Respondeo dicendum quod cum extraneis potest esse hominum conversatio dupliciter, uno modo, pacifice; alio modo, hostiliter. Et quantum ad utrumque modum ordinandum, lex convenientia praecepta continebat. Tripliciter enim offerebatur Iudaeis occasio ut cum extraneis pacifice communicarent. Primo quidem, quando extranei per terram eorum transitum faciebant quasi peregrini. Alio modo, quando in terram eorum adveniebant ad inhabitandum sicut advenae. Et quantum ad utrumque, lex misericordiae praecepta proposuit, nam Exod. XXII dicitur, advenam non contristabis; et XXIII dicitur, peregrino molestus non eris. Tertio vero, quando aliqui extranei totaliter in eorum consortium et ritum admitti volebant. Et in his quidam ordo attendebatur. Non enim statim recipiebantur quasi cives, sicut etiam apud quosdam gentilium statutum erat ut non reputarentur cives nisi qui ex avo, vel abavo, cives existerent, ut philosophus dicit, in III Polit. Et hoc ideo quia, si statim extranei advenientes reciperentur ad tractandum ea quae sunt populi, possent multa pericula contingere; dum extranei, non habentes adhuc amorem firmatum ad bonum publicum, aliqua contra populum attentarent. Et ideo lex statuit ut de quibusdam gentibus habentibus aliquam affinitatem ad Iudaeos, scilicet de Aegyptiis, apud quos nati fuerant et nutriti, et de Idumaeis, filiis Esau fratris Iacob, in tertia generatione reciperentur in consortium populi; quidam vero, quia hostiliter se ad eos habuerant, sicut Ammonitae et Moabitae, nunquam in consortium populi admitterentur; Amalecitae autem, qui magis eis fuerant adversati, et cum eis nullum cognationis habebant consortium, quasi hostes perpetui haberentur; dicitur enim Exod. XVII, bellum Dei erit contra Amalec a generatione in generationem. I answer that, Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts. For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Second, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exod 22:21): Thou shalt not molest a stranger; and again (Exod 22:9): Thou shalt not molest a stranger. Third, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people. Hence it was that the Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob’s brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship; while the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity: for it is written (Exod 17:16): The war of the Lord shall be against Amalec from generation to generation. Similiter etiam quantum ad hostilem communicationem cum extraneis, lex convenientia praecepta tradidit. Nam primo quidem, instituit ut bellum iuste iniretur, mandatur enim Deut. XX, quod quando accederent ad expugnandum civitatem, offerrent ei primum pacem. Secundo, instituit ut fortiter bellum susceptum exequerentur, habentes de Deo fiduciam. Et ad hoc melius observandum, instituit quod, imminente proelio, sacerdos eos confortaret, promittendo auxilium Dei. Tertio, mandavit ut impedimenta proelii removerentur, remittendo quosdam ad domum, qui possent impedimenta praestare. Quarto, instituit ut victoria moderate uterentur, parcendo mulieribus et parvulis, et etiam ligna fructifera regionis non incidendo. In like manner with regard to hostile relations with foreigners, the Law contained suitable precepts. For, in the first place, it commanded that war should be declared for a just cause: thus it is commanded (Deut 20:10) that when they advanced to besiege a city, they should at first make an offer of peace. Second, it enjoined that when once they had entered on a war they should undauntedly persevere in it, putting their trust in God. And in order that they might be the more heedful of this command, it ordered that on the approach of battle the priest should hearten them by promising them God’s aid. Third, it prescribed the removal of whatever might prove an obstacle to the fight, and that certain men, who might be in the way, should be sent home. Fourth, it enjoined that they should use moderation in pursuing the advantage of victory, by sparing women and children, and by not cutting down fruit-trees of that country. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homines nullius gentis exclusit lex a cultu Dei et ab his quae pertinent ad animae salutem, dicitur enim Exod. XII, si quis peregrinorum in vestram voluerit transire coloniam, et facere phase domini; circumcidetur prius omne masculinum eius, et tunc rite celebrabit, eritque simul sicut indigena terrae. Sed in temporalibus, quantum ad ea quae pertinebant ad communitatem populi, non statim quilibet admittebatur, ratione supra dicta, sed quidam in tertia generatione, scilicet Aegyptii et Idumaei; alii vero perpetuo excludebantur, in detestationem culpae praeteritae, sicut Moabitae et Ammonitae et Amalecitae. Sicut enim punitur unus homo propter peccatum quod commisit, ut alii videntes timeant et peccare desistant; ita etiam propter aliquod peccatum gens vel civitas potest puniri, ut alii a simili peccato abstineant. Reply Obj. 1: The Law excluded the men of no nation from the worship of God and from things pertaining to the welfare of the soul: for it is written (Exod 12:48): If any stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord; all his males shall first be circumcised, and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner, and he shall be as that which is born in the land. But in temporal matters concerning the public life of the people, admission was not granted to everyone at once, for the reason given above: but to some, i.e., the Egyptians and Idumeans, in the third generation; while others were excluded in perpetuity, in detestation of their past offense, i.e., the peoples of Moab, Ammon, and Amalec. For just as one man is punished for a sin committed by him, in order that others seeing this may be deterred and refrain from sinning; so too may one nation or city be punished for a crime, that others may refrain from similar crimes. Poterat tamen dispensative aliquis in collegium populi admitti propter aliquem virtutis actum, sicut Iudith XIV dicitur quod Achior, dux filiorum Ammon, appositus est ad populum Israel, et omnis successio generis eius. Et similiter Ruth Moabitis, quae mulier virtutis erat. Licet possit dici quod illa prohibitio extendebatur ad viros, non ad mulieres, quibus non competit simpliciter esse cives. Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some act of virtue: thus it is related (Jdt 14:6) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, was joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his kindred. The same applies to Ruth the Moabite who was a virtuous woman (Ruth 3:11): although it may be said that this prohibition regarded men and not women, who are not competent to be citizens absolutely speaking. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in III Polit., dupliciter aliquis dicitur esse civis, uno modo, simpliciter; et alio modo, secundum quid. Simpliciter quidem civis est qui potest agere ea quae sunt civium, puta dare consilium vel iudicium in populo. Secundum quid autem civis dici potest quicumque civitatem inhabitat, etiam viles personae et pueri et senes, qui non sunt idonei ad hoc quod habeant potestatem in his quae pertinent ad commune. Ideo ergo spurii, propter vilitatem originis, excludebantur ab Ecclesia, idest a collegio populi, usque ad decimam generationem. Et similiter eunuchi, quibus non poterat competere honor qui patribus debebatur, et praecipue in populo Iudaeorum, in quo Dei cultus conservabatur per carnis generationem, nam etiam apud gentiles, qui multos filios genuerant, aliquo insigni honore donabantur, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Polit. Tamen quantum ad ea quae ad gratiam Dei pertinent, eunuchi ab aliis non separabantur, sicut nec advenae, ut dictum est, dicitur enim Isaiae LVI, non dicat filius advenae qui adhaeret domino, dicens, separatione dividet me dominus a populo suo. Et non dicat eunuchus, ecce ego lignum aridum. Reply Obj. 2: As the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 3), a man is said to be a citizen in two ways: first, simply; second, in a restricted sense. A man is a citizen simply if he has all the rights of citizenship, for instance, the right of debating or voting in the popular assembly. On the other hand, any man may be called citizen, only in a restricted sense, if he dwells within the state, even common people or children or old men, who are not fit to enjoy power in matters pertaining to the common weal. For this reason bastards, by reason of their base origin, were excluded from the ecclesia, i.e., from the popular assembly, down to the tenth generation. The same applies to eunuchs, who were not competent to receive the honor due to a father, especially among the Jews, where the divine worship was continued through carnal generation: for even among the heathens, those who had many children were marked with special honor, as the Philosopher remarks (Polit. ii, 6). Nevertheless, in matters pertaining to the grace of God, eunuchs were not discriminated from others, as neither were strangers, as already stated: for it is written (Iss 56:3): Let not the son of the stranger that adhereth to the Lord speak, saying: The Lord will divide and separate me from His people. And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree. Ad tertium dicendum quod accipere usuras ab alienis non erat secundum intentionem legis, sed ex quadam permissione, propter pronitatem Iudaeorum ad avaritiam; et ut magis pacifice se haberent ad extraneos, a quibus lucrabantur. Reply Obj. 3: It was not the intention of the Law to sanction the acceptance of usury from strangers, but only to tolerate it on account of the proneness of the Jews to avarice; and in order to promote an amicable feeling towards those out of whom they made a profit. Ad quartum dicendum quod circa civitates hostium quaedam distinctio adhibebatur. Quaedam enim erant remotae, non de numero illarum urbium quae eis erant repromissae, et in talibus urbibus expugnatis occidebantur masculi, qui pugnaverant contra populum Dei; mulieribus autem et infantibus parcebatur. Sed in civitatibus vicinis, quae erant eis repromissae omnes mandabantur interfici, propter iniquitates eorum priores, ad quas puniendas dominus populum Israel quasi divinae iustitiae executorem mittebat, dicitur enim Deut. IX, quia illae egerunt impie, introeunte te deletae sunt. Ligna autem fructifera mandabantur reservari propter utilitatem ipsius populi, cuius ditioni civitas et eius territorium erat subiiciendum. Reply Obj. 4: A distinction was observed with regard to hostile cities. For some of them were far distant, and were not among those which had been promised to them. When they had taken these cities, they killed all the men who had fought against God’s people; whereas the women and children were spared. But in the neighboring cities which had been promised to them, all were ordered to be slain, on account of their former crimes, to punish which God sent the Israelites as executor of Divine justice: for it is written (Deut 9:5) because they have done wickedly, they are destroyed at thy coming in. The fruit-trees were commanded to be left untouched, for the use of the people themselves, to whom the city with its territory was destined to be subjected. Ad quintum dicendum quod novus aedificator domus, aut plantator vineae, vel desponsator uxoris, excludebatur a proelio propter duo. Primo quidem, quia ea quae homo de novo habet, vel statim paratus est ad habendum, magis solet amare, et per consequens eorum amissionem timere. Unde probabile erat quod ex tali amore magis mortem timerent, et sic minus fortes essent ad pugnandum. Secundo quia, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Physic., infortunium videtur quando aliquis appropinquat ad aliquod bonum habendum, si postea impediatur ab illo. Et ideo ne propinqui remanentes magis contristarentur de morte talium, qui bonis sibi paratis potiti non fuerunt; et etiam populus, considerans hoc, horreret; huiusmodi homines a mortis periculo sunt sequestrati per subtractionem a proelio. Reply Obj. 5: The builder of a new house, the planter of a vineyard, the newly married husband, were excluded from fighting, for two reasons. First, because man is wont to give all his affection to those things which he has lately acquired, or is on the point of having, and consequently he is apt to dread the loss of these above other things. Wherefore it was likely enough that on account of this affection they would fear death all the more, and be so much the less brave in battle. Second, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 5), it is a misfortune for a man if he is prevented from obtaining something good when it is within his grasp. And so lest the surviving relations should be the more grieved at the death of these men who had not entered into the possession of the good things prepared for them; and also lest the people should be horror-stricken at the sight of their misfortune: these men were taken away from the danger of death by being removed from the battle. Ad sextum dicendum quod timidi remittebantur ad domum, non ut ipsi ex hoc commodum consequerentur; sed ne populus ex eorum praesentia incommodum consequeretur, dum per eorum timorem et fugam etiam alii ad timendum et fugiendum provocarentur. Reply Obj. 6: The timid were sent back home, not that they might be the gainers thereby; but lest the people might be the losers by their presence, since their timidity and flight might cause others to be afraid and run away. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum inconvenienter lex vetus praecepta ediderit circa personas domesticas Whether the Old Law set forth suitable precepts about the members of the household? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter lex vetus praecepta ediderit circa personas domesticas. Servus enim id quod est, domini est, ut philosophus dicit, in I Polit. Sed id quod est alicuius, perpetuo eius esse debet. Ergo inconvenienter lex mandavit Exod. XXI, quod servi septimo anno liberi abscederent. Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law set forth unsuitable precepts about the members of the household. For a slave is in every respect his master’s property, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). But that which is a man’s property should be his always. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to command (Exod 21:2) that slaves should go out free in the seventh year. Praeterea, sicut animal aliquod, ut asinus aut bos, est possessio domini, ita etiam servus. Sed de animalibus praecipitur Deut. XXII, quod restituantur dominis suis, si errare inveniantur. Inconvenienter ergo mandatur Deut. XXIII, non tradas servum domino suo, qui ad te confugerit. Obj. 2: Further, a slave is his master’s property, just as an animal, e.g., an ass or an ox. But it is commanded (Deut 22:1–3) with regard to animals, that they should be brought back to the owner if they be found going astray. Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (Deut 23:15): Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant that is fled to thee. Praeterea, lex divina debet magis ad misericordiam provocare quam etiam lex humana. Sed secundum leges humanas graviter puniuntur qui nimis aspere affligunt servos aut ancillas. Asperrima autem videtur esse afflictio ex qua sequitur mors. Inconvenienter igitur statuitur Exod. XXI, quod qui percusserit servum suum vel ancillam virga, si uno die supervixerit, non subiacebit poenae, quia pecunia illius est. Obj. 3: Further, the Divine Law should encourage mercy more even than the human law. But according to human laws those who ill-treat their servants and maidservants are severely punished: and the worse treatment of all seems to be that which results in death. Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (Exod 21:20,21) that he that striketh his bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands . . . if the party remain alive a day . . . he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money. Praeterea, alius est principatus domini ad servum, et patris ad filium, ut dicitur in I et III Polit. Sed hoc ad principatum domini ad servum pertinet, ut aliquis servum vel ancillam vendere possit. Inconvenienter igitur lex permisit quod aliquis venderet filiam suam in famulam vel ancillam. Obj. 4: Further, the dominion of a master over his slave differs from that of the father over his son (Polit. i, 3). But the dominion of master over slave gives the former the right to sell his servant or maidservant. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to allow a man to sell his daughter to be a servant or handmaid (Exod 21:7). Praeterea, pater habet sui filii potestatem. Sed eius est punire excessus, qui habet potestatem super peccantem. Inconvenienter igitur mandatur Deut. XXI, quod pater ducat filium ad seniores civitatis puniendum. Obj. 5: Further, a father has power over his son. But he who has power over the sinner has the right to punish him for his offenses. Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (Deut 21:18, seqq.) that a father should bring his son to the ancients of the city for punishment. Praeterea, dominus prohibuit, Deut. VII, ut cum alienigenis non sociarent coniugia; et coniuncta etiam separarentur, ut patet I Esdrae X. Inconvenienter igitur Deut. XXI conceditur eis ut captivas alienigenarum ducere possint uxores. Obj. 6: Further, the Lord forbade them (Deut 7:3, seqq.) to make marriages with strange nations; and commanded the dissolution of such as had been contracted (1 Esdras 10). Therefore it was unfitting to allow them to marry captive women from strange nations (Deut 21:10, seqq.). Praeterea, dominus in uxoribus ducendis quosdam consanguinitatis et affinitatis gradus praecepit esse vitandos, ut patet Lev. XVIII. Inconvenienter igitur mandatur Deut. XXV, quod si aliquis esset mortuus absque liberis, uxorem ipsius frater eius acciperet. Obj. 7: Further, the Lord forbade them to marry within certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity, according to Lev. 18. Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (Deut 25:5) that if any man died without issue, his brother should marry his wife. Praeterea, inter virum et uxorem, sicut est maxima familiaritas, ita debet esse firmissima fides. Sed hoc non potest esse, si matrimonium dissolubile fuerit. Inconvenienter igitur dominus permisit, Deut. XXIV, quod aliquis posset uxorem dimittere, scripto libello repudii; et quod etiam ulterius eam recuperare non posset. Obj. 8: Further, as there is the greatest familiarity between man and wife, so should there be the staunchest fidelity. But this is impossible if the marriage bond can be sundered. Therefore it was unfitting for the Lord to allow (Deut 24:1–4) a man to put his wife away, by writing a bill of divorce; and besides, that he could not take her again to wife. Praeterea, sicut uxor potest frangere fidem marito, ita etiam servus domino, et filius patri. Sed ad investigandam iniuriam servi in dominum, vel filii in patrem, non est institutum in lege aliquod sacrificium. Superflue igitur videtur institui sacrificium zelotypiae ad investigandum uxoris adulterium, Num. V. Sic igitur inconvenienter videntur esse tradita in lege praecepta iudicialia circa personas domesticas. Obj. 9: Further, just as a wife can be faithless to her husband, so can a slave be to his master, and a son to his father. But the Law did not command any sacrifice to be offered in order to investigate the injury done by a servant to his master, or by a son to his father. Therefore it seems to have been superfluous for the Law to prescribe the sacrifice of jealousy in order to investigate a wife’s adultery (Num 5:12, seqq.). Consequently it seems that the Law put forth unsuitable judicial precepts about the members of the household. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo XVIII, iudicia domini vera, iustificata in semetipsa. On the contrary, It is written (Ps 18:10): The judgments of the Lord are true, justified in themselves. Respondeo dicendum quod communio domesticarum personarum ad invicem, ut philosophus dicit, in I Polit., est secundum quotidianos actus qui ordinantur ad necessitatem vitae. Vita autem hominis conservatur dupliciter. I answer that, The mutual relations of the members of a household regard everyday actions directed to the necessities of life, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1). Now the preservation of man’s life may be considered from two points of view. Uno modo, quantum ad individuum, prout scilicet homo idem numero vivit, et ad talem vitae conservationem opitulantur homini exteriora bona, ex quibus homo habet victum et vestitum et alia huiusmodi necessaria vitae; in quibus administrandis indiget homo servis. First, from the point of view of the individual, i.e., insofar as man preserves his individuality: and for the purpose of the preservation of life, considered from this standpoint, man has at his service external goods, by means of which he provides himself with food and clothing and other such necessaries of life: in the handling of which he has need of servants. Alio modo conservatur vita hominis secundum speciem per generationem, ad quam indiget homo uxore, ut ex ea generet filium. Second man’s life is preserved from the point of view of the species, by means of generation, for which purpose man needs a wife, that she may bear him children. Sic igitur in domestica communione sunt tres combinationes, scilicet domini ad servum, viri ad uxorem, patris ad filium. Et quantum ad omnia ista lex vetus convenientia praecepta tradidit. Accordingly the mutual relations of the members of a household admit of a threefold combination: viz., those of master and servant, those of husband and wife, and those of father and son: and in respect of all these relationships the Old Law contained fitting precepts. Nam quantum ad servos, instituit ut modeste tractarentur et quantum ad labores, ne scilicet immoderatis laboribus affligerentur, unde Deut. V, dominus mandavit ut in die sabbati requiesceret servus et ancilla tua sicut et tu, et iterum quantum ad poenas infligendas, imposuit enim poenam mutilatoribus servorum ut dimitterent eos liberos, sicut habetur Exod. XXI. Et simile etiam statuit in ancilla quam in uxorem aliquis duxerit. Statuit etiam specialiter circa servos qui erant ex populo, ut septimo anno liberi egrederentur cum omnibus quae apportaverant, etiam vestimentis, ut habetur Exod. XXI. Mandatur etiam insuper Deut. XV, ut ei detur viaticum. Thus, with regard to servants, it commanded them to be treated with moderation—both as to their work, lest, to wit, they should be burdened with excessive labor, wherefore the Lord commanded (Deut 5:14) that on the Sabbath day thy manservant and thy maidservant should rest even as thyself—and also as to the infliction of punishment, for it ordered those who maimed their servants, to set them free (Exod 21:26,27). Similar provision was made in favor of a maidservant when married to anyone (Exod 21:7, seqq.). Moreover, with regard to those servants in particular who were taken from among the people, the Law prescribed that they should go out free in the seventh year taking whatever they brought with them, even their clothes (Exod 21:2, seqq.): and furthermore it was commanded (Deut 15:13) that they should be given provision for the journey. Circa uxores vero, statuitur in lege quantum ad uxores ducendas. Ut scilicet ducant uxores suae tribus, sicut habetur Num. ult., et hoc ideo, ne sortes tribuum confundantur. Et quod aliquis in uxorem ducat uxorem fratris defuncti sine liberis, ut habetur Deut. XXV, et hoc ideo, ut ille qui non potuit habere successores secundum carnis originem, saltem habeat per quandam adoptionem, et sic non totaliter memoria defuncti deleretur. Prohibuit etiam quasdam personas ne in coniugium ducerentur, scilicet alienigenas, propter periculum seductionis; et propinquas, propter reverentiam naturalem quae eis debetur. Statuit etiam qualiter uxores iam ductae tractari deberent. Ut scilicet non leviter infamarentur, unde mandatur puniri ille qui falso crimen imponit uxori, ut habetur Deut. XXII. Et quod etiam propter uxoris odium filius detrimentum non pateretur, ut habetur Deut. XXI. Et etiam quod, propter odium uxorem non affligeret, sed potius, scripto libello, eam dimitteret, ut patet Deut. XXIV. Et ut etiam maior dilectio inter coniuges a principio contrahatur, praecipitur quod, cum aliquis nuper uxorem acceperit, nihil ei publicae necessitatis iniungatur, ut libere possit laetari cum uxore sua. With regard to wives the Law made certain prescriptions as to those who were to be taken in marriage: for instance, that they should marry a wife from their own tribe (Num 36:6): and this lest confusion should ensue in the property of various tribes. Also that a man should marry the wife of his deceased brother when the latter died without issue, as prescribed in Dt. 25:5,6: and this in order that he who could not have successors according to carnal origin, might at least have them by a kind of adoption, and that thus the deceased might not be entirely forgotten. It also forbade them to marry certain women; to wit, women of strange nations, through fear of their losing their faith; and those of their near kindred, on account of the natural respect due to them. Furthermore it prescribed in what way wives were to be treated after marriage. To wit, that they should not be slandered without grave reason: wherefore it ordered punishment to be inflicted on the man who falsely accused his wife of a crime (Deut 22:13, seqq.). Also that a man’s hatred of his wife should not be detrimental to his son (Deut 21:15, seqq.). Again, that a man should not ill-use his wife through hatred of her, but rather that he should write a bill of divorce and send her away (Deut 24:1). Furthermore, in order to foster conjugal love from the very outset, it was prescribed that no public duties should be laid on a recently married man, so that he might be free to rejoice with his wife. Circa filios autem, instituit ut patres eis disciplinam adhiberent, instruendo eos in fide, unde habetur Exod. XII, cum dixerint vobis filii vestri, quae est ista religio? Dicetis eis, victima transitus domini est. Et quod etiam instruerent eos in moribus, unde dicitur Deut. XXI, quod patres dicere debent, monita nostra audire contemnit, commessationibus vacat et luxuriae atque conviviis. With regard to children, the Law commanded parents to educate them by instructing them in the faith: hence it is written (Exod 12:26, seqq.): When your children shall say to you: What is the meaning of this service? You shall say to them: It is the victim of the passage of the Lord. Moreover, they are commanded to teach them the rules of right conduct: wherefore it is written (Deut 21:20) that the parents had to say: He slighteth hearing our admonitions, he giveth himself to revelling and to debauchery. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia filii Israel erant a domino de servitute liberati, et per hoc divinae servituti addicti, noluit dominus ut in perpetuum servi essent. Unde dicitur Lev. XXV, si paupertate compulsus vendiderit se tibi frater tuus, non eum opprimes servitute famulorum, sed quasi mercenarius et colonus erit. Mei enim sunt servi, et ego eduxi eos de terra Aegypti, non veneant conditione servorum. Et ideo, quia simpliciter servi non erant, sed secundum quid, finito tempore, dimittebantur liberi. Reply Obj. 1: As the children of Israel had been delivered by the Lord from slavery, and for this reason were bound to the service of God, He did not wish them to be slaves in perpetuity. Hence it is written (Lev 25:39, seqq.): If thy brother, constrained by poverty, sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants: but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner . . . for they are My servants, and I brought them out of the land of Egypt: let them not be sold as bondmen: and consequently, since they were slaves, not absolutely but in a restricted sense, after a lapse of time they were set free. Ad secundum dicendum quod mandatum illud intelligitur de servo qui a domino quaeritur ad occidendum, vel ad aliquod peccati ministerium. Reply Obj. 2: This commandment is to be understood as referring to a servant whom his master seeks to kill, or to help him in committing some sin. Ad tertium dicendum quod circa laesiones servis illatas, lex considerasse videtur utrum sit certa vel incerta. Si enim laesio certa esset, lex poenam adhibuit, pro mutilatione quidem, amissionem servi qui mandabatur libertati donandus; pro morte autem, homicidii poenam, cum servus in manu domini verberantis moreretur. Si vero laesio non esset certa, sed aliquam apparentiam haberet, lex nullam poenam infligebat in proprio servo, puta cum percussus servus non statim moriebatur, sed post aliquos dies. Incertum enim erat utrum ex percussione mortuus esset. Quia si percussisset liberum hominem, ita tamen quod statim non moreretur, sed super baculum suum ambularet, non erat homicidii reus qui percusserat, etiam si postea moreretur. Tenebatur tamen ad impensas solvendas quas percussus in medicos fecerat. Sed hoc in servo proprio locum non habebat, quia quidquid servus habebat, et etiam ipsa persona servi, erat quaedam possessio domini. Et ideo pro causa assignatur quare non subiaceat poenae pecuniariae, quia pecunia illius est. Reply Obj. 3: With regard to the ill-treatment of servants, the Law seems to have taken into consideration whether it was certain or not: since if it were certain, the Law fixed a penalty: for maiming, the penalty was forfeiture of the servant, who was ordered to be given his liberty: while for slaying, the punishment was that of a murderer, when the slave died under the blow of his master. If, however, the hurt was not certain, but only probable, the Law did not impose any penalty as regards a man’s own servant: for instance if the servant did not die at once after being struck, but after some days: for it would be uncertain whether he died as a result of the blows he received. For when a man struck a free man, yet so that he did not die at once, but walked abroad again upon his staff, he that struck him was quit of murder, even though afterwards he died. Nevertheless he was bound to pay the doctor’s fees incurred by the victim of his assault. But this was not the case if a man killed his own servant: because whatever the servant had, even his very person, was the property of his master. Hence the reason for his not being subject to a pecuniary penalty is set down as being because it is his money. Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, nullus Iudaeus poterat possidere Iudaeum quasi simpliciter servum; sed erat servus secundum quid, quasi mercenarius, usque ad tempus. Et per hunc modum permittebat lex quod, paupertate cogente, aliquis filium aut filiam venderet. Et hoc etiam verba ipsius legis ostendunt, dicit enim, si quis vendiderit filiam suam in famulam, non egredietur sicut ancillae exire consueverunt. Per hunc etiam modum non solum filium, sed etiam seipsum aliquis vendere poterat, magis quasi mercenarium quam quasi servum; secundum illud Levit. XXV, si paupertate compulsus vendiderit se tibi frater tuus, non eum opprimes servitute famulorum, sed quasi mercenarius et colonus erit. Reply Obj. 4: As stated above (ad 1), no Jew could own a Jew as a slave absolutely: but only in a restricted sense, as a hireling for a fixed time. And in this way the Law permitted that through stress of poverty a man might sell his son or daughter. This is shown by the very words of the Law, where we read: If any man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as bondwomen are wont to go out. Moreover, in this way a man might sell not only his son, but even himself, rather as a hireling than as a slave, according to Lev. 25:39,40: If thy brother, constrained by poverty, sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants: but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner. Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in X Ethic., principatus paternus habet solam admonendi potestatem; non autem habet vim coactivam, per quam rebelles et contumaces comprimi possunt. Et ideo in hoc casu lex mandabat ut filius contumax a principibus civitatis puniretur. Reply Obj. 5: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9), the paternal authority has the power only of admonition; but not that of coercion, whereby rebellious and headstrong persons can be compelled. Hence in this case the Lord commanded the stubborn son to be punished by the rulers of the city. Ad sextum dicendum quod dominus alienigenas prohibuit in matrimonium duci propter periculum seductionis, ne inducerentur in idololatriam. Et specialiter hoc prohibuit de illis gentibus quae in vicino habitabant, de quibus erat magis probabile quod suos ritus retinerent. Si qua vero idololatriae cultum dimittere vellet, et ad legis cultum se transferre, poterat in matrimonium duci, sicut patet de Ruth, quam duxit Booz in uxorem. Unde ipsa dixerat socrui suae, populus tuus populus meus, Deus tuus Deus meus, ut habetur Ruth I. Et ideo captiva non aliter permittebatur in uxorem duci nisi prius rasa caesarie, et circumcisis unguibus, et deposita veste in qua capta est, et fleret patrem et matrem, per quae significatur idololatriae perpetua abiectio. Reply Obj. 6: The Lord forbade them to marry strange women on account of the danger of seduction, lest they should be led astray into idolatry. And specially did this prohibition apply with respect to those nations who dwelt near them, because it was more probable that they would adopt their religious practices. When, however, the woman was willing to renounce idolatry, and become an adherent of the Law, it was lawful to take her in marriage: as was the case with Ruth whom Booz married. Wherefore she said to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16): Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God. Accordingly it was not permitted to marry a captive woman unless she first shaved her hair, and pared her nails, and put off the raiment wherein she was taken, and mourned for her father and mother, in token that she renounced idolatry for ever. Ad septimum dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quia immitigabile malum mors erat apud Iudaeos, qui omnia pro praesenti vita faciebant, statutum fuit ut defuncto filius nasceretur ex fratre, quod erat quaedam mortis mitigatio. Non autem alius quam frater vel propinquus iubebatur accipere uxorem defuncti, quia non ita crederetur (qui ex tali coniunctione erat nasciturus) esse filius eius qui obiit; et iterum extraneus non ita haberet necessitatem statuere domum eius qui obierat, sicut frater, cui etiam ex cognatione hoc facere iustum erat. Ex quo patet quod frater in accipiendo uxorem fratris sui, persona fratris defuncti fungebatur. Reply Obj. 7: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xlviii super Matth.), because death was an unmitigated evil for the Jews, who did everything with a view to the present life, it was ordained that children should be born to the dead man through his brother: thus affording a certain mitigation to his death. It was not, however, ordained that any other than his brother or one next of kin should marry the wife of the deceased, because the offspring of this union would not be looked upon as that of the deceased: and moreover, a stranger would not be under the obligation to support the household of the deceased, as his brother would be bound to do from motives of justice on account of his relationship. Hence it is evident that in marrying the wife of his dead brother, he took his dead brother’s place. Ad octavum dicendum quod lex permisit repudium uxoris, non quia simpliciter iustum esset, sed propter duritiam Iudaeorum; ut dominus dicit, Matth. XIX. Sed de hoc oportet plenius tractari cum de matrimonio agetur. Reply Obj. 8: The Law permitted a wife to be divorced, not as though it were just absolutely speaking, but on account of the Jews’ hardness of heart, as Our Lord declared (Matt 19:8). Of this, however, we must speak more fully in the treatise on Matrimony (SP, Q67).