Source of Law in the Biblical 341 it is punished with a fine, beating, and service to the king. If the slanderer insinuates that one’s wife is philandering, he is additionally dishonored by cutting off his hair (MAL A 18). In light of the above theory concerning the Israelite concept of offences against the Deity, we must note a problem that seems to contradict this theory. Theft, for instance, is not dealt with as a “crime” in biblical law, as it often is in modern law. The transgression of the biblical command “You shall not steal” (Exod 20,13; Deut 5,17) is obviously a sin, a religious concept, an idea that is absent in the cuneiform laws. One would therefore expect some penal sanction and method of atonement for theft (62), as are established for a number of other misdemeanours and involuntary transgressions in Lev 5; 6, excluding direct theft (63). Yet there are no sanctions or punishments for theft other than payment of a prescribed fine according to the type of property stolen (64), which represents simply a compensation for the inconvenience of the injured party (65). There is a similar anomaly with respect to physical injury. Although there is no specific biblical prohibition against striking someone, one could assume such a prohibition from the general biblical emphasis on social welfare. However, Scripture seems to exonerate the aggressor — hkmh hqnw — once he has paid for the injured person’s healing and loss of income (Exod 21,18-19). I suspect, however, that these particular differences between crimes and non-crimes are simply of a pragmatic nature and are not the result of a distinct theology. * ** It has been demonstrated that the perceived divine source of the Israelite law and the divine involvement in its application are the (62) ROTHENBUSCH, Die kasuistische Rechtssammlung, 406 states that the private payment of a fine for intended mischief, such as theft, makes it difficult to discern between penal and civil law. He approaches the same issue as I do, but uses modern terminology, in contrast to my emphasis on the religious foundation. (63) The biblical text in its introductory section is clumsy and confusing; nonetheless, it is clear that atonement is stipulated for a number of transgressions, but excludes theft. (64) The thief must pay a double fine if the stolen animal is recovered alive (Exod 22,3; v. 4 in KJV), a fourfold fine for a sheep, and fivefold fine for an ox if he sold the animals or slaughtered them (Exod 21,37; 22,1 in KJV). (65) B.S. JACKSON, “Ideas”, 197 states, in another connection: “subjective guilt was hardly beyond the cognitive competence of the ancient Hebrews.”