And this concept, that halakha is the most sublime pursuit, is expressed in that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple, where the Divine Presence rested in this world, was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world where he reveals His presence exclusively; only the four cubits where the study of halakha is undertaken.

(1) These are the rules that you shall set before them:

THE LEGAL PARAGRAPHS

Chapter XXI

After the introductory statements, which set out the principles of
Israelite worship, the Divine communication proceeds to give Moses
a series of judicial regulations. The general superscription to the
entire series is: Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them, that is, which you shall present and propose to them.
The covenant has not yet been made, and everything is said in

the form of a proposal.


It is self-understood that in order to comprehend and evaluate
these legal paragraphs, it will be necessary to compare the collections of statutes of the ancient East, which were discovered in recent times. Likewise the judicial and economic documents, which have
also been found in our times in great numbers, can be of help to us.
These are the codes of the ancient East that are thus far known
to us ...:

(A) Sumerian and Akkadian Laws of Babylonia:

1. The Laws of Eshnuna, in Akkadian 12th century BCE

2.The Laws of Lipit-Istar - Sumerian 19th century BCE

3. The Laws of Hammurabi King of Babylon, close of the 18th century BCE

4. Excerpts from later Babylonian laws

(B) Assyrian Laws:

5. Short legal extracts found in tablets of Assyrian settlements in Cappadocia 18th Century BCE

6. Collections of Assyrian laws from the ruins of the city of Ashur 14th Century BCE

(C) Hittite Laws:


An examination of the codes and documents clearly proves that
there existed in the countries of the East a legal tradition that was
unitary in its basic elements and principles. .. From the time of the
first publication of the Hammurabi Code, much research and
writing have been devoted to the comparative story of the Penta
teuchal laws and those of the Eastern peoples, ...
it is not out of place to summarize here briefly some of the results
of my investigations, in so far as these can contribute to the

exegesis and comprehension of this section.


In the first place, let us endeavor to establish the character
of the Biblical laws in general, for so far their nature has not
been sufficiently understood.


The legal tradition of the ancient East was, in all its branches, secular, not religious. The sources of the law were on the one hand usage - consuetudo - and on the other hand the kings will...


Now it is possible to show that also among the Israelites, during the whole period preceding the destruction of the First Temple,the sources of the official law were the secular statutes of the ruling authorities and accepted usage; whereas the Torah laws were regarded as religious and ethical requirements directed to the collective and individual conscience. Although Israelite govern
mental codes, like those of the Mesopotamian kings, have not come
down to us, yet we are permitted to posit that such codes existed
at the time. Clear indications of the existence of secular law among
the Israelites are to be found in the Bible. It will suffice, for example,
to cite the following references:.... (see below)


It may also be assumed that the law of Israel was an offshoot (ענף)
of the general legal tradition that was current, as we have stated,
throughout the ancient East. But the statutes of the Torah are
not to be identified with Israel's secular legislation.


Only in the
time of Ezra were the laws of the Torah accepted as the laws of
the country, by the consent of the people and its leaders. When
we come to compare the Pentateuchal statutes with those of the
neighboring peoples, we must not forget, as the scholars engaged
in this field of study usually do, the difference in character between
them: the laws of the neighboring peoples were not decreed on
behalf of the gods, but on behalf of the kings; whereas the laws of the Torah were not promulgated in the name of the monarchy, nor even in the name of Moses as the leader of Israel, but are religious and ethical instructions in judicial matters ordained in the name of the God of Israel. Every section, whether its subject-matter be
legal or purely religious, is prefaced by the stereotyped formula:
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, or a similar sentence (in
Exod. xx 22: And the Lord said to Moses).

'Religious and ethical instructions in judicial matters' is the cor
rect definition of the legal passages of the Torah. These instructions
are of three kinds:

(a) Those that introduce amendments in the existing legal tradi
tion;

(b) those that oppose or invalidate particular aspects of this tra
dition;

(c)
those that confirm, in the name of religion, other aspects that

are deemed worthy of express corroboration even in the name

of the religion of Israel.


English translation from: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus Paperback – Large Print, January 1, 2005, by Umberto Moshe David Cassuto; trans. Israel Abrahams https://a.co/d/fRolE19

(24) How could anyone agree with you in this matter? The share of those who remain with the baggage shall be the same as the share of those who go down to battle; they shall share alike.” (25) So from that day on it was made a fixed rule for Israel, continuing to the present day.

(1) Ha! Those who write out evil writs And compose iniquitous documents,


Cassuto: "The formulation of the statement precludes the assumption that it refers, according to the usual interpretation, to judicial sentences. It is worth noting that the text specifically refers to written legislation."

(8) The word that came to Jeremiah from GOD after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem to proclaim a release among them— (9) that everyone should set free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female, and that no one should keep their fellow Judean enslaved. (10) Everyone, officials and people, who had entered into the covenant agreed to set their male and female slaves free and not keep them enslaved any longer; they complied and let them go.


(11) But afterward they turned about and brought back the men and women they had set free, and forced them into slavery again. (12) Then it was that the word of GOD came to Jeremiah from GOD: (13) Thus said the ETERNAL, the God of Israel: I made a covenant with your ancestors when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage, saying: (14) “In the seventh year each of you must let go any fellow Hebrew who may be sold to you; when they have served you six years, you must set them free.” But your ancestors would not obey Me or give ear. (15) Lately you turned about and did what is proper in My sight, and all of you proclaimed a release to your compatriots; and you made a covenant accordingly before Me in the House that bears My name.(16) But now you have turned back and have profaned My name; each of you has brought back the men and women whom you had given their freedom, and forced them to be your slaves again. (17) Assuredly, thus said GOD: You would not obey Me and proclaim a release, each to your kin and neighbor. Lo! I proclaim your release—declares GOD—to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine; and I will make you a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth.

Cassuto: after they had carried out the terms of the covenant, they turned around and took them back and brought them into subjection as bondmen and bondwomen. It is obvious, that they would not have been permitted to bring them back to a state of servitude, had not the existing law given them the right to do this. It would seem that the state law of the time made no provision for the Hebrew slave to be freed after a given number of years, and whoever acquired a Hebrew slave acquired him for ever. The Torah law, whose existence at the time is not in doubt, since the covenant was based upon it, was regarded as an ethical precept that was left to a person's conscience in the name of religion. The covenant that was made on the initiative of king Zedekiah did not mean the enactment of anew civil law, but only a moral obligation, which the princes and the people accepted voluntarily, in order to fulfil the Torah precept. Had the king desired to promulgate a statute in this regard, there would have been no need for a covenant to have been made between the parts of the calf. His intention was doubtless to arrange a solemn religious ceremony to mark the acceptance of the obligation of the commandment that was ordained in the name of the Lord.

(12) One who fatally strikes another party shall be put to death. (13) If [a man] did so but not by design—it came about by an act of God—I will assign you a place to which he can flee.

The Torah wishes to affirm and establish the principle, in the name
of Divine law, that human life is sacred, and whoever assails this
sanctity forfeits his own life - measure for measure. This principle
is linked to a religious concept referred to already in Gen. ix 6:
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God was man made.' Conformably with this
maxim, the Torah prescribes here in legal form: Whoever strikes
a man so that he dies shall be put to death. However, the life of the slayer is also sacred, and therefore it is forbidden to put him to death if he took his fellow's life unintentionally, an accident having occurred: But if he did not lie in wait, that is, he did not attack with the intent to kill ... The Torah's
purpose is to amend the primitive practice of blood vengeance,
and also to oppose the principle reflected in the Code of Hammu
rabi, § 229, according to which one who causes the death of another,
even unintentionally, must be put to death.

(20) When a slave-owning party strikes a slave, male or female, with a rod, who dies there and then, this must be avenged.

(37) When any party steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, that person shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the sheep.—

(1) If the thief is seized while tunneling and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt in that case. (2) If the sun had already risen, there is bloodguilt in that case.—[The thief] must make restitution, and if lacking the means, shall be sold for the theft. (3) But if what was stolen—whether ox or ass or sheep—is found alive and in hand, that person shall pay double.


Cassuto: The Torah cites these laws in order to oppose the system of the legal tradition reflected in the laws of Hammurabi, according to which a thief was sentenced to death if he had not the means to pay (Code of Hammurabi, § 8), or if he stole by breaking in (ibid.,§ 21). In accordance with the principle of the sanctity of human life, the Torah had compassion on the thief's life. It annulled the penalty of death in the case of the thief who was unable to pay, and substituted for it the penalty of being sold into slavery. It also protected the thief found breaking in, and limited this protection only out of its even more justified concern for the life of the owner.When a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, andhence the stolen beast is no longer found in his possession whenhe is caught, he must pay a bigger fine than the twofold restitutionthat is imposed on him, if the theft is found in his possession. The reason for the distinction is possibly this: if the owner of the animal is able to recover his own beast, which is dear to him, it is sufficient for the thief to add another beast like it, but if the thief is unable to restore the stolen animal, he must give the owner additional compensation...The logical continuation of v. 1 [Hebrew, xxi 37] is v. 4 [Hebrew, v. 3], which prescribes the penalty for stealing a beast, if it is found in the thief's possession, that is, if he neither killed nor sold it. If the Torah's purpose were to draw up a code of laws, we should have to assume that the verses here are in disorder. But in the light of my explanation that the legal sections of the Pentateuch are only religious and ethical directions on judicial subjects, it is possible to understand the order of the verses before us. The Torah cites in the first verse and in the last verse of the paragraph the provisions of the existing Israelite law, and in the middle, immediately after beginning to state the laws of theft, it interpolates its directives, which are intended to protect both the life of the house owner and the life of the thief, in accordance with the Torah's principles.