FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172  
173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   >>   >|  
the other, those that naturally, or by a vicious habit, are mischievous that way. The tooth of a beast is convict, when it is proved to eat its usual food, the property of another man, and full restitution must be made; but if a beast that is used to eat fruits and herbs gnaws clothes or damages tools, which are not its usual food, the owner of the beast shall pay but half the damage when committed on the property of the injured person; but if the injury is committed on the property of the person who does the damage, he is free, because the beast gnawed what was not its usual food. As thus; if the beast of A. gnaws or tears the clothes of B. in B.'s house or grounds, A. shall pay half the damages; but if B.'s clothes are injured in A.'s grounds by A.'s beast, A. is free, for what had B. to do to put his clothes in A.'s grounds? They made such subtile distinctions, as when an ox gores a man or beast, the law inquired into the habits of the beast; whether it was an ox that used to gore, or an ox that was not used to gore. However acute these niceties sometimes were, they were often ridiculous. No beast could be _convicted_ of being vicious till evidence was given that he had done mischief three successive days; but if he leaves off those vicious tricks for three days more, he is innocent again. An ox may be convict of goring an ox and not a man, or of goring a man and not an ox: nay; of goring on the sabbath, and not on a working day. Their aim was to make the punishment depend on the proofs of the _design_ of the beast that did the injury; but this attempt evidently led them to distinctions much too subtile and obscure. Thus some rabbins say that the morning prayer of the _Shemah_ must be read at the time they can distinguish _blue_ from _white_; but another, more indulgent, insists it may be when we can distinguish _blue_ from _green_! which latter colours are so near akin as to require a stronger light. With the same remarkable acuteness in distinguishing things, is their law respecting not touching fire on the Sabbath. Among those which are specified in this constitution, the rabbins allow the minister to look over young children by lamp-light, but he shall not read himself. The minister is forbidden to _read_ by lamp-light, lest he should trim his lamp; but he may direct the children where they should read, because that is quickly done, and there would be no danger of his trimming his lamp in their presence, or suffer
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172  
173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

clothes

 
grounds
 

goring

 

vicious

 

property

 

distinguish

 
children
 
subtile
 

distinctions

 
minister

damage

 

damages

 

convict

 

rabbins

 

injury

 

injured

 

person

 

committed

 
obscure
 

colours


Shemah

 

prayer

 

morning

 

insists

 
indulgent
 

direct

 
forbidden
 

quickly

 

presence

 
suffer

trimming

 

danger

 

acuteness

 

distinguishing

 

things

 

remarkable

 
stronger
 

respecting

 

touching

 

constitution


Sabbath

 

require

 

ridiculous

 

inquired

 
However
 
habits
 

gnawed

 

proved

 
mischievous
 

naturally