Source of Law in the Biblical 339 with an animal (22,18) but one must assume, nonetheless, that many other kinds of sexual immorality were forbidden. The Seventh Com- mandment against committing adultery, and the indirect prohibition of sex with a betrothed woman that we may deduce from the text of Exod 22,15 serve as evidence for such an assumption. We have no valid reason to presume that the sexual prohibitions in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were significantly different than in the period of redaction of the Book of the Covenant. Sexual taboos are usually entrenched in the deepest layers of society and are not easily changed or removed; despite general abhorrence against them, there are always individuals who disregard them. In Mesopotamian society, adultery is regarded as one of the most, if not the most, severe infringements on the husband’s rights. The relevant laws have as their philosophical foundation the prevention of harm to citizens and appropriate punishment for transgressors. This is particularly emphasized in the language of LU 6: “If a man violates the rights of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male”. In LU 8 the deflowering of a slave woman is also described as a violation of the slave-holder’s rights, but in this case only composition is decreed. As with the issue of sexual taboos, adultery may also have been perceived as damaging the social fabric. Just as in the matter of taking a life, there is no offence involved in Mesopotamian law against a higher authority, and no deity is involved, either in the promulgation of the relevant laws for sexual misde- meanours, or in their mode of application. The lawgiver decides when and how to apply a sanction. LH 156, for instance, decrees compo- sition to a bride if her prospective father-in-law has sexual intercourse with her before her marriage, but LH 155 commands capital punishment if it took place after the marriage was consummated. In the first instance, the woman is the injured party and is compensated for her loss of virginity, whereas in the second case the bridegroom is the injured party; as his harm is perceived as more severe, the death penalty is provided. LH decrees capital punishment for a number of incestuous relations, but LH 154 requires only banishment for incest between father and daughter. It seems that the lawgiver assumes it is the father’s right, potestas patris, to do what he pleases with his daughter, and he is not liable for any compensation to her. The public perceives such incest as harmful to society, and the father is banished from the city so as not to serve as a corrupting model. In a number of occurrences the lawgiver has transferred his