A Babylonian temple was also the court of justice, and as the Jewish Sanhedrim met in the temple at Jerusalem, so did the council of the grey-haired ones meet in the courts of Chaldean temples to answer judgment. Dr Oppert has translated some contracts and legal decisions relating indubitably to captive Jews who had been carried to Babylon after the destruction of Jerusalem. One of the most interesting of them is a law-suit commenced by a Jewish slave named Barachiel in order to recover his freedom. The case was as follows:--Barachiel--who bears the same name as the father of Elihu in the Book of Job (xxxii. 2-6),--had been the property of a wealthy person named Akhi-nuri, who had sold him to a widow of the name of Gaga, about 570 B.C. He remained in the house of this lady as a slave, with the power of liberating himself by paying a sum equal to his _peculium_ or private property, which he had been allowed to acquire, like a slave in ancient Rome; but it seems that he was never fortunate enough to be able to afford the sum of money required. He remained with Gaga twenty-one years, and was considered the _res_ or property of the house, and as such was handed over in pledge, was restored, and finally became the dowry of Nubti, the daughter of Gaga. Nubti gave him to her son and husband in exchange for a house and some slaves. After the death of the two ladies he was sold to the wealthy publican, Itti-Marduk-baladh, from whose house he escaped twice. Taken the second time, he instituted an action in order that he might be recognised as a free-born citizen, of the family of Belrimanni; and to prove that he was of noble origin he pretended that he had performed the matrimonial solemnities at the marriage of his master’s daughter, Qudasa, with a certain Samas-mudammiq. Such a performance, doubtless, implied that the officiating priest was of free birth, and no slave or freed-man was qualified to take part in it. The name Barachiel, says Dr Oppert, is evidently that of a Jew. He is called “a slave of ransom;” that is to say, not a slave who has already purchased his freedom, but a slave who was allowed by special laws to employ his private fortune in the work of liberating himself. He professes to have been the “joiner” of the hands of bride and bridegroom at a wedding which must have taken place before the thirty-fifth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, when he still belonged to the house of Akhi-nuri, “the seller of the slave,” as he is called at the end of the text.