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.

With regard to children, the Law commanded parents to educate them by instructing them in the faith:  hence it is written (Ex. 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.”

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.

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.

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.”