once estab-
lished.
That this change was disagreeable to the aborigines
who continued to live alongside of the invaders, is probable.
Of this state of feeling there is perhaps a hint in the narra-
tive recording Abimelech's attainment of the office of city-
king of Shechem. The persuasive argument in his favor
was the interrogatory: Do you prefer to be ruled over by
seventy or by one? (Judges 9, 2).
Such a disharmony between the aborigines and the
invaders could not have been exceptional. The notes on
the subject are too numerous to be disregarded or to be
treated lightly, and they establish the fact that the conquest
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 1 7
was partial in this, that the aborigines who survived the
wars lived peacefully with and alongside of the conquerors.
Here are specimens of texts supporting this view : The
B'ne-Judah could not drive out the Jebusites from Jeru-
salem, but the Jebusites dwell there with them to this day
(Josh. 15, 63).
The B'ne-Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites
from Jerusalem, but the Jebusites dwell there with them to
this day (Judges 1, 21).
Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley
(Judges 1, 19).
Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-
shean and her banot; nor of Taanach and her banot, nor
of Dor and her banot, nor of Ibleam and her banot, nor of
Megiddo and her banot, but the Canaanites remained in
this district (Judges 1, 27).
Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived
in Gezer (Judges 1, 29).
Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron,
nor those of Nahalol, but the Canaanites continued to dwell
with them (Judges 1, 30).
. Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Acco, nor
those of Zidon, nor those of Ahlab, nor those of Achzib,
nor those of Helbah, nor those of Aphik, nor those of
Rehob; but the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites
(Judges 1, 31-32).
Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-
Shemesh, nor those of Beth-anath, but he lived among the
Canaanites who paid him tribute (Judges 1, 33).
The Amorites dwelt in Mount Heres, in Aijalon and
in Shaalbim, but became tributaries (Judges 1, 35).
l8 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
From this mass of evidence it must be concluded that
the Hebrew conquerors found it necessary or agreeable to
adopt a policy of conciliation and compromise, in order
that the natives who were either too strong or too useful
to be eliminated, might live content with the new insti-
tutions and customs introduced by the B'ne-Israel.
It thus appears that at the very outset of its national
career, Israel had to learn how to deal wisely and justly
with the natives, who had different notions of government
and of religion and who, by the advent of the conquerors,
had practically become aliens in their own birthplaces.
The solution of the difficulty, so far as governmental
features were concerned, was found in the doctrine that
strangers are entitled not only to equal rights, but to
genuine respect and brotherly affection.
Having brought the Hebrews into contact with the
natives and their organized governments, and having sug-
gested that a policy prevailed which may be called remark-
able, if not unique, for those times and climes, we shall
reserve the detailed consideration of the subject for our
next lecture.
II
The problems which beset an invading army are radi-
cally different from those which confront a settled popula-
tion. In the one case the purpose is aggression, in the other
defense. We have seen that the Hebrew conquerors of
Eastern Palestine had to face both kinds of difficulties.
They were settling in the east and conquering in the west.
Hence, notwithstanding the disadvantage plainly accruing
from a policy of compromise, they adopted it as the lesser
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER IO,
evil and arranged to allow the natives to live with them
in the enjoyment of rights. Means to procure general
favor for this course were not wanting. Legend and
history could be invoked in its behalf. The patriarch
Abraham is made to say to the 'am ha-ares of the Hittites :
I am a resident alien (gcr zee-toshab) (Gen. 23, 4) ; Moses
declares that he has been an alien (gcr) in a foreign land
(eres nokriyah) (Exod. 2, 22; 18, 3). In his proposed
covenant between Jhvh and Israel, he expressly recognizes
the alien (gcr) in the camp (Deut. 29, 10), and in his fare-
well address, delivered after the capture of the cities east
of Jordan, he provides for national reunions in the capital
of the future commonwealth, and includes among the con-
gregants the alien (gcr) from the cities (Deut. 31, 12).
So likewise Joshua, when he read the whole law before
the whole congregation, did not forget to procure the at-
tendance of the gcr (Josh. 8, 35).
That the sentiment behind these utterances was strong
may be inferred from its persistence in later times. David's
friendly relations with foreigners is frequently alluded to.
There is no finer instance of loyal fidelity than the devotion
of Ittai of Gath, the captain of David's body-guard, to his
royal master. About to flee from the west-land in conse-
quence of Absalom's rebellion, he said to Ittai : Why
shouldst thou an alien (nokri) share my fallen fortunes
when the king that is would gladly retain thee in thy office?
Swearing the great oath (hai Jhvh we-he adoni ha-mclck),
Ittai replied : "My place is with my lord the King, for
death or for life!" and David said: Pass on. Between
these great souls scant speech sufficed (II Sam. 15, 19-22).
So too Solomon, in his great dedication prayer, re-
membered the nokri of distant lands (I Kings 8, 41-43;
20 POLITY OP ANCIENT H^BRpWS — SULZBERGER
II Chr. 6, 32. 33), and even took a census of the gerim in
the country which ascertained that their number exceeded
150,000 (II Chr. 2, 16 (17)).
Great social facts like these necessarily find expression
in legislation, which is in the main the mere crystallization
of custom. Accordingly we find that the institution of the
Sabbath is to give rest not only to Israel but to the ger
[who is in thy cities] (Exod. 20, 10; Deut. 5, 14) ; or
simply to the ger (Exod. 23, 12).
Benevolent provision for the poor comprehends the
ger as well as the Israelite (Deut. 14, 28. 29; 26, 11-13).
Oppression of the ger is insistently reprehended.
"Do not vex a ger, nor oppress him, for ye were gerim
in the land of Egypt" (Ex. 22, 20 (21) ; 23, 9; Lev. 19, 33).
"The ger that dwelleth with you in your land ye shall
not vex. He shall be to you as an czrah (native). Thou
shalt love him as thyself; for ye were gerim in the land of
Egypt" (Lev. 19, 33. 34; Deut. 10, 19).
"Thou shalt not oppress a poor and needy hired serv-
ant (sakir), whether he be of thy brethren or of the gerim
in thy land in thy cities. Pay him his wage before sun-
down" (Deut. 24, 14. 15).
The ger was entitled to the equal benefit of the law.
"Ye shall have the same mishpat for ger as for ezrah"
(Exod. 12, 49; Lev. 24, 22; Num. 9, 14).
"Hear between your brethren and judge righteously
between a man and his fellow-Israelite or ger" (Deut. 1,
16).
"Pervert not the judgment of the ger or of the yatom"
(Deut. 24, 17).
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 21
The ger who has killed a man unwittingly is entitled
to the benefit of the city of refuge.
"The cities of refuge are for the B'ne-Israel and for
the ger we-toshab among them" (Numb. 35, 15; Josh. 20,
9).
And though in one respect the ger was the inferior
of the Hebrew, in that the latter was not to be held as a
bond-slave, while the ger zvc-toshab might be (Lev. 25, 45),
yet the latter had opportunities for social advancement.
Some of them had actually bought impoverished Israelites
as bond-slaves, and were legally entitled to hold them,
unless redeemed for full value (Lev. 25, 47-49).
That the policy of incorporating the natives of the
land into the body of the new state met with opposition and
was adopted with reluctance is highly probable.
Entering the trans- Jordanic country with peaceful
intention, Moses found none but enemies. Edom repelled
him, while Sihon and Og insisted on battle to the death.
Moab's pretended amity covered undying hatred and the
fraternization at Shittim' caused the leaders of the people
to become traitors to Jhvh's cause (Numb. 25, 1-5) and
threatened the disruption of Israel.
Small wonder, then, that the policy of extinction
should find sturdy advocates. The foundation stone of the
new republic, the worship of Jhvh, had, in the friendly
intimacy of Israel with the natives, been forgotten and
Baal-Peor seemed triumphant. Stern measures of repres-
sion were necessary and were executed by the militant
priest Phineas, with the provost-marshals (slwphctim)
(Num. 25, 5-9).
If the principle of the new state were to be firmly
established, a Pontiff was necessary to guard the national
22 POLITY OE ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
religion. Phineas was chosen for the office (Num. 25,
11-13), the Levite with an eye single for the cause, "who
did not acknowledge his brethren or know his own chil-
dren," if they were unfaithful to it (Deut. 33, 9).
When Joshua from the east bank of Jordan looked on
Jericho, the whole stupendous problem must have weighed
him down. There was much in favor of extreme measures
and much against them. Even in the city he was about to
attack he had found friends among the natives, and doubt-
less there were such everywhere.
They might be won to the side of Jhvh. The spies
returned had but just brought him Rahab's words : "Jhvh,
your God, is God in heaven above and in earth beneath.''
In the end Joshua decided in favor of the milder
course. He must have believed that the Jhvh religion
would, under the guidance of its sturdy priest, make its
way and hold its own. At all events, after the bloody days
of Jericho and Ai, he made a treaty with Gibeon, the great
city (Josh. 9, 15; 10, 2), and the new policy was, for weal
or for woe, initiated. History records that the Gibeonites
became servants in the Temple and for the altar (Josh. 9,
27), and thus this first treaty was an auspicious beginning,
of the peace policy, a bloodless victory for Jhvh, which
might well inspire hope for the future.
While Joshua was thus reorganizing his city-states, he
took care to provide that the national idea should be wor-
thily represented. The ohel-mo'ed, the tent-temple of
Israel, was instantly set up at Shiloh (Josh. 18, 1 ; Jer. 7,
12) ; there the tribes were gathered to attest their allegiance
to the cause of Jhvh ; there abode the national priest.
From thence and succeeding ecclesiastical capitals radiated
the influences which were gradually to bring the city-states
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 23
into harmony with the Hebrew ideals of religion and gov-
ernment and were finally to transform the federation of
small states into one unified kingdom for the north and
another unified kingdom for the south.
These city-states (called for short, cities) each in-
cluded at least one city, several towns and villages, together
with fields, which were owned by the residents of the city
and its dependencies. Under the policy adopted, these were
not all Israelites, but a certain residue of the natives re-
mained in their old homes.
These city-states all existed before the Hebrews ar-
rived. Each had its king and his ministers, who ruled the
little kingdom. The Hebrews at once abolished the kingly
office and placed the government in the hands of a council,
substantially representative in character. They did more.
They established a national priesthood at Shiloh, whose
office was to bring the law of the constituent city-states,
or city-districts, into harmony with each other and with the
national and religious customs and ideals of the Hebrew
people. The difficulties in the way were enormous. A
landless people were to learn that the military government
of a camp was quite unadapted to the rule of the country
they had conquered. They had to realize that local gov-
ernments were necessary ; that each of these had a center
or quasi-capital, and that from these quasi-capitals (the
fortified cities) would radiate opinions which had to be
reckoned with. How well they learned the lesson the
literature shows, since it indicates that the people's concep-
tion of the state was that it was an aggregation of cities,
and that the word "cities of the land" became a mere term
for the land itself.
24 POUTY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
Jephthah was buried in his native state of Gilead
(precisely where we do not know), but the historian in
stating this fact, simply says : Jephthah was buried in the
"cities" (state) of Gilead (Judges 12, 7).
In the great civil war with the B'ne-Benjamin the lat-
ter hastened to the rendezvous from the "cities" (Judges
20. 14) ; and when peace was restored they returned to their
cities (Judges 21, 23). To hail the triumphant David the
women came from all the "cities" of Israel (I Sam. 18, 6),
and when Asa of Judah formed alliance with Benhadad of
Damascus, the latter attacked the "cities" of Israel (I
Kings 15. 20).
When David was arranging to be anointed King of
Judah, he and his retinue settled in the Hebron "cities."
At the secession of Northern Israel under Jeroboam,
the B'ne-Israel that dwelt in the "cities" of Judah remained
faithful to Rehoboam (I Kings 12, 17).
When in J22 B. C. Sargon overcame Israel, he settled
foreigners in Samaria and they dwelt in its "cities" (II
Kings 17, 24. 26).
When Josiah introduced his reforms, he put down the
high places in the "cities" of Judah (II Kings 23, 5) and
in the "cities" of Samaria (II Kings 23, 19).
Isaiah in his fortieth chapter addresses the nation as
"cities" of Judah (Isai. 40, 9) and does the like in 44, 26.
Jeremiah does the same uniformly. "Publish against
Jerusalem, that watchers come from a far country and give
out their voice against the "cities" of Judah" (Jer. 4, 16).
"I shall cause to cease from the "cities" of Judah and
from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth .... and
the land shall be desolate" (Jer. 7, 34; 33, 10).
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 25
"I will make Jerusalem heaps .... and the "cities" of
Judah desolate" (Jer. 9, 10 (n); 34, 22).
"The noise of the bruit is come .... to make the
"cities" of Judah desolate" (Jer. 10, 22).
"Seest thou not what they do in the "cities" of Judah
and in the streets of Jerusalem?" (Jer. 7, 17).
Jhvh said unto me, Proclaim all these words in the
"cities" of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem" (Jer. 11,
6).
"Then shall the "cities" of Judah and inhabitants of
Jerusalem go and cry unto the gods unto whom they offer
incense" (Jer. 11, 12).
"Jhvh, the God of Israel, saith unto me: ,Take the
wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations
(goyim) to whom I send thee to drink it:
"Jerusalem and the "cities" of Judah and the kings
thereof and the sarim thereof .... " (Jer. 25, 15. 18).
"Thus saith Jhvh : Stand in the court of Jhvh's house
and speak to all the "cities" of Judah which come to wor-
ship in Jhvh's house .... " (Jer. 26, 2).
"In the fifth year of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king
of Judah, in the ninth month, they proclaimed a som (con-
vocation, fast ?) before Jhvh to all the people in Jeru-
salem, and to all the people that came from the "cities" of
Judah to Jerusalem" (Jer. 36. 9).
"Go back also to Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, the son
of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor
in the "cities" of Judah .... " (Jer. 40, 5).
Thus saith Jhvh of hosts, the God of Israel : Ye have
seen all the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem and
upon all the "cities" of Judah .... " (Jer. 44, 2).
26 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
"My fury and mine anger was poured forth and was
kindled in the "cities" of Judah and in the streets of Jeru-
salem .... " (Jer. 44, 6. 17).
Ezekiel speaks of the land of Israel in the same
fashion :
"The inhabitants of the "cities'' of Israel shall go
forth .... " (Ezek. 30, 9).
Zechariah characterizes the southern kingdom simi-
larly :
"How long wilt thou withhold mercy on Jerusalem and
from the "cities" of Judah .... " (Zech. 1, 12).
From the very beginning of the conquest this notion
that the state is only a bundle of "cities" (city-districts)
had taken root.
In reading the book of Joshua, one is struck with the
fact that the number of cities awarded to the several tribes
is so large that the territory represented by them and their
dependencies practically covers the settled part of the
country and is sufficient to contain the whole population.
Reuben is credited with thirteen cities, whose names are
given, and with a group without names but described as
"all the cities of the plain" (Josh. 13, 17-21).
Gad has four cities named, plus "all the cities of
Gilead" (Josh. 13, 30. 31).
Judah has one hundred and twelve cities and their
villages (Josh. 15, 21-62).
Benjamin has twenty-six (Josh. 18. 12-28).
Zebulun twelve (Josh. 19, 15).
Issachar sixteen (Josh. 19, 22).
Asber twenty-two (Josh. 19. 30).
Xaphtali nineteen (Josh. 19, 38).
Dan eighteen (Josh. 19. 41-47).
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SCI.ZHKRCKK 2*]
The number awarded to Western Manasseh and to
Ephraim is not stated, but even without them and without
the groups whose numbers are not given, there are more
than three hundred cities, each having its dependencies and
its outliers. "These cities were fenced with high walls,
gates and bars" (Deut. 3, 5; 1, 28).
In time the idea of the state as "cities" was expressed
even more significantly by the word sha'ar, which from
meaning the gate of a fortified city, came to signify the
court which was held at the gate, then the city itself, and
finally all the dwelling places of the people everywhere
(Exod. 20, 10; Deut. 5, 14; 6, 9; 11, 20; 12, 15. 17. 18;
14, 27; 15, 7; 16, 5. 11; 31, 12). Indeed, so extended had
become the idea attached to the word that it was applied
even to an encampment composed only of tents (Exod. 32,
26. 27).
The existence of these pre-Israelite city-states, and
their persistence under the Hebrews as city-districts being
assumed, it becomes important to ascertain what were their
powers, their practical jurisdiction, before the conquest and
after the conquest.
From pre-Hebraic times we have two examples,
Shechem and Gibeon. Shechem lies in the valley between
Ebal and Gerizim. It is to-day the sacred city of the Sa-
maritan sectaries, the seat of the government of the prov-
ince, and the connecting-link of the telegraphic systems of
the east and west of Jordan. Its history extends back into
remote antiquity. Abraham and Jacob visited it, and all
Israel chose it for the inaugural service on taking possessii >n
of the Promised Land.
Gibeon, too. has its story. It was the first of the
Palestinian cities to see that the countrv was doomed to
28 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
succumb to its Hebrew invaders. It possessed an early
Hebrew temple (bet-elohim) , in which adherents of the
native religion agreed to serve J hvh ; and it gave the final
touch to the tragedy of Saul's career by its insistence on the
law of blood-guilt for Nob's murdered priests, which
culminated in the gruesome tenderness of Rizpah (II Sam.
21, i-ii).
Shechem, the Hivite, the son of the nasi of the city-
state of Shechem, loved Jacob's daughter Dinah and began
to treat with her people, the B'ne Jacob, in order to arrange
a marriage. The narrative indicates that up to that time
there was no right of connubium between the two contract-
ing powers. Such a right, general to both parties, was now
proposed by Hamor, the nasi of the Hivites, coupled with
the privilege of settling the country, dwelling and trading
therein, acquiring lands and ultimately becoming one with
the natives. The B'ne Jacob insisted on certain indispensa-
ble terms, to which the nasi and his son were willing to
agree. At this point it is seen that the nasi and his son had
not the power to bind their people without obtaining the
consent of the council.
Hamor and Shechem duly proposed the treaty at "the
gate of their city," to the council there met, the anshe ha-'ir.
The latter accepted the terms and the part to be performed
by the Shechemites was duly carried out. The treaty, how-
ever, failed on account of the vengeful wrath of Simeon
and Levi (Gen. 34, 8-27).
The second example of inter-national action by one
of the pre-Hebraic city-states is the case of Gibeon. In
Joshua's plan of campaign this place was marked out for
early attack. Its capture would have had an enormous
effect in depressing the spirit of the natives. It was the
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 21)
capital city of an exceptionally important district, which
included three other cities, besides the towns, villages, and
fields dependent on and appurtenant to each of them. The
king of the district had his royal court there ; it was an
'ir-melukah. Its magnates showed their vigilance and
ability. When they saw that the resistance of Jericho and
Ai were merely futile and that Joshua had relentlessly pun-
ished those unfortunates, they determined that peace at any
price was the wise policy.
The report (Josh. 9, 3-27") tells, in excellent narrative
fashion, how the emissaries of the zckcnim of Gibeon dis-
guised themselves so as to appear to have come from a far
country, how they entered Joshua's camp at Gilgal, how
they declared that they had heard of the wonderful exodus
from Egypt and of the great victories of Israel over Sihon
and Og in Eastern Palestine (carefully concealing their
knowledge of Joshua's late victories), and how their mag-
nates (sekenim and yoshcbim) (not a word about their
melek) had urged that an alliance with the Hebrews was a
desirable and necessary thing.
Captivated by these flattering tales, Joshua and his
councillors omitted to consult the oracle, allowed them-
selves to be tricked into a treaty of alliance, and ratified it
by the oaths of the nesi'im of the 'cdah (the twelve princes
of the Privy Council of Israel).
A few days later the truth leaked out. The worn-out
and weary wanderers lived close by, — in the cities of Gibeon
and its dependencies, Kephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-
jearim. The conquering host was naturally indignant at
the deceit. The general assembly of Israel (kol ha-'edah )
murmured at the lenity of the terms accorded, but the
nesi'im had ratified the treaty, had given their word. Per-
30 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
sonal and national honor required that it should be faith-
fully carried out.
The incident of Gibeon left an abiding impression on
the mind of the Hebrew people. The old narrative (Josh.
9, 23-27) records that Joshua, while adhering strictly to the
terms of the treaty, found a means of punishing the Gibeon-
ite magnates who had tricked him into it. He sentenced
them to become hewers of wood and drawers of water for
the bct-clohim. They were glad that things were no worse,
and the story ends by telling that they at once took up their
work which they continue to perform "even unto this day."
The city, however, retained its importance in the
subsequent history of Israel. It is probable that Nob,
where David, fleeing from Saul, was succored, was either
one of the cities of the city-state of Gibeon, or perhaps was
the name of the priests' quarter of the city itself (I Sam.
21, 1-9), just as the quarter of Jerusalem in which Huldah
lived was called by its own name, the Mishnch (II Kings
22, 14; Zeph. 1, 10). The dreadful cruelty of Saul in
slaughtering the priests for their innocent aid to David (I
Sam. 22, 9-23) was long remembered. Indeed, it is record-
ed that in David's reign Jhvh visited Israel with a famine,
because this blood-guilt had been in no wise atoned for, and
that in order to regain Divine favor, the Gibeonites were
besought to accept compensation or wergild (kopher) for
their murdered kinsmen, that they disdainfully spurned this
offer, but finally consented to accept the death of seven sons
of Saul in satisfaction of the whole blood-guilt (II Sam.
21, 1-10).
In the time of Solomon it was the great bamah (high
place) whither Solomon went to make a great sacrificial
feast and where he had the dream in which, asked by Jhvh
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 3 I
what he wanted, he prayed for wisdom to do justice (I
Kings 3, 4-15).
The story was finally amplified and embellished. The
sacrosanct ohcl mo'ed which Moses had made in the wilder-
ness was supposed to have been set up at Gibeon (I Chron.
J6, 39). Of course the legend was mere poetry. History
establishes that the ohel mo'ed was at Shiloh (Josh. 18, I. 8;
19, 51; 22, 12; Judges 21, 19).
These two instances in which city-states exercised the
highest national functions, namely dealing with foreign
powers, are both pre-Israelite. The absence of such ex-
amples in Hebrew times is persuasive evidence of the firm-
ness with which the national idea had taken root. A re-
markable feature in both cases is that the dominant power
is ascribed to the council. The king or chief in the one
case can do nothing by himself ; in the other case he is not
e\ren mentioned. That this accurately represents pre-
Israelite conditions is highly improbable. The abundance
of kinglets to which we have before alluded, speaks loudly
against it. Moreover, there is a hint in the story of
Abimelech with relation to this same city-state of Shechem,
which gives weight to the theory that the king had great
power. Gideon, the chief of the clan of Abiezer, and the
great man of Manasseh, died leaving seventy sons by his
wives, and one son (Abimelech) by a Shechemite concubine.
In the natural order of events a legitimate son would have
succeeded to the chieftainship, under whose sway stood,
among others, the ancient city-state of Shechem. That its
great families should recall with regret the good old times
before the Hebrew conquest, when the city-state of
Shechem was an independent sovereignty, of which the city
was the capital, was but natural. Now they owed allegiance
32 POLITY OE ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
to the overlord, Manasseh's chief, whose capital was at
Ophrah.
With the instincts of an able demagogue, Abimelech
intrigued to fan the flame of Shechemite discontent by-
comparing the present tributary condition with the former
independence. His chief assault was directed against the
leading feature of Hebrew polity, the great council of
seventy. He made it clear to the municipal council (anshe
Slice hem, ba'alc Shechem) that any of the legitimate heirs
of Gideon would be faithful to this institution, and his
spokesman summed up the argument in his favor by the
question : Do you prefer to be ruled over by seventy or by
one ? It turned the tide ; Shechem revolted, and its mag-
nates enthroned Abimelech as king (Judges 9, 1-6).
One cannot read this story without suspecting that the
accounts of pre-Israelite councils at Shechem and at Gibeon
are deficient in not attributing to the kings of those states
the power which was theirs under the ancient Constitutions.
Nor is the omission to be wondered at. When the accounts
were written, these numerous independent little kings had
long disappeared and been forgotten. We know, too, that
the knowledge of the early writers concerning the remote
past was defective. You will recall the fact that at least one
of the ancient scribes naively believed that before the insti-
tution of the Kingdom there was no law at all. To use his
own quaintly simple words : "In those days there was no
king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his
own eyes" (Judges 17, 6; 21, 25).
Before leaving this subject of international dealings by
pre-Israelite city-states, it may, for the sake of complete-
ness, be well to allude to the negotiations between the B'ne-
Heth and Abraham. It is true that the narrative appears to
POLITY OK ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 33
concern a larger nation than is included in a city-state, and
that the council is not called zekenim nor bc'alim, nor anshe
ha-'ir, nor zikne ha-'ir, but has the larger title of 'am ha-
arcs, which designates a national council. On the other
hand, we know that the great Hittite empire was in the
north, and that the section of it with which Abraham dealt
must have been relatively small. Hebron was the capital,
and in connection with this place there survives in the
records one reminiscent note which seems to place it on a
parity with Gibeon, which, as we have seen, was a larger
city-state than ordinary, was, in fact, a league of cities.
When David believed that his time had come to obtain
the chieftainship of Judah, he consulted the oracle, was
affirmed in his belief and was directed to go to Hebron.
He, together with all his train, went up and dwelt in the
"cities" of Hebron (II Sam. 2, 1-3). This passage would
seem to indicate that Hebron had been for long the capital
of a larger city-state, composed of a league of cities with
their appurtenant towns, villages, and fields.
When Sarah died at Hebron, Abraham desired to ob-
tain a burying-place of his own. It would seem, that ac-
cording to the customary law, an alien (ger we-toshab)
could not acquire an indefeasible permanent estate in land.
He therefore applied to the council for the grant of an
exceptional privilege, enabling him to accomplish his pur-
pose. He was recognized as an important power : "Thou
art a ncsi clohim (a prince of God) in our midst." Every
one was willing to tender a burial-place for Sarah's body.
But this was not what Abraham wished. He wanted a
permanent estate (ahuzzah) and this the council finally
accorded to him.
34 POLITY OE ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
The proceedings were in public session of the council,
were presided over by Ephron, and were highly polite and
ceremonious. Abraham urged his request, the President
answered, the matter was agreed on, and the treaty was
solemnly consummated in the presence of the whole council
(Gen. 23, 3-20).
Whether this Hittite example relates to one of these
district-states, may remain doubtful, but the other instances
that have been given are sufficient to show the sovereign
character of these city-states, and to point out what radical
changes were necessary, if they were ever to constitute a
national federal republic.
An early example of the process is given us in the
case of the city-state of Ophrah. It had fallen to the share
of Manasseh, and the ruling clan of that tribe, Abiezer,
was seated there. The chief was Joash, the head of the
clan. From time immemorial the little state had had its
Baal-altar with the Asherah pertaining to it. Word came
through a nabi or mal'ak Jhvh, that the worship of Jhvh
must now be substituted. To that end it was necessary to
cast down the Baal altar, cut down the Asherah, and build
an altar to Jhvh on the height called Rosh ha-ma'oz.
The chieftain Joash had carried out the policy of
conciliation all too well. Baal still reigned supreme in
Ophrah and Joash lacked either the will or the force to
strengthen the cause of the Hebrew nation and its religion.
The task of making good his delinquencies was im-
posed on his son Gideon. When the message came he re-
ceived it with the usual profession of modesty which He-
brew writers attribute to those born to greatness : "My
eleph (clan) is lowly in Manasseh and I am the pigmy in
my bet-ab ;" just as Saul, when apprised of his selection as
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 35
King of Israel, protested: "Am not I a Benjamite, of the
smallest of Israel's tribes? and is not my clan (misli-
pahah) the puniest of all the clans of that tribe?" (I Sam.
9, 2i). To Moses in the early age (Exod. 3, 11; 4, 10),
and to Jeremiah in the later times (Jer. 1, 6), similar mod-
est declaimers are credited. Gideon's scruples were, how-
ever, overcome, and he accepted the perilous post.
Knowing that he would place himself in opposition to the
authorities, whose chief was his own father, he determined
to initiate the revolution at night. With the help of ten
trusty men, he cast down the Baal altar, cut down the
Asherah, and burned the wood thereof in offering an 'olah
upon the Jhvh altar which he built.
In the morning the city was in commotion. The
anslic lia-'ir promptly viewed the situation, and the question
ran: Who is guilty? Doubtless the oracle was in some
form consulted {zvaycbakcshu) and the judgment was
pronounced (zvayomru) : Gideon ben Joash has done this
deed.
The anslic ha-'xr demanded of Joash that he surrender
his son for execution.
This was in strict conformity with the law of the
ancient city-state, which gave its authorities the power to
vindicate the religion of the state. This old law survives
in the records in Deut. 21, 18-21. It is the law commonly
called that of the stubborn and rebellious son, which pro-
vides that the delinquent's parents shall bring him to the
z'xknc ha-'ir at the gate (v. 19), and that the latter (anshc
ha-'xr, v. 21) shall stone him. The details of the examina-
tion of this interesting and little-understood law are re-
served for further consideration, when we come to review
36 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
the remnants of the zikne ha-'ir code still preserved in the
Pentateuch.
In Gideon's case there was an additional reason for
this demand upon his father Joash. The latter was not a
mere member of the council, but its chief. In no other
way can certain expressions of the text be properly con-
strued. It is Joash who is custodian of Baal's altar; -it is
from his cattle that the Jhvh sacrifice is culled ; it is his
opposition to the Jhvh altar that is feared, and it is in
subordination to him that the other members of the anshe
lia-'ir stand (act or serve) {'amdu 'alaw), just as ha-' am
stood in the court of Moses (waya'amod ha-dm 'al
Mosheh) (Exod. 18, 13), as Eglon's court councillors stood
with him (kol ha-'omdim 'alaw) (Judges 3, 19), and as the
angels in the court of Heaven stood to Jhvh's right and
left ('omcd 'alaw') (I Kings 22, 19).
Joash met his fellow councillors with a flat denuncia-
tion of their action. This, he said, is a contest between
gods. Baal has been worsted. He could not save himself,
will your aid save him? Beware, the mighty power that
overthrew Baal will punish your puny efforts with instant
death, and will save my son from any harm that Baal can
do.
The council acquiesced and Gideon became the chief
with the epithet of Jerub-baal attached to his name, in
memory of his victory over the deposed god (Judges 6,
8. 11. 24-32).
YVe see here the nation in the making. It adopts the
city-state without its king, but gives the power to the coun-
cil, which in this instance assumes to act as the highest
ecclesiastical authority, doubtless in strict accord with pre-
Israelite practice. Every autonomous district had its own
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 37
king and its own god, and the sovereign authority was not
differentiated into military and civil jurisdiction, nor sub-
divided into legislative, executive, and judicial function.
The genius of the people was local and its outlook narrow.
There were then, as now, ambitious souls dreaming of
world-conquest, but they lived in Egypt and by the Euphra-
tes and not in Palestine. The entrance of the Hebrews
into the country brought a rush of new ideas, political and
religious. Palestine was to become one great state with
one only God. Local sovereignties and religions were to be
extirpated, or at least fused with institutions embodying
these loftier conceptions.
We have seen in the case of Gideon how this national
spirit made its way in one quarter. There is no reason to
doubt that the movement throughout the whole country was
conducted on similar lines. The presence and vigor of a
national supervising body being granted, all the rest natur-
ally follows.
Indeed, it is Gideon himself who energetically promotes
the further progress of nationalization.
As this phase of his career brings out clearly the
functions of the zikne ha-'ir of two cities east of Jordan in
Hebrew times, further description thereof may conven-
iently be reserved for the next lecture.
Ill
Gideon, the champion of Jhvh, was the chief man in
Manasseh. He had attained a recognized position by his
brave advocacy of Hebrew nationalism against the con-
servative pagan party, but the success of the cause was as
yet doubtful.
38 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
An event occurred which put the matter to the proof.
The Bedouins overran the country, and if anything
was to be saved from these maurauders prompt action was
imperatively needed. Gideon aroused his Abiezer clan.
With three hundred picked men, shouting their way-cry,
"The sword of Jhvh and of Gideon," he attacked and
routed the invaders, drove the survivors across Jordan,
and hotly pursued them. \\ 'hen he reached the city of
Succoth, in Gilead, his supplies failed. He applied to the
council (anshe Succoth) for bread for his soldiers, as he
was pursuing the Bedouin kings and hoped to capture them.
The scire Succoth, however, reckoned that he might fail,
and in that case they would have to suffer the vengeance
of the Bedouins. Their reply, indicating the probability of
such an event, irritated the fiery chieftain. He retorted
with the ominous parting message: When Jhvh hath de-
livered Zebah and Zalmuna into my hand. I will treat your
flesh with mid bar -thorns and with briers. Abating nothing
of the pursuit, he reached the city of Penuel and there
made his application for relief. The anshe Penuel, timid
like those of Succoth, gave him a flat refusal. The infuri-
ated ^ideon threatened to revisit them after he should
have triumphed, and to break down their tower (migdal).
Gideon overtook the fleeing enemy, won a complete
victory, overthrew the retreating army, and captured its
kings.
On his return march he punished the cities which had
treated him so coldly and unpatriotically. Having picked
up a man in the neighborhood of the city of Succoth, he
ascertained, by questioning, that his prisoner was a clerk
(na'ar) of the city council (anshe Succoth). Whereupon,
he compelled him to write a roll or list of the sarim and
POUTV OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZF.KRGER 39
sekenim of Succoth. There were seventy-seven in all (per-
haps seventy sekenim and seven sarim).
Thus prepared, he entered the city in triumph, carry-
ing with him the captive kings. Then he compelled the
council to meet and addressed them thus: Here are the
kings whom you thought I could not capture. You are
entitled to the promised reward !
Whereupon he took the sikne ha-'ir and thrashed them
soundly with midbar-thovns and with briers.
Penuel fared even worse. He broke down its tower
and slew the members of its council (anshe ha-'ir) (Judges
7, 7. 22; 8, 4-17).
These two incidents give us a vivid picture of the times.
Succoth and Penuel, two cities of eastern Palestine, are
governed by sekenim and their officials (sarim). They re-
gard alone the interests of their narrow communities. The
harrying of Manasseh and other districts west of Jordan
does not disturb them. If the Bedouins confine their
marauding to western districts, they will remain neutral.
The national consciousness has not affected them. In
Gideon, however, they met the man who could give im-
pressive lessons.
Of all the chieftains called Judges (shophetim),
Gideon appears to have been the most forceful, and to have
given the earliest and greatest impulsion to the unification
and nationalization of Israel. Besides his actions already
described, the records aver that he succeeded in getting
partisans out of Naphtali, Asher, and Ephraim to act witli
Manasseh in war (Judges 7, 23. 24), and the fact that his
battle-cry survived, indicates how deep an impression of
him was stamped on the popular mind.
40 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
It is plainly erroneous to see in these military leaders
"the peaceful magistrates known by the same name in later
times. The experience of Israel was the same as that of
all other peoples whose rise depended on the success of
their arms. The great soldiers wielded the whole power of
the state, and when more peaceful times came and the bal-
ance of power swung to the civil side, the names of the
offices which had become important in the eyes of the
people, were transferred to purely civil offices, with radi-
cally different functions. Thus it is that the melek, shophet,
day an, mehokek, and sopher, who, were, of old, military
officers, came to designate officials whose duties were mainly
civil. Ha-' am, which was anciently the army (that is, all
males between the ages of twenty and fifty) became the
whole body of the people. And of the process the word
shophetim is perhaps the most striking instance. In Num-
bers (ch. 25) we have the record of Israel's unwholesome
affiliation with Moab. Drastic measures had to be resorted
to, in order to cure the mischief. Moses was expressly en-
joined by Jhvh, to take all the chieftains (rashe ha-'am)
and hang them, whereupon he ordered the shophetim to
slay each one such of his men as had accepted Baal Peor.
This was an order merely military to the Provost-marshals
of the army, whose duty it was to execute the culprits
(Numb. 25, 1-5). When the contest had progressed and the
people were fighting for the land, conquering it and settling
down on it piecemeal as they could, these shophetim as mili-
tary chiefs had forced upon them questions relating to the
civil government of the territory they commanded. Thus the
name of their office was preserved, while its jurisdiction
and functions were modified. Finally, at a much later
stage, it came to designate civil judges charged with the
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 41
administration of justice according to law, and thus lost its
military connotations.
The records of the shophetim book show the process
from an early stage. From Othniel, the first of them, to
Samson, the last, they were all (so far as we know anything
about them) successful warriors; even Deborah is not ex-
cepted, since she stirred up the great war against Sisera
and took a personal part in it. It is only with Eli and
Samuel that the atmosphere changes. The former, when we
first encounter him, is a priest, grown old in the service
of the Shiloh temple, while the latter begins as his acolyte.
War, instead of being the normal condition, has degenerated
into an incident, not unusual it is true, but also not abnorm-
ally frequent. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction has become
firmly fixed, and men are questioning and criticizing its ad-
ministration by particular officials as a corrupt departure
from ancient custom (I Sam. 2, 13-17). All the symptoms
indicate that the nation has been practically united, and that
the national idea of God and the state have permeated every-
where. Elkanah went up out of his city yearly to worship
and to sacrifice at Shiloh (I Sam. 1, 3), and we may freely
accept him as a type. Substantial farmers from all sections
of the country did the same (I Sam. 2, 14). "And all Israel
from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was estab-
lished to be a prophet of Jhvh" (I Sam. 3, 20).
While it is true that we cannnot trace the progress of
nationalization before Eli, we may be sure that Gideon's
part in it was not small. The tradition survived that a na-
tional assembly of Israel (kol ish Israel) offered him the
royal crown, with the right of succession in his descendants
( Judges 8, 22), and that he made his home-city Ophrah the
virtual or actual capital of Israel (Judges 8, 27).
42 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
There is another chief, Jephthah, who is said to have
been shophet of Israel (Judges 12, 7). Of his activity out-
side of his own Gilead, we know little or nothing. His
story merely emphasizes the separateness of the trans-
Jordanic Hebrews, which incensed Gideon and which was
pithily depicted in the song of Deborah: "Reuben abode
among his sheepfolds. Gilead abode beyond Jordan"
(Judges 5, 16. 17). The blame for this condition must not
attach to the Eastern Hebrew alone. When Gilead was
threatened, it applied for help to Ephraim in vain (Judges
12, 2), and so bitter was the feeling that it led to war be-
tween Ephraim and Gilead (Judges 12, 4-6).
Jephthah's career is interesting, however, for our point
of view. He is the rosh and kasin of the "cities" of
Gilead, and he became so by the independent action of that
league of cities. The narrative is full and complete.
The B'ne-Ammon, a. non-Hebrew people dwelling in
Eastern Palestine, suddenly put an army in motion against
Gilead. The case was desperate and the zekenim of Gilead
bethought themselves of Jephthah as a desirable leader.
He, a native of the land, the son of a princely father, had
been exiled at the instance of his brethren, who claimed the
superior rights of legitimacy. He had taken up his abode
in the land of Tob, whither traveled a delegation of the
sekenith of Gilead to fetch him home. They said to him :
Come home and we will make you the head of the army.
He made difficulties, reminded them of their former hostil-
ity. They increased their offer, would make him first of
all the lords of the land {rosh lekol yoshbe Gilead). He
demanded an oath that they would not forget the promise
after the victory. They took it by the solemn formula:
Jhvh be the witness (shome'a) between us ! Whereupon
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 43
he accompanied them and was made rosh and kasin, the
duties of which offices he formally assumed liphne Jiivii
at Mizpeh.
We have here an instance in Hebrew times of a city-
state exercising, apparently without limitation or restraint,
as complete powers of sovereignty as it would have en-
joyed in pre-Israelite days. It is threatened by a foreign
power, which "made war against Israel," as the record has
it (Judges 11, 4). No part of Israel, however, seems to
act except the sekenim of Gilead, who send to fetch
Jephthah home from his exile, and promise to make him
their chief (rosh). He enters into a solemn bargain with
them liphne Jhvh, and, in consequence, assumes command
in the manner of a king owing allegiance to nobody. He
applies for aid to Ephraim as a friendly though foreign
power, is refused on the ground that he does not acknowl-
edge allegiance to it, the claim being made that the Gilead-
ites were Ephraimite fugitives (Judges 12, 4). He re-
sents the claim, wages war against Ephraim, and demon-
strates the latter's foreignness by showing that no Ephraim-
ite could pronounce a shin as a true Gileadite would
(Judges 12, 6).
In short, we have here a picture of a pre-Israelite city-
state with its king; the only difference being that the king
has another title and that Jhvh is acknowledged as God.
These concessions to national feeling must, however,
not be overrated. They show that the federal unity, though
not established, had made a start. Even then the influence
of Shiloh must have been at work. Indeed, the old tradi-
tion ran that it was from Shiloh that Gilead had started to
take possession of its country (Josh. 22, 9), and when all
44 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREW'S — SULZBERGER
Israel declared war against Benjamin, Gilead sent its con-
tingent (Judges 20, 1), only one of its cities holding aloof.
There is another and later example of the exercise of
sovereign power by one of the cities east of Jordan. That
city was Jabesh-Gilead (Judges 21, 9). When the Federal
council declared war against Benjamin, it was the city that
refused to send its quota to the army, though the other
cities of Gilead did so. The result of the war was the
almost complete ruin of Benjamin; only six hundred of its
young braves survived (Judges 20, 47). The Federal
council, dismayed at the extinction of a tribe, cast about for
a method of rehabilitating it. They had all sworn not to
give their daughters to Benjamites. The only resource
was to find women of Israel whose fathers had kept aloof
from the Federal army and from the oath. On roll-call
it was found that there was no one present from Jabesh-
Gilead. The disaffected city was summarily convicted of
high treason to the Federal cause and the total destruction
of its inhabitants other than young virgins was decreed. An
expedition was immediately fitted out, the city was taken,
and its inhabitants were killed, save four hundred young
virgins who were given to Benjamites for wives.
Another narrative (found in Samuel) gives a clue to
the true meaning of this incident. The tradition evidently
ran in Israel that Jabesh had maintained a relation of alli-
ance with the Ammonites and that this caused its refusal to
join the body of Israel.
After the war of the tribes against it, the revived city
of Jabesh was incorporated into the Federal Union. So
only does the narrative in I Samuel 11 become intelligible.
It is there related that Nahash (the king of the Ammonites)
encamped against Jabesh-Gilead, evidently because it had
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 45
fallen off, and that the anshe Jabesh promptly offered to
renew their allegiance. This he arrogantly refused, unless
they would submit to have their right eyes thrust out as a
reproach and defiance to united Israel. The vindictive
nature of this demand must be ascribed to the transfer by
the same city council of the city's allegiance from Ammon
to Israel, for which desertion signal punishment was ne-
cessary. The zikne Jabesh demanded a respite of seven
days to communicate this defiance to Israel and to receive
help from it. This Nahash magnanimously granted. The
zikne Jabesh sent messengers to the council (kol lia-'am)
of Gibeah, who broke into weeping at the tidings. When
Saul, returned from his day's business in the field, learned
the cause of the confusion, he promptly called for Federal
troops to aid the distressed city, and bade the messengers
return home with the assurance that help was at hand. The
anshe Jabesh received the news with enthusiasm. In due
time Saul arrived and defeated the Ammonites. His signal
victory silenced all opposition as well to the Federal union
as to his Kingship, and his enthronement in the Western
kingdom was now affirmed and celebrated in the East-
Jordanic territory at Gilgal, an event which greatly rejoiced
Samuel and the Federal Council (kol anshe Israel) (I Sam.
11, 1-15).
The value of the narrative is in its indication that the
Jordan marked as well the political as the physical separate-
ness of the East and West. When stubborn old Jabesh
was at last convinced that a Federal union of all Israel was
inevitable, the work was finished. Even then it did not
accept the western king as the legal head of the state until
he had been crowned in the East.
46 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
The examples of Succoth, of Penuel, of Gilead show
that as regards political power the early Hebrew city-states
that lay to the East of Jordan seem to have exercised it
without restraint or control.
The instance of Ophrah shows that the same was true
of the Western city-states' ecclesiastical power.
Even so late as the time of Samuel we find remnants
of it in the West. When the Ark of Jhvh was cast adrift
by the Philistines and landed at Beth-Shemesh, the anshe
Bet-shemcsh assumed official control over it and offered
'olot and zebahim (I Sam. 6, 15), and when its presence
brought calamity, the anshe Bet-shemesh sent messengers to
Kiriath-jearim, to induce that city to take charge of the
holy relic. The latter fetched it and sanctified (kiddeshu)
a young man to guard it. And to the last, after the federal
union had been established for ages, and the ecclesiastical
power had become nationalized, the priest-cities retained
the ecclesiastical powers of the old city-states. This we
learn from the action of the Anathoth council against
Jeremiah. Anathoth was a priest-city at least as early as
the time of Solomon. When Abiathar fell from the latter's
favor, he was ordered to go into retirement on his estate
at Anathoth (I Kings 2, 26).
Jeremiah belonged to it by birth (Jer. 1,1), being "of
the kohanim that were in Anathoth." When he began to
take his own course, the anshe Anathoth ordered him to
desist, claiming the right to condemn and execute him if he
disobeyed (Jer. 11, 21).
One other important survival of the old city-state sov-
ereignty was the importance in the public life of the state
of the capital cities- of the two kingdoms. Jeremiah, than
whom none was more familiar with political conditions,
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 47
addresses the state as "men (ish) of Judah and inhabitants
(yoshbe) of Jerusalem" (Jer. 4, 4: 17, 25; 7, 17. 34; 8, 1,
etc., etc.), always mentioning the capital city in a manner
indicating that it possessed and exercised special powers.
A similar phenomenon is observable in the Northern
Kingdom. When Jehu had killed Ahab and was about to
destroy the scions of that house, root and branch,
he mockingly dared the sarim and zekenim of
Jezreel to enthrone one of Ahab's sons (II Kings
10. 1-3), a sorry jest, indicating, however, that the
council of that city had special political powers not shared
by the other cities of the kingdom.
So Jezebel, when she intrigued to put Naboth on trial
for blasphemy and lese-majesty, gave the directions to the
zekenim and the sarim of Jezreel, fellow-councillors with
Naboth (I Kings 21, 8), to convoke the high court of the
nation, the rosh ha-'am (21, 12), in which they must have
had a specially influential position.
That these city-councils exercised ordinary municipal
functions was a matter of course. When distinguished
strangers came to the city, the council received and enter-
tained them.
Samuel, for instance, visited Bethlehem for an import-
ant purpose, which was not publicly known. The zikne
lia-'ir cordially met and welcomed him (I Sam. 16, 4). It
may be well to note here that the Authorized Version which
makes the zekenim tremble at Samuel's coming is based on
a misunderstanding of the word wayeherdii, which besides
trembling means also being extremely hospitable. Thus
Elisha. in acknowledging the anxious hospitality of the
great lady of Shunem, calls it haradah (II Kings 4, 13).
4« POLITY OP ANCIENT HpBRpWS — SULZBERGER
When King Josiah visited Bethel he was attended by
the anshe ha-'ir, who promptly gave him the information
he was seeking (II Kings 23, 17). And when the water
supply of Jericho was defective, the anshe ha-'ir requested
Elisha to improve its quality (II Kings 2, 19).
Besides their political, ecclesiastical, and municipal
functions, the zikne ha-'ir exercised general judicial powers.
They tried murder cases, and if the murderer fled to a city
of refuge, they could demand and obtain his extradition
for the purpose of handing him over to the executioner
(go'cl ha-dam) (Deut. 19, 12). If the murderer could not
be discovered they washed the city's hands of "innocent
blood" by a ceremony and a sacrifice, and thus removed
the blood-guilt which would otherwise have attached to the
city. If the murderer of the victim, whose dead
body was found in a field, could not be discovered, it was
the duty of the zikne ha-'ir to see to it that the blood-guilt
should not be fastened on their own city, unless, by careful
measurement, it should be ascertained that it was nearer
than any other city to the place where the body lay (Deut.
21, 1-9). "
The zikne ha-'ir also had jurisdiction in certain delicate
matrimonial questions involving not only amercements and
other penalties, but extending also to capital punishment
(Deut. 22, 13-21).
Indeed, it is probable that the twenty-first and twenty-
second chapters of Deuteronomy were compiled from a
code defining the powers of the zikne ha-'ir, and that certain
provisions contained in those chapters were part of such
code, although the zikne ha-'ir are not mentioned in con-
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS— SULZBERGER 49
nection with them. Such is particularly the direction to
build battlements for the roofs of houses (Deut. 22, 9).
The distinction between a criminal act perpetrated within
the city, and a similar act perpetrated in the field (Deut.
22, 23-27) may also be derived from that code.
The evidence seems sufficient to warrant the conclu-
sion that these councils (the anshe ha-'ir, the zikne ha-'ir)
combined the full judicial power with their other functions,
and that the administration of justice was not confided to a
special class of experts learned in the law until a much
later period. When this change came about is matter for
future investigation. That it had to come is perfectly
plain.
The country was composed of a large number of
cantons, called "cities." The aim was to create a nation.
A clash between the "cantonal" view and the "federal"
view was inevitable. It resulted at first in the endeavor to
bring the cantonal bodies to take national positions on
questions coming before them by sending a federal expert
or experts to advise them or to sit with them, and finally, in
the establishment of the federal courts, which should in
certain federal questions be supreme.
There are certain passages, obscure it is true, but
nevertheless significant, which warrant these conclusions.
We have already referred to the case of a murdered man
being found in a field, and of the necessity of ascertaining
which was the nearest city, since upon it the blood-guilt
would be fastened. Finally the zikne ha-'ir of those cities
met each other for the purpose, and, it is safe to say,
squabbles followed. Afterward we find that the kohanim
(the B'nc Levi) join them, and the explanatory note fol-
lowing this statement gives as a reason for the apparent
50 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
intrusion that "Jhvh thy God hath chosen them to minister
unto him and to bless in the name of Jhvh; and by their
word shall every controversy (rib) and every assault
(nega') be tried'' (Deut. 21, 5). That these kohanim (B'ne
Levi) were the delegates of the federal government can
scarcely be doubted.
Concerning the establishment of a federal court and
the removal thereto of an inter-cantonal question, we also
have evidence. By the old zikne ha-'ir law, if a murderer
fled the jurisdiction and was admitted to an asylum city by
its zikne ha-'ir, the zikne ha-'ir of the city where the crime
had been committed demanded his extradition for execution
by the go' el ha-dam (Deut. 19, 12). As his admission to
the asylum city was not granted until his application had
been passed upon by the zikne ha-'ir of the asylum city
(Josh. 20, 4), there was virtually a judgment in his favor
that the murder was mere manslaughter. The demand
for extradition necessarily attacked this judgment. The
old law (Deut. 19, 12) nevertheless required his surrender.
The inter-cantonal controversies thus arising were there-
fore removed to the federal court. The zikne ha-'ir of the
asylum city were forbidden to surrender the fugitive on
the demand of his home city (through the go' el ha-dam)
(Josh. 20, 5) and the national court, the 'edah, acquired
jurisdiction. "The 'edah shall judge between the slayer
and the go' el ha-dam." If it affirmed the judgment of the
zikne ha-'ir of the asylum city, it (the 'edah) restored the
defendant to it (Numb. 35, 24. 25; Josh. 20, 6).
There were, however, two classes of cases over which
the old zikne ha-'ir had jurisdiction which in importance
far overshadowed all others. In the contest to establish
Jhvh as the sole God of the nation, the most dangerous
POLITV OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 5 1
crime was missionary apostasy, the misleading of men to
revert to the old paganism. This crime was technically
known as sarah or dibber s-a-r-a-h, and the federal author-
ities deemed its suppression vital to the existence of the
commonwealth.
In the endeavor to establish a state of prosperous
agriculturists among whom there should be no extreme
poverty, the land-laws were of the first importance. That
every family could have and retain its own farm and its
own home was the ideal of the federal statesmen.
The jurisdiction of the cantonal tribunals was unfavor-
able to the achievement of either of these purposes.
We have already seen in the trial of Gideon for over-
throwing the Baal altar, that the zikne ha-'ir, instead of
striving to promote the cause of Jhvh, stood by the old pre-
Israelite cantonal god ; that they looked upon Gideon, who
had enlisted others in his cause, as guilty of s-a-r-a-h, the
offence being committed not r.gainst Jhvh, but against
Baal. It was also intimated that the proceedings of the
zikne ha-'ir, including their demand on Joash to produce
Gideon for execution, were by virtue of an ancient zikne
ha-'ir law which survives in the Pentateuch (Deut. 21,
18-21).
The wording is : "If a man have a ben sorer u-morch,
who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of
his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will
not hearken unto them :
"Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him,
and bring him out unto the elders of his city and unto
the gate of his place. And they shall say unto the elders
of his city : This our son is sorer u-moreh, and he will not
obey our voice; he is a glutton (zolcl) and a drunkard
52 POLITY OE ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
(sobe), and kol anshe 'iro shall stone him with stones that
he die."
At first blush there would seem to be nothing in this
law to justify the view that it is leveled against apostasy.
A more careful examination, however, reveals certain facts
which cannot be ignored. The first of them is that the law
contains inconsistent definitions of the crime. The term
ben sorer u-moreh itself was probably intelligible to every-
body. Yet we have the following definitions :
i . Who will not obey the voice of his father or his
mother.
2. The same with this qualification:
"After they have chastised him."
3. He is a glutton and a drunkard (solel we-sobe).
Stripping it of these excrescences, we have the original
form :
"If a man have a ben sorer u-moreh, his father and
his mother shall lay hold on him and bring him out to the
elders of his city and kol anshe 'iro shall stone him to
death."
That the definitions are excrescences seems very plain.
That a son should honor his parents is a mere commonplace.
Indeed, by a very ancient Hebrew law, insulting parents
was probably punished with death, "condemned to death
(anir) shall be he who degrades (or insults) his father or
his mother," (Deut. 27, 16). Certain it is that cursing them
(Exod. 21, 17; Lev. 20, 9; Prov. 20, 20), or striking them
(Exod. 21, 15) were both capital crimes. These provisions
were amply sufficient to protect the parental dignity, and
one may well be puzzled to determine why mere disobedi-
POLITY OE ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 53
ence or eating too much, or drinking too much, should he
made capital offences in a son not too old to he whipped
by his father or his mother. Without the definitions, how-
ever, no one would translate ben sorer it-morch, "stubborn
and rebellious son."
The clue to the real meaning is to be found in this
crime of s-a-r-a-h which we are considering. Sorer is one
guilty of apostasy, and morch means that he is aggressive
in teaching his rebellion. There is no reason for translating
morch otherwise than according to its plain meaning of
"teacher." Accordingly, a sorer u-moreh is an apostate
who teaches apostasy.
The word "sorer" characterizes idolaters in many in-
stances (Isai. 65, 2-7; Jer. 5, 23; Hos. 4, 15. 16; 9, 1-15)
and in one passage Isaiah (30, 1) calls a company of men,
rebels to true national policy, banim sorerim.
And so morch. Isaiah denounces the misleading nabi
as a morch slicker (Isai. 9, 14). Habakkuk applies the
same term to the man who trusts in his molten images for
guidance (Hab. 2, 18. 19), and Proverbs declares that a
man of Belial teaches wickedness (morch) with his fingers
(Prov. 6, 12. 13).
Indeed, the terms sorer and morch naturally go to-
gether, because the sorer is one who seeks to convert others
by argument. He speaks sarah (dibber sarah, Deut. 13,
6 (5)).
The nabi Hananiah is doomed to die within the year
because he had spoken sarah (Jer. 28, 16), and the same
expression is used of Shemaiah the Nehelamite (Jer. 29,
32).
As to gluttons and drunkards, no one dreams of their
being liable to capital punishment. The proverbial philos-
54 POLITY OP ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
ophy speaks of them much as we would in our day: The
sobe and sol el come to poverty (Prov. 23, 20. 21) ; whoso
consorts with solclim shameth his father (Prov. 28, 7).
The meaning of the law thus ascertained makes clear
its application to the case of Gideon at Ophrah. Gideon
having been adjudged sorer u-moreh, it becomes his fath-
er's duty to deliver him to the anshe ha-'ir for execution.
We need not rely on mere inference, however, for this con-
clusion. It happens that the offence of teaching s-a-r-a-h
(dibber s-a-r-a-h) is fully treated of in a later statute, when
the right to try it had been transferred to a Federal court
(kol ha- am), and this statute is express in demanding that
a man must denounce not only his son, but his brother, his
daughter, his wife, or his bosom friend, if they have com-
mitted this offence, and must also, as such denunciant,
assist at the execution.
The words of this remarkable law are as follows :
"If there arise among you a nabi (prophet) or a
dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder"
(Deut. 13, 2 (1) ).
"And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof
he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods,
which thou hast not known, and let us serve them" (13,
3 (2) )•
"That nabi and dreamer of dreams shall be put to
death because he hath spoken sarah (dibber sarah) against
Jhvh your God. ... to thrust thee out of the way which
Jhvh thy God commanded thee to walk in ...." (13, 6
(5) )•
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or
thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend,
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 55
which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let
us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known,
thou nor thy fathers" (13, 7 (6)) ;
"Namely, of the gods of the people which are round
about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the
one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth"
(i3, 8 (7) );
''Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto
him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou
spare, neither shalt thou conceal him" (13, 9 (8) ).
"Thou shalt inform upon him that he may be tried
and executed ; thine hand shall be first upon him at the
execution and afterwards the hand of kol ha-'am" (13, 10
(9) )•
"Thou shalt stone him that he die .... " (Deut. 13,
11 (10) ).
And there is a fragment of even an older law of
s-a-y-a-h which seems to have been enacted when the trial
was still by oracle, and to have been amended from time
to time as the jurisdiction was vested first in the koJianim
and at a later period in the shophetim. In the trial by
oracle, there was merely the evidence of the denunciant.
This consisted in a solemn statement of the charge to the
oracle-priest, through whom the oracle then communicated
the judgment. As the crime of s-a-r-a-h was not complete
unless the accused had spoken words of persuasion to
others, the denunciant was called shomca' (hearer) (Lev.
24, 14) which, in later times designated the righteous wit-
ness in contrast with the perjurer (Pro. 21, 28). In other
matters where the transaction was a visible one, the oracle-
witness was called ro'ch (seer) (Exod. 22, 9 (10)) a word
which finally came to mean spy (II Sam 15, 27).
When the system was changed and the kohanim tried
the case without the oracle, the mere denunciant disap-
peared and in his stead the true witness {'cd) emerged.
It would appear that originally, the requisite evidence
against the defendant being given, the court had no option
but to give judgment. In such a state of the law, where
positive and direct evidence of a person who had heard or
seen was alone admissible, the defendant's position was very
perilous.
It was then enacted that in cases of s-a-r-a-h the de-
fendant could halt the decision by impeaching the witness
of perjury. The new supplemental issue thus framed
was originally tried by the oracle (liphne Jhvh). As
this mode of trial had for the main issue been superseded,
it could not have lasted long for the supplemental issue.
Accordingly, we find the words Upline Jhvh as the mode
of trial supplemented by the words liphne ha-kohanim,
which indicate that the priests themselves now tried the
whole question. Afterwards, when the system of regular
courts ( shophetim ) was introduced to replace the kohanim
courts, the judges tried the whole question. If the witness
was acquitted of the perjury, the defendant in s-a-r-a-h
suffered death, but if he was convicted, the defendant was
acquitted and the perjurer suffered the death by stoning
which he had cruelly and wickedly designed to inflict on
the innocent defendant.
This remarkable statute is as follows :
"If a false witness rise up against any man to accuse
him of sarah ( apostasy V (Deut. 19, 16).
"Then both the men between whom the controversy
(rib) is shall stand liphne Jhvh (i. e. before the kohanim
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS— SULZBERGER 57
and the shop he Urn) which shall be in those days)" (Deut.
"And the shophctim shall make diligent inquisition:
and behold if the witness be a false witness and hath
testified falsely against his brother (19, 18) ;
"Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have
done unto his brother .... " (19, 19).
"Thine eye shall not pity, life shall go for life, eye for.
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (19, 21).
The text of this law presents many difficulties, due,
doubtless, to the fact that in it was incorporated an im-
portant later amendment, which provided that in certain
cases the evidence of one witness should thereafter be
insufficient (Deut. 19, 15), and to the further fact that the
principle established by imposing the death penalty on false
witnesses in s-a-r-a-h was afterwards expanded into a
general principle affecting false witnesses in cases of mur-
der and assault (Deut. 19, 21), in some of which the pen-
alty was less severe. Nevertheless, a careful scrutiny of
the text will show that the tribunal designated in its orig-
inal form (i. e. the oracle) was changed first to kohanim
and afterwards to shopctim, the notes of such change
having in time been transferred from the margin to the
text itself.
This subject of s-a-r-a-h ought not to be dismissed
without at least mentioning a series of other legal pro-
visions intended to carry into effect the general policy
which produced the s-a-r-a-h law.
"He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto Jhvh
only, shall be put to death" (yahoram) (Kxod. 22, 19
(20)).
"Thou shalt say to the B'ne-Israel, whoever he be of
the B'ne-Israel or of the gcr that sojourn in Israel, that
58 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
giveth any of his seed to Moloch ; he shall be put to death ;
the 'am ha-ares shall stone him" (Lev. 20, 2).
"And if the 'am ha-ares do anyways hide their eyes
from the man, when he giveth of his seed to Moloch and
put him not to death" (Lev. 20, 4).
"Then I shall set my face against that man and against
his family and will cut him oft* and all that follow his
practice to worship Moloch, from among his people" (Lev.
20, 5).
"If there be found among you, within any of thy
she'arim (gates, cities), which Jhvh thy God giveth thee,
man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the sight
of Jhvh thy God. in transgressing his covenant" (Deut.
I7> 2)-
"And hath gone and served other gods and worship-
ped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of
heaven, which I have not commanded" (Deut. 17, 3).
"And it be told thee and thou hast heard (the shomea')
and enquired diligently and behold it be true and the thing
certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel" (Deut.
17. 4).
"Then thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman
which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates,
even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them until
they die" (Deut. 17, 5).
"At the mouth of two witnesses (redim) or three wit-
nesses shall the convict (ha-met) be put to death; at the
month of one witness he shall not be put to death" (Deut.
17, 6).
"The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him
to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of kol ha-'am
" (Deut. 17, 7).
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 59
"The nabi (prophet) which shall presume to speak a
word in my name, which I have not commanded him to
speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that
nabi shall die (Deut. 18, 20).
Noteworthy in this series of laws are the following
points, all relating to the proceedings in the Federal courts :
a. In Exod. 22, 19 (20) the word yahoram is used to
mean "shall be put to death." It probably indicates the
form of death sentence pronounced by the kohanim, during
their judicial pre-eminence.
b. In Lev. 20. 2 the 'am ha-ares is the Federal trial
court.
c. In Lev. 20, 4 the 'am ha-ares is impliedly re-
proached for lenity towards Moloch-worshipers.
d. In Deut. 17, 7, too, the 'am is the trial court.
In connection with this whole subject, it will be inter-
esting to note a reported case where the death-penalty was
inflicted, which case, according to ancient Hebrew practice,
at once became a binding precedent and was restated in
statutory form.
It is the case of a man who was the son of a Hebrew
woman by an Egyptian. He was charged with having
blasphemed the shcm (a kind of s-a-r-a-h), being the public
reviling of the Ark of the Covenant, the visible power in
the oracle tribunal, which was called shcm (Exod. 20, 7;
Num. 6, 27; Deut. 5, 11 ; II Sam. 6, 2 ; I Kings 8, 16. 29;
9, 3; 11, 36; II Kings 21, 4. 7; 23, 27; I Chr. 13, 6; II Chr.
6, 5. 6; 7, 20; 20, 8. 9; ss> 4- 7)-
There was no doubt that the offence, if committed by
a Hebrew, was punishable with death, but the question was
raised whether one of the half-blood was subject to the
60 POLITY OE ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
same penalty. The decision was that though not a pure
Hebrew, he came within the class of gerim and that gerim
were liable in the same manner as Hebrews.
Hence the wording of the statute :
"Whosoever curseth (yekallcl) his God shall bear his
sin, and he that blasphemeth the shem of Jhvh shall surely
be put to death ; kol ha-'cdah shall stone him, — as well the
gcr as the ezrah" (Lev. 24, 15. 16).
The report of the case presents other points of inter-
est. It establishes that the jurisdiction had already vested
in the Federal tribunal (kol ha-'edah), but that when a case
came up for which there was no precedent or statute, the
oracle had to be consulted. It also reaffirms the general
principle that the witnesses must initiate the execution of
the criminal by laying their hands on his head, and attests
the law that executions must take place outside of the city-
gates (Lev. 24, 11-16. 23).
The wording is as follows :
"And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the shem
and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his
mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of
the tribe of Dan.)" (Lev. 24, 11).
"And they put him in ward, that the mind of Jhvh
might be showed them" (24, 12).
"And Jhvh spake unto Moses, saying:" (23, 13).
"Bring forth the mekallel (him that hath cursed) with-
out the camp and let all the shomc'im lay their hands upon
his head, and let kol ha-'edah stone him" (24, 14).
"And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel,
saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin" (24,
15).
"And he that blasphemeth the shem of Jhvh shall be
POLITY 01' ANCIENT HEBREWS— SULZBERGER 6l
put to death ; kol ha-'cdah shall stone him, as well the gcr
as the ezrah, when he blasphemeth the shcm shall be put
to death" (24, 15).
"And Moses spake to the B'nc-Isracl, that they should
bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone
him. And the B'nc-Isracl did as Jhvii commanded Moses"
(24, 23).
In this connection should be mentioned another old
law. closely related to the law of Exod. 22, 19 (20), and ap-
parently designed to supplement the ancient law of s-a-r-a-h.
Whereas the latter crime was not complete without prose-
lyting activity on the part of the accused, this law punishes
the act even when done in secret (ba-scter). It is as fol-
lows: "Arur the man that maketh any graven or molten
image, an abomination to Jhvh, the work of the crafts-
man's hand, and sets it up in secret" (Deut. 27, 15).
Like the yahoram of Exod. 22, 20, this word arur
is probably a priestly form of death-sentence. Perhaps
different modes of execution are intimated by these vari-
ant forms.
In the next lecture, the last of this seizes, some
phases of the Hebrew land-law will be touched upon, and
an effort will be made to show that this branch of the
original jurisdiction of the zikne ha-'ir soon became a mat-
ter of Federal concern, as a necessary step in the policy of
unifying the cantons forming the state.
IV
The zikne ha-'ir, who had general jurisdiction of all
affairs of their canton, must have taken cognizance of all
controversies relating to the possession of land. The scanty
remnants of the zikne ha-'ir law are, however, insufficient
62 POLITY OP ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
to show their procedure in such cases. The chief cause
of early quarrels about land was the removal of landmarks.
In a very early code this was accounted a crime punishable
by death. "Arur he that removeth another's landmark"
(Deut. 27, 17), and Hosea, speaking of the sare Judah as
deserving condign Divine punishment, exhausts the lan-
guage of condemnation by comparing them to removers of
landmarks (Hos. 5, 10).
This severe treatment of what is, after all, but a
trespass, would seem to indicate that the honest acquisition
of land was a thing very difficult, if not impossible, and
that, in consequence, men who were greedy to enlarge their
holdings resorted to fraud as the readiest means to obtain
their ends. The conclusion is not remote that the reason
for this difficulty in honestly acquiring land lay in the policy
of the Federal government making land inalienable either
by deed or will, to the end that each family should hold its
estate in perpetuity. Such would be the natural course for
the conquerors of a settled country. The soldiers would
probably claim equal rights in the division.
This supposition finds support in the law of yabam
as applied in the early days of Hebrew domination: "If
brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no
son, the wife of the dead shall not marry without to a
stranger (ish car) ; her husband's brother shall go unto her
and take her for his wife. And the first born son (bekor)
that she beareth shall succeed to the name of his dead
brother" (Deut. 25, 5. 6).
That the custom originated in prehistoric antiquity,
and had meanings with which we are no longer acquainted,
is highly probable. The fact, however, is, as regards our
subject, unimportant. Perhaps the majority of the most
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 63
modern customs could, if we had the full evidence, be
traced back to notions held by primeval savages. Advanc-
ing civilization consists, and in all ages has consisted, in
the reshaping of established institutions, so as to conform
to improved thought and to become useful in furthering
progress.
There is no doubt that so soon as the policy of equality
of land-holding was adopted by the Federal government,
the endeavor was made to conform the yabam law to it.
While, originally, the brother of the deceased took the
widow of the latter for his wife, and there was no question
of estate involved, the new policy carried to the brother
the landed estate of the decedent, to be held by him in
trust for the first-born son of the new marriage, and only
on the failure of male issue of the new marriage did he
acquire the absolute estate. All this is necessarily implied
in the provision that the bekor of the new marriage shall
stand in the place of the first husband and bear his name
(Deut. 25, 6).
Assuming this, it would follow that a man with a wife
and a family of daughters, though the owner of a landed
estate, could not provide for the latter. They would have
to depend on the generosity of their uncle after he had
married their mother. Nor could any foresight or good will
of their father alter the situation. If he could have sold
the land for money or other portable property, he could
have given them the fruits of the sale, but the entail pre-
vented this. In short, to use the technical language of the
English law, the land was entailed in tail male, which
means that by no means whatever could the owner prevent
his male descendants from enjoying it. If male descendants
failed, the land went to the decedent's brothers; if there
64 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
were none, then to the brothers of the decedent's father;
and if this line too failed, then to the nearest kinsman of
his mishpahah. So much of the ancient law we learn from
Numbers 27, 9-1 1.
It must have been at an early day that a reform was
demanded, though of course not before the civil government
had superseded the military regime. While the latter was
at its height, the soldiers who were conquering the land
from its possessors, doubtless claimed it as the fruit and
reward of their exertions. In this state of opinion women
had small chance to be considered. When, however, the
statesmen began to get the upper hand, the injustice of
leaving a man's wife and daughters to charity, while others
were in lawful enjoyment of the family estate, was recog-
nized. The general law of Numbers 27, 8 is but declaratory
of a precedent which had been established. The case is
fully stated in the twenty-seventh chapter of Numbers.
The five daughters of Zelophehad appeared before Moses
and his coadjutors, composing the high court which sat
at the door of the ohcl mo'cd, and asked, as a matter of
justice, that they might inherit their father's estate, instead
of its going to their uncles. Moses consulted the oracle
(brought their mislipat Upline Jhvh (Numb. 27, 5) ). The
decision -was : "The daughters of Zelophehad speak right ;
let the inheritance of their father pass unto them" (Numb.
27, 7). And according to the invariable practice this
precedent was immediately put into the form of a general
statute (Numb. 27, 8).
This was a momentous decision. The mother of these
daughters would, according to the ancient custom, still
marry her brother-in-law, but she would not take the
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 65
family estate with her. The (laughters would take it, just
as if they had been sons.
That brothers-in-law would not be anxious to carry
out the old yabam law under such circumstances is only
natural. Indeed, the power of the heiress to choose her
husband virtually substituted her for a son, and enabled
her to confer the name of her dead* father upon her own
bekor. However foreign to the spirit of the old law such
a practice would be, it would soon satisfy people's con-
sciences, and fashion would do the rest. Moreover, con-
currently with this recognition of women as capable of
inheriting, the whole tone of opinion regarding the relation
of the sexes underwent a profound change. Especially
powerful was the trend toward enlarging the number of
prohibited degrees. In the old arur code punishment
(probably death) is denounced against him that married
his step-mother (Deut. 27, 20), his sister, his half-sister
(Deut. 27, 22), or his mother-in-law (Deut. 27, 23).
This statute was now amended. A new list of capital
crimes was made, which included, in addition to those of
the arur code, marriage with a son's wife (Lev. 20, 12).
Moreover, serious penalties, the exact nature of which
cannot now be determined, were denounced against mar-
riage with an aunt (Lex. 20, 19), or with the wife of an
uncle (Lev. 20, 20).
The feature of this amended code which is most
relevant to our present inquiry, is the prohibition to marry
a brother's wife. It is not rated as a crime punishable by
human law, but it is denounced as niddah (abhorrent)
(Lev. 20, 21). The only evil consequence threatened is:
"They shall be childless." That this provision is a pointed
condemnation of the yabam marriage, seems clear. The
66 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
purpose of the latter was the birth of a son who should
stand in the place of the dead man who had no son. And
now it was solemnly declared that Jhvh himself would
prevent the attainment of the object. They would have no
son. The marriage would be sterile.
In the state of public opinion thus indicated, the severe
blow dealt the yabam law by the Zelophehad decision was
much aggravated. In short, fashion and morals joined in
discrediting the Levirate marriage.
This, however, was not all. The great land-owners
of Zelophehad's kin became alarmed. The latter's estate
had slipped from their grasp into the hands of a bevy of
damsels, whose fancy might bestow them on the dreaded
outsider (ish zar). In the general greed for increasing
their holdings, land-owners from other misJipahot, if not
from other tribes, might come a-wooing, and by marriage
with the heiresses, deprive the kinsmen of their cherished
chance to annex the lands of failing lines.
To save what they could, the chiefs of the misJipahot
of Gilead appealed to the High Court to modify its decree
of Numbers 27, 7, by adding thereto a limitation of the
right of heiresses in the choice of husbands. They urged
that without such limitation, men of other tribes would
reduce the state of Gilead by coming in and marrying the
women of landed estate.
The tribunal heeded the protest and modified the
fomer decree by declaring that the daughters of Zelophehad
might marry whom they would, provided only that their
choice fell on men of their own tribe, in order that every
one of the tribes of the B'ne-Israel should keep its own
inheritance (Num. 36, 1-9). Whether mishpahah or tribe
is here meant is not quite clear from the language of the
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 67
text. The probability, however, is that mishpahot only are
intended, and that by mishpahot we are to understand
recognizable kinsmen. As late as the time of Jeremiah, we
find that in the domain of the priest-city of Anathoth, a
man could not sell land to whom he would, but that the
nearest kinsman had a preferential right to buy. Though
the existence of a custom in a priest-city at a late period
is no warrant for its general existence at the time through-
out the realm, because of the tenacity with which the priests
held on to their ancient rights and privileges, yet it is at
least good evidence of ancient customs which were, in
former times, general. It appears that Hanamel, the son
of Jeremiah's uncle Shallum, determined to sell his land,
and accordingly made the first offer to his cousin Jeremiah
as the one having the preferential right (ge'ullah). More-
over, he expressly stated that this preferential right was
based on or conjoined with the right of inheritance (yeru-
shah), which can only mean that Hanamel was childless,
that he had no brothers, that his uncles were dead and that
Jeremiah was the next of kin (Jer. 32, 7-8).
We must return, however, to the Zelophehad heiresses.
It appears that the modification of the decree did not
seriously disturb them. They married their first cousins
and thus the estates were kept in the family (Numb. 36,
n. 12).
These cousins, who, in part, owed their success in
wooing to the law courts, were not alone in their land-
hunger. We have already noticed the drastic denunciation
of land-thieves in the arur code. Despite everything, the
thing went on. Wealth and luxury increased, and the men
newly risen to opulence were eager for their aggrandize-
ment. They were not too dainty as to the means whereby
68 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
they accomplished their purpose. Some of them doubtless
were of the sikne ha-'ir, and that tribunal could not be
relied on to interfere with them. This is the meaning of
Isaiah's bitter cry: He looked for mishpat (justice) but
received mispah (oppression) ; for equity — and behold
iniquity. Woe unto them that join house to house and
field to field, till there is no room for others and they
remain alone in the land (Isai. 5, 7. 8). Their inward
thought is that their houses shall endure forever ; they call
their lands after their own names (Ps. 49, 12 (11)).
The strife degenerated into a contest between the old
families and the new rich, and, as a consequence, the
decaying families and the poor in general fared badly
between the upper and nether mill-stone.
The yabam law, which was one means of securing the
inalienability of landed estates, was treated with scant
courtesy by the rising families, was assailed as immoral by
the Federal kohanim and statesmen, and had doubtless
fallen under the social ban. No appeal to antiquity could
save it from falling into obsolescence.
The result was inevitable. As in all nations with a
genius for jurisprudence, the Hebrews employed the fictio
juris, the legal fiction, to set aside laws and customs which
they dared not repeal outright. They determined that the
woman who could not marry anyone but her brother-in-law,
should be free of the obligation, if the latter in proper form
declared he would not marry her.
This was a substantial repeal of the yabam law, by the
abandonment of its only effective feature, the sanction or
vindicatory part thereof. For once the Federal government
and the cantonal councils were of one mind. The sikne
ha-'ir, as has been seen, had the largest general powers.
POLITY Of ANCIEN'i HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 69
In earlier days, when they were still enforcing the yabam
law, they doubtless compelled specific performance of the
brother-in-law's duty, just as in another class of matri-
monial cases they deprived a man of his almost indefeasi-
ble right to divorce his wife (Deut. 22, 13-19). Certain
it is that they never hesitated to enforce their judgments
by punishing men in body and estate, and were by no means
chary of inflicting the death penalty (Deut. 19, 12. 21 ; 22,
21. 22. 24. 25).
That the violation of the yabam law might well be
punished by death appears from the story of Tamar,
Judah's daughter-in-law, whose husband Onan was slain
by Jhvh for fraud on this same law (Gen. 38, 1-10).
The particular ceremony by which legal fiction effected
the gradual disuse of the yabam law was what came in later
times to be called the halisah. It is fully described in Deut.
25, 5-10. The details are not all comprehensible. They
doubtless, in part at least, simulate the proceedings which
were had when the trial was a very real one with serious
consequences to the defendant. The first step evidently
was that the widow explicitly asked her brother-in-law to
marry her, and he declined. Thereupon she instituted suit,
that is, she went to the city gate, to the sekenim, and made
this formal complaint: My husband's brother refuses to
marry me, will not comply with the yabam law. Where-
upon the zikne ha-'ir summoned him. He appeared. They
informed him what the complaint was. The contingency
of his replying that the complaint is not true, that he is
quite ready to marry the woman, is not mentioned. His
refusal was taken for granted. If he stood by it and said,
I do not wish to take her, this confession of his guilt was
followed by no judgment of the tribunal. No redress was
yo roLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
given to the complainant, no punishment was decreed against
the defendant. What happened was that the woman drew
off one of his shoes, ceremoniously spat in his presence, and
uttered an antique formula, which probably had once a
sinister meaning, but had become harmless and even unin-
telligible. These were the words : "So shall it be done unto
that man that will not build up his brother's house. His
name shall be called in Israel, The house of him of the
loosed shoe." This accomplished, the parties went their
way, and probably the woman was free to marry whom she
would, which, after all, was what everybody had intended
from the first.
There is but one other instance of z'xkne ha-'ir law
which concerns us in the present inquiry. It occurs in the
Book of Ruth.
According to the author's presentation, the duty which
the law, as we know it, puts upon the yabam or husband's
brother, attaches to the go'el or near kinsman of the
mishpahah. This duty, moreover, is not primary, but in-
cidental to the exercise of the right of ge'ullah, which is the
preferential right of the next of kin to purchase lands
which a member of the mishpahah wishes to sell, before
they can be sold to a buyer from without. The yabam duty,
in short, is a mere incident of the ge'ullah. This right of
ge'ullah is assignable by one go'el to another in the order
of succession, which is determined by nearness of kinship,
and such assignment or waiver carries with it no reproach
to anybody. In order that the transaction may be legally
effective, certain forms are necessary. It must be at the
gate, in the presence of at least a quorum (ten) of the
zekenim. The assignor, next of kin, addressing his suc-
cessor, says: "You may buy it for yourself," and with the
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 71
words delivers to him the shoe which he has just drawn
from his foot. The assignee takes the shoe, and, address-
ing the zekenim and the hy-standers, says: "Ye are wit-
nesses this day:" (then formally recites what he has
acquired) and closes by repeating the words: "Ye are wit-
nesses {'edim) this day." The zckcnim and the by-standers
say in chorus; 'edim (witnesses), and the transaction is
closed, — is firm and stable forever (Ickaycm kol dabar)
(Ruth 4, 7).
Xeedless to say, there is no tittle of evidence that
there ever was in Israel a compound gc'uUah-yabam law
such as is here described. Moreover, there is reason to
believe that the author knew this perfectly well, having
before him all the* data accessible to us. His acquaintance
with the most ancient form of yabam law, as exemplified
in the story of Tamar (Gen. 38, 6-30) is attested by the
utterances of Ruth 1, n and 4, 12. That he was aware of
the custom which allowed the woman to propose to the
yabam (Deut. 25, 7) is seen in Ruth 3, 9, and that the
drawn-off shoe plays a part in it (Deut. 25, 5-10) he tells
in Ruth 4, 7. 8.
In view of these facts, it would be rash to doubt his
knowledge of the law of Numbers 27, 7-10, and one can
hardly go wrong in supposing that he had read the ge'ullah
transaction of Jeremiah 32, 7-12.
Having this knowledge, it was as plain to him as to
us that when Mahlon died, leaving no children, no broth-
ers and no uncles, the inheritance went to the next of kin
(Numb. 27, 11), the pcloni almoni (Mr. So and So) of
Ruth 4. There was no power either in Naomi or in Ruth to
sell, because they had no title of any kind. Pcloni almoni was
72 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
the absolute owner. There was no room, therefore, for
ge'ullah and, a fortiori, none for yabam duty.
The author, however, wrote his imaginary law for a
purpose. He was creating one of the great masterpieces
of the world's literature, with the design to show that mar-
riage with non-Hebrew women might not only be harmless,
but highly beneficial in bringing into the fold the most noble
and charming of foreign damsels. In the restricted life of
Eastern women, he could find no class to whom was ac-
corded the liberty of making advances, save the childless
widow, and she only to the yabam. The situation rendered
an actual brother-in-law impossible, so his part was taken
by the noblest gentleman of Bethlehem. Everything runs
on to a happy ending, and the baby-boy Obed becomes the
ancestor of King David.
We may therefore, with safety, eliminate from the
discussion the law as laid down in Ruth, though on certain
minor points it may be informing.
The only great land-law remaining to be considered is
that of Leviticus (25, 10-34). Its salient provisions are
as follows :
"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year and proclaim
liberty (deror) throughout the land to all the inhabitants
thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return
every man unto his possession (ahuzzah), and ye shall
return every man unto his family (mishpahah)" (Lev. 25,
10).
"In the year of this jubilee ye shall return every man
unto his possession" (ahuzzah) (Lev. 25, 13).
"According to the number of years after the jubilee
thou shalt buy of thy neighbor ; according to the number of
years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:" (Lev. 25, 15).
POLITY OF ANCIENT 11 E BREWS — SILZBERGER 73
"According to the greater number of years thou shalt
increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of
years thou shalt diminish the price of it; for it is a number
of crops he is selling thee" (Lev. 25, 16).
"The land shall not be sold in perpetuity (Lev. 25, 23).
"Ye shall grant gc'uUah (redemption) for land" (Lev.
25, 24).
"If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away
some of his ahuzzah (estate), and his next go'cl (kinsman)
come to redeem it, he shall have the right to do so" (Lev.
25, 25).
"If the man have no go' el, but can gather the means to
redeem it" (Lev. 25, 26),
"Then let him count the value of the years since the
sale (deduct that sum from the purchase money) and pay
the balance unto the man to whom he sold it : then he may
return to his ahuzzah" (Lev. 25, 27).
"If he cannot gather the means to redeem it, then it
shall remain in the buyer's possession until the year of
jubilee: and in the year of jubilee he is entitled to return
to his ahuzzah" (Lev. 25, 28).
"If a man sell a dwelling-house in a walled city, he
may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold" (Lev.
25, 29).
"If it be not redeemed within the space of a full year,
it shall be the buyer's in perpetuity throughout the genera-
tions; it does not revert in the jubilee" (Lev. 25, 30).
"But houses in hascrim (villages) which have no wall
round about them are to be treated as fields : they are sub-
ject to gc'ullah and revert in the jubilee" (Lev. 25, 31).
74 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
"As to the Levite cities — the houses of the cities of
their possession, are subject to perpetual ge'ullah for the
Levites" (Lev. 25, 32).
"And if a man of the Levites fail to redeem a house
in a Levite city which he has sold, it reverts to him in the
jubilee" (Lev. 25, 33).
"The field in the migrash of their (Levites') cities may
not be sold; it is an ahuzzah in perpetuity" (Lev. 25, 34).
A mere reading of this jubilee-statute shows that it
has no reference to the days when the zikne ha-'ir were the
great men of the country. The earliest allusions to it are
found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The latter speaks of the
seller returning and makes a gloomy prediction that it will
not happen, the trumpet that has been blown, presaging
misery instead of happiness (Ezek. 7, 12. 13. 14).
He also points out that royal grants to members of the
royal family are nahalah, that is, are not to revert, but that
royal grants to others revert in the deror year (Ezek. 46,
16. 17).
And this allusion to the blowing of the trumpet and
to the deror year recalls the statute (bcrit, covenant) made
during the reign of Zedekiah in the most solemn fashion
before Jhvh, to wit: They cut a calf in twain,
and passed between the parts thereof, the sarim
of Judah, and the sarim of Jerusalem, the sarisim,
the kohanim, and hoi 'am ha-arcs. By the terms
of this deror law, every man was bound to free
his Hebrew slaves. On that occasion Jeremiah de-
nounced the non-observance of the old law forbidding
Hebrew slavery, and also castigated those who were violat-
ing the new statute (Jer. 34, 8-22).
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 75
The connection between Leviticus 25 and these pass-
ages from Jeremiah and Ezekiel seem clear.
We are, however, not concerned here with the slavery
question, though it would appear to have been inseparably
connected with the land question, in view of Ezekiel's
words wherein the expression deror year is used for the
jubilee year of Leviticus.
We may take it for granted that the land-greed of
which something has been already said, did not abate while
the cantonal magnates had their own way. The jubilee
statute seems to be a compromise between the parties to
this age-long contest. By it the old Federal policy of the
inalienability of land was definitely abandoned. The sikne
ha-'ir, the magnates who dwelt in the walled cities, who
were, in fact, the great land barons, had finally triumphed,
though concessions had to be made to other interests. By
the terms of the compromise, the absolute inalienability of
land was abolished; houses in cities were made practically
alienable, and agricultural lands and village-houses, while
they could not be sold in perpetuity, could nevertheless be
aliened by the owner, on condition that they should revert
in the jubilee year and be subject to ge'ullah at any time
before. The Levites (kohanim) succeeded in securing for
themselves the right of ge'ullah and of jubilee-reversion
in their walled cities, while as to their migrash fields they
maintained the ancient law of total inalienability.
The result was perhaps as good as could hive been
expected. The growth of commerce and of wealth had
brought into more active operation economic laws which
defeated the plans devised by the Federalists in the earlier
times of greater simplicity. The great barons were now
authorized by law to acquire perpetual estates in their val-
y6 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
liable city holdings, and to extend them without limit; their
purchased agricultural estates, before held in defiance of
ancient law, were made secure until the deror year, and this
provision must have added to their power and influence.
The Levites (kohanim) retained or reconquered the
placid security of primitive times, while the masses of the
farmers, though they derived only moderate benefits during
their active lives, could at least hope that their children's
condition would be permanently improved.
The achievement, though far short of the hopes of the
optimists, was greater than it may seem. The old law of
inalienability had been so uniformly disregarded as to have
become practically obsolete, and the lands of the poor were
being gradually absorbed by the land-barons. Any degree
of amelioration was an advance, and none could have been
secured if the influence of the common people had not
steadily grown. At least one of the great estates of the.
realm, the 'am ha-arcs, was making a sturdy fight for the
rights of the masses. In the struggle for the Zedekiah
statute, they took a leading part, and though the powerful
classes were tempted to evade the laws which hampered
their efforts for control of all kinds, some progress was
always made.
We must not, however, prolong remarks on a subject
which is too remote from our main theme, to be adequately
treated in this connection. There are many questions of
equal interest which must be discussed before a proper
understanding of the polity of the ancient Hebrews can be
attained. It is necessary to understand how the conflict be-
tween the centrifugal forces, represented by the sikne
ha-'ir, and the centripetal forces of the nation was carried
on, and by whose activity it was finally decided in favor
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER JJ
of the latter. This involves an investigation into the part
played hy the XcbiUn and the Levites (kohaiiiin), and by
the former I mean, not the writing prophets, but the guild
which is typified by the illustrious old hero Elijah. When
I first began these investigations I intended to take up all
the laws recorded in the Bible, with the design of develop-
ing therefrom a complete scheme of the Hebrew Consti-
tution and laws. It soon became apparent that in the sikne
ha-ir laws we had a system more ancient than the accepted
codes. Further examination revealed the cantonal basis of
the Federal government and showed clearly the necessity
of going to the bottom of the sikne Jia—'ir laws. The
result has been that what was conceived to be the main
subject has scarcely been touched upon, and its considera-
tion must be postponed to a future occasion.
It remains only to summarize what I conceive to be
the result of this preliminary work.
At the Exodus the Hebrews were arrayed as tribes
with sub-divisions. As they advanced and the necessities
of war dictated a more efficient organization, they formed
into regiments (alaphim) with proper sub-divisions and
aggregations. Both forms of organization were in their
nature military, the latter specifically so. As they con-
quered settled territory, with established governments, they
learned a new lesson. The pre-Israelite inhabitants lived
in many cantons, each constituting a little kingdom, called
a "city." The name was not literally exact. The canton
had in it, besides the walled city, certain towns, villages,
and fields, and sometimes it had one or more additional
cities, all looking up to the royal city, which was the seat
of government where the King held his court. The He-
brews recognized and adopted this subdivision of the
78 POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
country, and in part accepted the mode of government as
a practical solution of the new and intricate problems which
they had to solve. They, however, abolished royalty.
Councils, somehow representative in their make-up, became
the ruling power in these little cantons, which were to be
the constituent elements of a central Federal government.
The conquest was slow, and the progress of nationalization
tardy. The policy of exterminating the natives, which was
the obvious one for an invading hcTrde that started out to
take possession of a whole country, had to be abandoned.
Concessions were made to the natives, who, under the name
of gerim, exercised much influence in the Hebrew cantons,
which superseded the old city-states. The national policy
of declaring Jhvh as the one God of the country was
hindered at every step by the stubborn conservatism which
adhered to the multifarious cantonal gods, and the central
government established at Shiloh found great difficulty
in bringing the cantonal councils to a lively comprehension
of the importance of stamping out the old worship.
There was one other leading feature of policy in the
new nation. The land for which the Hebrews so longed
was to be divided as equally as possible among those who
had won it by their blood. In this matter, too, the central
government had to rely on effective administration by the
cantonal councils. The obstacles encountered were great.
Leading chieftains naturally claimed greater shares, many
natives kept their holdings, and the theoretical idea of
equality, which would, under the most favorable circum-
stances, have been only partially translated into practice,
was but slimly carried out. The principle, however, that
family land was inalienable was adopted as law. Had this
been consistently carried out, there would not have arisen
i'OLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 79
a slavery question. Unfortunately, however, though shut
out at the front door, it slunk in at the side. The ancient
severe notions of dehtors' law were at first accepted. The
new farmers were not all equally skilled or capable. Some
of them had to borrow, and the penalty of not paying was
slavery. Men with talents for accumulation were then,
as now, alert to seize opportunity. So long as they kept
within the law, they felt no reproach of conscience, and
often they went beyond in order to attain their ends. Many
of the farmers fell into debt, and not only lost their hold-
ings, but their liberty and that of their children. As the
state grew in wealth, the application of economic laws
became more and more certain, and though the state and
the successful classes prospered, the poor, at the other end,
were badly off. The most energetic efforts of the central
government to ward off these evils fell far short of success.
The rising men held the power in the cantonal councils, and
they favored their class.
There was thus a steady conflict between the central
government and the cantonal governments, the latter fol-
lowing local policies and the former working for a larger,
freer, unified state.
The removal of the jurisdiction over s-a-r-a-h from the
cantonal to the Federal courts was a long step forward.
The struggle to maintain the Federal land laws was less
successful, but, in the end, a partial victory was achieved
by the Nationalists, who had added to their forces a new
element by the introduction of representatives of the
poorer classes (dallim) into the great Federal council
{'am ha-arcs). The rights of the masses came to be more
and more regarded, and the aristocratic tendencies of the
country magnates, sitting as ziknc ha-'ir, were curbed by
8o POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER
joining with them Federal judges with plenary powers (the
shophctim of the later period), and by the establishment of
Federal courts, with superior jurisdiction in cases involving
great national policies. The primacy of the nation was
finally assured and the zikne ha-'ir sank to a subordinate
position.
How deeply this nationalization was rooted in the
minds and hearts of the people we can learn from the state
of affairs in Ezra's time, more than a century after the
downfall of the old Judean state. The burning question
was that of intermarriage. That it shook the state to its
center was inevitable. Great personages had married non-
Hebrew women, and all that affection, political influence,
and social power could effect to avoid the disruption of
families was put in motion. Doubtless the great literary
genius of the Book of Ruth was evoked by the sad situation.
Ezra, austere, single-minded, and inflexible, insisted on
his view as the sole salvation of church and state, and
however bitter the remedy, the wisest men of the country
agreed with him.
A general convention was called to be held at Jerusalem
(Ezra 10, 7-9). It was soon seen that the task of righting
present conditions could not be accomplished in a day or
two. The resolution was reached, that a special court
should be instituted to hear the cases, the work being so
arranged that it could be finally completed in three months.
And this was the manner of it: The men who had taken
alien wives were summoned to appear, canton by canton,
at stated times, bringing with them their zikne ha-'ir and
their shophctim, and then the special Federal tribunal de-
cided each case on the merits (Ezra 10, 14).
POLITY OF ANCIENT HEBREWS — SULZBERGER 8l
We see here completed the process which has been
described. The zikne lia-'ir are still a body representing
their canton, familiar with its people, its customs ; the
shophetim are their legal advisers on the law as modified by
Federal policies, and the Federal tribunal at Jerusalem is
bound to hear what they can say, and its decision is
supreme, binding, and final.
It is in the light of these considerations that we must
view the zikne ha-'ir law, which has been the main theme
of these lectures. If they have any value, it is in making
clear that the state was always viewed as a bundle of cities,
and that under such circumstances the volume of zikne
ha-'ir law must have been very great ; that the instances and
the statutes of that law which survive are but a small frag-
ment; that scanty as are the sources, they are still the best
for learning the foundations of the Federal law which
superseded the canton law.
That the laws of the Pentateuch can be better under-
stood when we appreciate these facts, seems clear. May
time and opportunity be given me to continue the task.
In any event, I may be permitted to express the hope
that others who are interested in the subject may take it up
and add their contributions to the work of giving us a better
understanding of the constitutional and legal history of the
ancient Hebrews.
INDEXES
BIBLICAL PASSAGES CONSIDERED
Gexesis.
4, 17 ..
20, 1 . .
23. 3-20
23, 4 ...
26, 33 ..
28, 19 ..
34, 8-27
38, 1 -10
38, 6-30 71
46, 27 4
2,
3.
22
3,
II
4,
10
12,
49
13.
18
17,
16
18,
3
18,
13
18,
21
19,
5
20,
7
19
35
35
20
10
16
19
36
8, 9
4
59
20, 10 20, 27
21, 15- 17 52
22, 9 (10) 55
22, 19 (20) .... 57, 59, 61
22, 20 (21) 20
23, 9. 12 20
32, 26. 27 27
Leviticus.
19, 33- 34
20, 2. 4 . .
20, 5 ••••
20, 9
... 20
58, 59
... 58
...52
Leviticus, (continued) page
20, 12. 19. 20. 21 65
24, 11-16. 23 60, 61
24, 14 55
24, 15. 16 60
24, 22 20
25, 10-34 72
25, 10. 13. 15 72
25, 16. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
28. 29. 30. 31 73
25, 32. 33- 34 74
25, 45- 47-49 21
Numbers.
1, 16 8
6, 27 59
9, 14 20
10, 35- 36 5
21, 24. 25. 32. 34. 35 • • • 13
25, i-5 21, 40
25, 5-9 21
25. n-13 22
27, 5 64
27, 7-io 71
27, 7 64, 66
27, 8. 9-1 1 64
27, 11 7i
32, 1-33. 41. 42 13
35, 13 21
35, 24. 25 50
36, 1-9 66
36, 11-12 67
Deuteronomy.
1, 16 20
1, 28 28
3, 5 27
85
86
BIBLICAL PASSAGES CONSIDERED
Deuteronomy, (con.) page.
5, ii 59
5, 14 2o, 27
6, 9 27
io, 19 20
11, 20 27
12, 15. I/. l8 27
13, 2. 3 (1. 2) 54
13, 6 (5) 53, 54
13, 7-1 1 (6-10) 55
14, 27 27
14, 28. 29 20
15, 7 27
16, 5. 11 27
17, 2-7 58
17, 7 59
18, 20 59
19, 12, 21 69
19. 15 57
19, 16 56
19, 17-19- 21 57
21. 1-9 48
2i, 5 50
21, 18-21 35. 5i
22, 9 ••• 49
22, 13-21 48, 69
22, 21. 22. 24. 25 69
22, 23-27 49
24, 14. 15- 17 20
25, 5-10 69, 71
25, 5- 6 62
25. 6 63
25. 7 71
25, 19 16
26, 11-13 20
27, 15 61
27, 17 62
27, 20. 22. 23 65
29, 10 19
3i, 12 19, 27
32, 8-12 5
32, 30 10
33, 9 22
33. 17 10
Joshua. page
1, 14 10
4, 12 10
6, 18 7
7, 14-18 9
7, 16-18 7
8, 35 19
9, 3-27 29
9, 23-27 30
9, 27 22
12, 9-24 15
13. 17-21 26
13, 17. 23-28 15
13, 28 13
13, 30. 31 26
15, 21-62 26
15. 63 17
18, 1 22
18, 1. 8 31
18, 12-28 26
19, 15. 22. 30. 38. 41-47. . 26
19, 5i 3i
20, 4. 5. 6 50
20, 9 21
22, 9 43
22, 12 31
Judges.
1, 19. 21. 27. 29. 30. 31
32. 33. 35 17
3, 19 36
4, 5 12
5, 16. 17 42
6, 1-6 16
6, 8. 11. 24-32 36
6, 15 8
7, 7- 22 39
7, 11 10
7, 23. 24 39
7, 23-25 16
8, 4-17 39
8, 22. 27 41
9, 1-6 32
9, 2 16
9, 22 11
IU.ICAL PASSAGES CONSIDERED
87
Judges, (continued) PAGE
II, 4 ••••" 43
11, 11 11
12. 2. 4-6 42
12, 4. 6 43
12, 7 24, 42
17, 6 32
20, 1 44
20, 10 i°
20, 14 24
20, 47 44
21, 9 44
21, 19 31
21, 23 24
21, 25 32
I Samuel.
1, 3 4i
2, 13-17- 14 4i
3, 20 4i
4, 18 I2
6, IS 46
7, 16. 17 I2
9, 21 35
10, 17-25 8
11, 1-15 45
16, 4 47
18, 6 24
18, 8 ">
21, 1-9 30
22, 9-23 30
II Samuel.
2, 1-3 33
6. 2 59
15, 19-22 19
15. 27 55
21, I-IO 30
21, I-II 28
24. 9 XI
I Kings.
2, 26 4r>
3. 4-15 31
I Kings, (continued) PAGE
4, 7-19 ]I
8, 16. 29 59
8, 41-43 J9
9. 3 59
TT, 28. 31 I'
11, 36 59
12, l6 II
12, 17 24
15, 20 24
21. 8. 12 47
22, 19 36
II Kings.
2, 19 48
4. 13 47
10, 1-3 47
17, 24. 26 24
21, 4- 7 59
22, 14 ..:. 3o
23'5-*9 »4
23, 17 48
23, 27 59
Isaiah.
9, 3 (4) l6
9, 14 53
5.7.8 68
21, 5 • I0
30. 1 53
40. 9 24
44, 26 24
65, 2-7 53
Jeremiah.
1, 1 46
1, 6 35
4. 4 47
4. 16 24
5. 23 53
7, 12 22
7, 17 25
7, 17- 34 47
7. 34 24
88
BIBLICAL PASSAGES CONSIDERED
Jeremiah, (continued) page
8, i 47
9, io (n) 25
io, 22 25
11, 6. 12 25
11, 21 46
17, 25 47
25, 15. 18 25
26, 2 25
28, 16 53
29, 32 53
32. 7- 8 67
32, 7-12 71
33, 10 24
34, 8-22 74
34, 22 25
36, 9 25
40, 5 25
44, 2. 6. 17 25
44, 6. 17 26
EzekiEl.
7, 12. 13- 14 74
39, 9 26
46, 16. 17 74
Hosea.
4, 15- 16 53
5, 10 62
9, I-I5 53
MlCAH.
5, 1 9
Habakuk.
2, 18. 19 53
Zephaniah. PAGE
1, 10 30
Zechariah.
I, 12 26
Psalms.
49, 12 (11) 68
Proverbs.
6, 12. 13 53
20, 20 52
21, 28 55
23, 20. 21 54
28, 7 54
Ruth.
1, 11 71
3, 9 71
4, 7- 8. 12 71
Ezra.
10, 7-9. 14 80
I Chronicles.
13, 6 59
16, 39 31
21, 5. 6 11
II Chronicles.
2, 16 (17) 20
6, 5. 6. 7. 20 59
6, 32. 33 20
20, 8. 9 59
32, 21 io
33, 4- 7 59
INDEX
PAGE
Abiezer, the clan of 31, 34 38
Abimelech, king of Shechem 11, 16, 31, 32
Aborigines of Canaan 16-18
Abraham 14. 19, 27, 32-34
Achan, case of 7, 8
ahussah (estate) 33, /2, 73
Ai 7, 22, 29
alaphim, see eleph.
'am, ha-' ant (council, trial-court) 3, 36, 59
ha-'am (the army) 40
'am ha-ares (federal assembly) 3, 4, 76, 79
- ( federal trial-court) 58, 59
-of Hittites 19, 33
'a mad 'al (act or serve) 36
Ammonites 42, 44, 45
Amorites, 13, 17
anashim (council) 4
anshe Anathoth 46
anshe Beth-Shemesh 46
anshe ha-ir 28, 33. 35, 36, 39, 48, 49, 54
kol anshe 'iro 52
anshe Jabesh 45
anshe Penuel 38
anshe Shechem 32
anshe Succoth 38
Anathoth, priest city 46, 47
Ark of the Covenant 7, 8, 59
Army Organization 7-10, 23, 40, 64, 77
arur (death penalty) 52, 61, 65, 67
arur code 65, 67
'asarot (squads of ten) 8
Asher 17, 26, 39
Asherah 34, 35
Asylum City 5°
Baal 34, 35, 36, 51
Baal-Peor 21, 4"
89
90 INDEX
PAGE
batnah (high-place) 30
banot (dependent cities) • 13. x5. x7
be'alim (council ) 4. 33
ba'ale Shechem 31
Bedouins, incursions of 1 5. 38, 39
bckor (first-born son) 62, 63, 65
Benjamites, war against 44
ben sorer u-morch ( missionary apostate) 5I_54
bent (covenant, statute) , 74
bet ab. bet abot ( family ) 7, 8. 1 1, 34
bet Elohim (temple) 28, 30
Bethlehem 9. 47
Beth-Shemesh 9. 46
Blaspheming the sheiu, see sarah.
B'ne Ammon, see Ammonites.
B'ne Benjamin 24
B'ne Gad U
B'ne Heth 32
B'ne Israel 12, 18, 24, 57, 61, 66
B'ne Jacob 28
B'ne Levi 50
B'ne Reuben x3
Canaan 4. l2- l3
Capital City 29. 46, 47
Census of gerim 2°
City, building of M
City-gate 3. 4, 27, 28
City-gods 6
City, fortified 15, 16, 23, 27
City-kings 6
City-Kingdoms, see City-States.
City-States (cantons) . .4, 6, 14-16, 22, 23, 27.30, 31, 33-36,43,46,77
composition of, 1 5- -3, 77
ecclesiastical power of, 46
pre-Israelite 14-16, 27-32, 43
Cities of Gilead 42
Cities of Hebron 33
Cities of Judah 9- 24, 25, 26
Cities of the Land, 23, 24
Connubium, right of, 28
Council 23, 28, 31, 32. 33- 34. 36, 38. 39. 45. 78
City- 6, 79
national- 2, 3, 44. 45
INDEX 91
PAGB
dallim (poorer classes) 79
David 9. 10. II, ia 24, 30, 33i 7-'
dtryan ( officer, judge ) 40
Deborah n>4i
Song of 12, 42
deror (liberty) "-. 73- 7?- 7<>
Dinah jS
'cd, 'cdim (Witness) 5". 58, 71
'edah (national council) 29, 5°
Elders 3. 16, 52
eleph, alaphim, (thousands, regiments, cities) 8, 9, 10. 34, 77
Eli, priest-judge I2- 4*
Elisha 47, 48
em (fortified city) J5
Ephraim 10. 17, 26, 39, 42, 43
Ephron 34
Ezra 80
czrah (native ) 20. 60, 61
Federal Government 43, 45. 62, 63. 68, 75
Court 50. 54. 59. 60. 80, 81
Fictio Juris (legal fiction) 68. 69
gebarim (soldiers) 7, 8
ger, gerim ( alien ) 19. 20. 21, 57, 60. 61, 78
ger wc-tosliab (resident alien) 19. 21, 33
ge'ullah (right of redemption) 67, 70, 72, 73, 75
f/c'itllali-yabam law 71
Gibeah • 45
Gibeon 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 3L 32, 33
Gideon 8, 1 1, 31, 32, 34-38, 41, 42, 51, 54
Gilead 12, 24, 26, 38, 42, 43, 44. 46, 66
Gilgal 45
go' el (kinsman) 7°> 73
go'el ha-dam (executioner) 48, 5°
goyitn (nations) 25
hoi Jhvh we-hai adoni ha-melek (form of oath) 19
halisah, ceremony of, 69-71
hamishim (companies of fifty) 8, 10
hammushim (soldiers) I0
Hanamel, sells his land to Jeremiah 67
92 INDEX
PAGE
haradah, wayeherdu (welcome) 47
haserim (villages) 13, 15, 73
hawwot (villages) 13, lS
Hebrew Commonwealth, division of 7, 8, 49
Hebron 24, 33
helek (portion) 4
herein (prohibited) 7
yahoram (priestly form of death-sentence) 57> 59, 61
High Court 47, 66
Hittites 19, 33, 34
Inheritance, status of women 63-65
'ir melukah (capital city) 29
ish (collective-men) 47
ish zar (stranger, outsider) 62, 66
Ittai of Gath 19
Jabesh-Gilead 44, 45
Jacob 14, 27, 28
Jehu 12, 47
Jephthah 11, 12, 24, 42, 43
Jeremiah 24, 35, 46, 67
Jeroboam n, 24
Jerub-baal ( Gideon ) 36
Jerusalem , 17, 24, 2$, 26, 30, 74
Jethro 8, 9, 10
Joash, chief of Abiezer 34, 35
Joseph, bet- (house of, ten tribes) 10, 11
Joshua 7, 9- 19, 22, 28, 29, 30
Josiah 24, 48
Jubilee-statute , 74, 75
(kallcl), mekallel, yekallel (curse) 60
kasin (chieftain) 42, 43
kiddeshu (sanctified) 46
kohanim (priests, federal delegates)
49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 59. 68, 74. 75, ?6, 77
kol ha-' am (council, federal court) 45, 54, 55, 58
kol 'am ha-arcs (federal council) 74
kol ha-'edah (general assembly) 29, 60
kol ish (anshe) Israel (national assembly) 41, 45
kol Israel (all Israel) 11
kopher (compensation, Wergild) 30
i\Di:\ 93
I'Al.l-.
Land Laws 5'- (" " •• "J
lefrayem kol dabar I firm, stable > ~)
Levirate Marriage ''-' "•
Levites 6> "• 75, 7^
li flinch JHVH ( trial by oracle ) 43, 56, 64
liphneh ha-kohanim 1 trial by priests) 5"
mal'ak Tuvh ( ;;u/>f'. messenger) 34
Manasseh >°- 11. 13. 17. 26, 31, 34. 39
Marriage, prohibited degrees, ()5
>;m/f()/ (tribes) "> 8
mehokek (officer) 4°
melek (king) 29. 40
mc'ot (companies of hundreds ) 8, I0
met, ha- (convict) 58
mutter-thorns ' 38, 39
migdal (tower) 3»
migrash (fields) '4. 75
Military Chiefs (judges, shophetim) 12, 14. 39. 4°, 41
Military organization, see Army Organization.
mishneh (quarter of Jerusalem) 30
mishpahah, mishpahot (family, clan)..;, 8, 10, 35. 64. 66, 67,70, 72
mishpat (justice, case) 20- 64- 68
mispah (oppression) 68
Missionary Apostate, see sarah.
moreh (teacher) 53
Moses 5, 8, 12, 19, 21, 31. 35, 36, 40, 64
na'ar (clerk) 38
nabi, nebim (prophet) 6, 34. 53, 54, 59. 77
Naboth 47
nahalah (permanent possession ) 74
Xahash the Ammonite 44, 45
Naphtali 17, 26, 39
nasi, nesiitn (prince) 9, 28, 29
nest elohim (prince of God) 2>i
nega' (assault) ^°
niddah (abhorrent) 65
nissabim, of Solomon ll
Xob (city of Gibeon or priests' quarter) 28, 30
nokri, erez nokriyah (alien, foreign land ) 19
Og, king of Bashan 13, 15, 21, 29
oh el uto'ed (tent-temple) 22« 3li °4
94 INDEX
PAGE
'olah, 'olot (offering) 35, 46
Ophrah, capital of Abiezer 32, 34, 41, 46, 54
Oracle 7, 29, 33, 55, 57, 59, 64
Palestine, pre-Israelite 4, 31, 77
peloni almoni (Mr. So and So) 71
Penuel 38, 39, 46
Phineas, chosen Pontiff 21, 22
Provost-marshals of army 21, 40
rebabot (military division) 10
Rebellious Son (see also ben sorer u-morek) 35
rib (controversy) 50, 56
ro'eh (oracle witness) 55
rosh (chieftain) 42, 43
rosh lie.-' am (high court) 47
rashe lia-'am (chieftains) 40
rasJiim of alaphim, identified with nesiim, 9
rosh lekol yoshebe Gilead (first of all the lords) 42
Rosh ha-ma'02 34
Ruth, zikne ha-'ir law in 70-72
purpose of Book, 72
sakir (hired servant) 20
Samuel 12, 41, 46, 47
sar, sarim (officer) 10, 25, 38, 39, 47, 74
save Judah 61
sare Succoth 38
sarisim 74
sarah, dibber sarali (missionary apostasy) 50-61, 79
Saul 8, 9, 10, 28, 30, 34, 45
segullah (treasure) 4
seter, ba- (in secret) 61
sha'ar, she'arim (gate, court, city) 27, 58
shebatim (tribes) 7, 8
Shechem, city-state- 16, 27, 31, 32
Shechem, the Hivite, 28
shem ( Ark of the Covenant) 59, 60
Shiloh 22, 23, 31, 41, 42, 78
slwmea', shome'im (witness) 42, 55, 58, 60
shophek, shophetim (chieftain, judge)
II, 12, 21, 39, 40, 41, 42, 55, 56, 57, 80, 81
Sihon, king of Amorites, 13, 15, 21, 29
Slavery 2, 21, 74, 75, 79
Slaves, release of, 74
im.i:\ 95
PAGE
Solomon ii, 10, 30, 46
so 111 ( convocation, fast ) 25
sopher (officer, scribe) 40
State, an aggregation of cities, 23-27, 81
Strangers, treatment of 2, 18-24, 2>3- "8
Succoth 38, 39, 46
Tamar 69, 71
tail-male 63
Tribal Organization 6, 9, 10, II, 12, 14
wayebakeshu (consulted) 35
wayomru (pronounced judgment) 35
Witnesses, false 56, 57
yabam (see Levirate Marriage) 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69. 71. 72
ycnishah (inheritance) 67
yoshebim, yoshebe (magnates) 29, 47
Zebahim (offerings) 46
Zedekiah-statute 74, 76
sekenim (elders, magnates) ..4, 14, 29, 33, 39, 42, 43, 47, 69, 70, 71
cikne ha-'ir (elders of the city)
33. 35. 36, 37, 39. 47, 48, 49, So, Si. 61, 68, 69, 70, 74- 75, 7&, 77
79, 80, 81
jurisdiction of, political 42 ff.
ecclesiastical 46
municipal 47
judicial 48
zikne Jabesh 48
Zelophehad, daughters of 64, 66, 67
zolel we-sobe (glutton and drunkard) 52, 54
Hebrew Words Considered (which see)
ahussah; alaphim; 'am; 'am ha-ares; 'amad 'al; anashim ;
antr; 'asarot; bamaJi; banot; be'alim; bekor; ben sorer
u-morch; berit; bet ab ; bet elohim ; dallim; day an; deror;
'ed; 'edah; eleph; em; ezrah; gebarim; ger; ger we-toshab;
ge'ullah; go'el; go'el ha-dam; goyini; hat Jhvh we-hai adoni
ha-mclek; halisah ; hamisliim; hammushim ; haradah;
haserim; hawwot; helck; herem; 'ir melukah; ish; ish car,
(kallel); kasin; kiddeslut; kohanim; kolha-'am; kol 'am ha-arcs;
kol ha-'edah; kol ish Israel; kol Israel; kopher; lekayem kol
dabar; liphneh Jhvh; liphneh ha-kohanim ; mal'ak Jhvh;
96 INDEX
ma.ttot; mehokek; melek; me'ot; met; midbar; migdal;
migrash; mishneh; mishpahah; mishpat; mispah; moreh;
na'ar; nabi; nahalah; nasi; nega ; niddah; nissabim; nokri;
ohel mo'ed; 'olah; peloni almoni; rib; ro'eh; rosh; rosh
ha- am; rosh lekol Israel; sakir; sar; sarisim; sarah, dibber
sarah; segullah; ba-seter; sha'ar; shebatim; shem; shomea';
shophet; soin; sopher; wayebakeshu; wayomru; yabam;
yerushah; yoshebim; zebahim ; zekenim; zikne ha-'ir; zolel
we-sobe
14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
~«>, RgURNjg^^ tment
LOAN PFPir>n i — nr ■ — ■ — -I
on
Renewed be
Ttt3v*6tf
LOAN PERIOD
HOME USE
**Wjr
YOV 3
U"VERSBT^Ig~T^
U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES
III II 1 1 I III II 1 1 I
C0mflE133T
II
t ii
11)
Mljl
lllil
llliii
iiili!
ij]lii;i
!!!;!!!!
III!
llli!
xM
HP
■ IIS
I l I 111 !l|.
III
mm
n
is
lii:;!!!;
ill
mm
11 P
I :; 1
ii iiiiiliijliiiifjljiij;: liiilsf tmv-
Ii
aisiiF
■i
Hii;;:
uoniiiiin
ii :
™
•Iff
III
■MiMllilii
I||I
iiiiiiilllibf
: . &
lliMIllinli Hill
w^-^
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11