Did the Torah plagiarize from ancient Law Codes?
Why does the Torah's laws, supposedly written by Hashem Himself, have so many similarities to Mesopotamian ancient law codes?
The laws written in the Torah bear a striking resemblance to ancient Near Eastern law codes that predate it. Are these laws Divine or products of the time period in which they were recorded?
Archeologists have found cuneiform texts in the region that have close parallels to the Torah. Some of the best examples of these parallels can be found in the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) law codes. Of all the ANE law codes excavated, the most famous example is the Code of Hammurabi from Babylonia, dated to the 18th century BCE. However, there are others that are as old or older. (The giving of the Torah at Sinai is traditionally dated between the 15th and the 13th Century BCE.)
In form and content, the ANE laws and Torah are startlingly similar. Both follow a casuistic structure, stipulating circumstances and penalties: “If X occurs, Y shall be done.” And many hypothetical circumstances as well as punishments closely correspond.
Lax Talionis - eye for an eye.
The Code of Hammurabi is where we first find the concept of an eye for an eye. The Torah looks extremely similar to the Code.
Leviticus 24:19-20
וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּֽי־יִתֵּ֥ן מ֖וּם בַּעֲמִית֑וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה כֵּ֖ן יֵעָ֥שֶׂה לּֽוֹ׃
If any party maims another [person]: what was done shall be done in return—שֶׁ֚בֶר תַּ֣חַת שֶׁ֔בֶר עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֥ן מוּם֙ בָּֽאָדָ֔ם כֵּ֖ן יִנָּ֥תֶן בּֽוֹ׃
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury inflicted on a human being shall be inflicted in return.
Code of Hammurabi, 196-200
196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye for an eye ]
197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.
…
200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. [ A tooth for a tooth ]
Not only does it use similar language, it even uses the same examples of breaking a bone, putting out an eye, and knocking out a tooth. Chazal tell us the Torah doesn’t really mean to take out an eye, but actually means to pay money. This only makes the question larger. Why would God borrow language from Hamurabbi in order to say something that actually means something totally different? Wouldn’t it make sense to just say what it means in new words?
If a man dies without male offspring then the daughters inherit
In Bamidbar, Tzelafchad’s daughters ask Moshe for their inheritance. Their father had died with only daughters. Moshe doesn’t know what to do and Hashem tells him that the daughters can inherit. The Torah makes it sound like this is a novelty, that Hashem cares about women when the norm was for them not to inherit. However, we find the same law in the Code of Lipit-Ishtar, one of the oldest written law codes in existence. Written in Sumerian, this law is from the city of Lisin in southern Mesopotamia and dates to the twentieth century BCE.
Numbers 27:8
וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל תְּדַבֵּ֣ר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ כִּֽי־יָמ֗וּת וּבֵן֙ אֵ֣ין ל֔וֹ וְהַֽעֲבַרְתֶּ֥ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֖וֹ לְבִתּֽוֹ׃
“Further, speak to the Israelite people as follows: ‘If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter.
Lipit Ishtar B
If a man dies without male offspring, an unmarried daughter shall be his heir.
Punishment for rapists
The Torah’s punishment for rapists always bothered me. They have to marry the raped girl, pay her father money and can never divorce her. Is that a fair punishment for raping a girl? Marrying her? Why don’t we punish harshly with lashes, or even death? This all begins to make sense, however, when you see that it directly parallels the Middle Assyrian Laws, a text originating from Middle Assyria and dated to the fourteenth century BCE.
Deut 22:28-29
כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ נַעֲרָ֤ בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ׃
If a man comes upon a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered,
וְ֠נָתַ֠ן הָאִ֨ישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵ֥ב עִמָּ֛הּ לַאֲבִ֥י הַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וְלֽוֹ־תִהְיֶ֣ה לְאִשָּׁ֗ה תַּ֚חַת אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִנָּ֔הּ לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל שַׁלְּחָ֖הּ כׇּל־יָמָֽיו׃ {ס}
the party who lay with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her.
Middle Assyrian Laws A 55
A55 If a man has taken and raped another man’s virgin daughter, dishonoring her (she was living in her father’s house, was not engaged, and her hymen had not been penetrated—since she had not been married), and no one had a claim on the father’s house, [46] the father is to take the rapist’s wife and allow her to be raped, and keep her, not returning her to her husband. It does not matter if the (original) rape was in the city, the open country, at night in the street, in a granary, or at a city festival. The father may give his raped daughter to her rapist. [47] If the rapist has no wife, he is to give ‘the third’ in silver (the virgin-price) to her father. [48] Then her rapist is to marry her, and will not be allowed to divorce her. [49] If the father does not approve [of the marriage] he is to be given ‘the third’ in silver for her virginity, and give her to whomever he wants.
Both texts describe a case where the raped girl is not married. Both texts then give the same punishment:
Pay the father
Marry the raped girl
He is not allowed to divorce the girl.
How am I supposed to think this law, which seems backward and unfair, is from Hashem when it looks exactly the same as a human made law?
D. Punishment for woman who grabs a man’s genitals
Devarim has a very strange case of a woman who grabs a man’s genitals during a fight. The Torah says to cut off the woman’s hand as punishment. Again, this law which seems morally off looks extremely similar to Middle Assyrian Laws which also has a case of a woman grabbing a man's genitals and proscribes the punishment of cutting off her limb.
Deut 25:11-12
כִּֽי־יִנָּצ֨וּ אֲנָשִׁ֤ים יַחְדָּו֙ אִ֣ישׁ וְאָחִ֔יו וְקָֽרְבָה֙ אֵ֣שֶׁת הָֽאֶחָ֔ד לְהַצִּ֥יל אֶת־אִישָׁ֖הּ מִיַּ֣ד מַכֵּ֑הוּ וְשָׁלְחָ֣ה יָדָ֔הּ וְהֶחֱזִ֖יקָה בִּמְבֻשָֽׁיו׃
If two parties are fighting—one man with another—and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by his genitals,
וְקַצֹּתָ֖ה אֶת־כַּפָּ֑הּ לֹ֥א תָח֖וֹס עֵינֶֽךָ׃ {ס}
you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.
Middle Assyrian Laws A 8
A8 If a woman has crushed a man’s testicle in a brawl, they are to cut off one of her fingers. If, in spite of being bound up by a physician, the second testicle is affected and becomes swollen, or if she has crushed the second testicle in the brawl, they are to tear out both of her nipples.
Chazal explain that we don’t actually cut off her hand but make her pay money. Again, this makes the parallels harder to understand. Why not just say to pay money? Why is Hashem making laws that look so similar to human-made laws of the time but doesn’t actually mean what it says?
E. Yibum (Levirate Marriage)
A final example of these parallels is the laws of yibum - if a man dies without children, his wife should marry the man’s brother. The Torah isn’t the first place to discuss levirate marriage. We find it in the Hittite Code from Hattusha in Anatolia, which dates between 1650-1500 BCE.
Deut 25:
כִּֽי־יֵשְׁב֨וּ אַחִ֜ים יַחְדָּ֗ו וּמֵ֨ת אַחַ֤ד מֵהֶם֙ וּבֵ֣ן אֵֽין־ל֔וֹ לֹֽא־תִהְיֶ֧ה אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּ֛ת הַח֖וּצָה לְאִ֣ישׁ זָ֑ר יְבָמָהּ֙ יָבֹ֣א עָלֶ֔יהָ וּלְקָחָ֥הּ ל֛וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֖ה וְיִבְּמָֽהּ׃
When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no offspring, the wife of the deceased shall not become that of another party, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty.
Hittite code, Sec. 193 [2nd Tablet]
“If a man has a wife and then the man dies, his brother shall take his wife, then his father shall take her. If in turn also his father dies, one of his brother’s sons shall take the wife whom he had. There shall be no punishment.”
The Hittite Code doesn’t just talk about Yibum with the brother but adds the father and other relatives. This gives important context to the stories of Yehuda and Tamar in Bereishis and the stories of Ruth and Boaz in Megillas Ruth. In both those stories, Yibum isn’t just the brother but the father and even distant relatives. Once again, this isn’t a novel concept of the Torah’s but predates it.
Other remarkable parallels between ANE Laws and the Torah include laws of slavery, theft, and punishment for false accusers. In all, the similarities in form, content, and circumstantial detail between the ANE laws and Torah are striking, while differences seem minor. The inescapable implication is that the Torah reflects the culture in which it was recorded, rather than originating divine or transcendent laws.
Further Research:
Books -
Everyday Law in Biblical Israel - by Raymond Westbrook & Bruce Wells
Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor
Videos -
Biblical Law Literature in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context - Nili Samet
דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם
The torah needed to be understandable as a legal text to those reading it. Why wouldnt it include other well known cases from existing legal codes?
1) It may not predate it according to the traditional dating.
2) Even if it does, why does it matter? A legal system is a legal system. It was important to have one, but who cares if it was plagiarized? It isnt the main point of the Torah anyways.