MARRIAGE.

I. Marriage in historical perspective

The sociologists of today recognize the distinction between marriage as an act, event, or even a process, and the family as a social institution. Marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman and the ceremony initiating and celebrating them as husband and wife. The family is the social institution developed around the child-mother relationship and creating the social climate in which human nature may be conditioned and realized. Marriage and family, therefore, constitute two distinct systems even though they are found within a single nexus. This is particularly true in the contemporary Western society where marriages may not produce children for several years, or perhaps not at all; and, therefore, do not develop into families. The family is a more complicated and binding system than the marriage. It binds parents to children. It places the children under the obligation of the parent. It makes it incumbent upon the couple to care for relatives and sometimes even for the servants.

There are many categories of social facts which are difficult to classify properly and clearly as belonging to the study of marriage or to that of the family. Such social facts are treated, therefore, by various authorities, in either one or in both of these areas designated as marriage and family.

Looking to the evolution of marriage in historic perspective, of primary concern in this presentation are the characteristics and the features identified with marriage in the Bible lands through the various stages and periods of history.

A. Pre-Semitic Palestinian family life. Pre-Semitic Palestinian elements have been incorporated by the Heb. people into their culture as they were influenced by Aramaean, Amorite, and a large mixture of the blood of that central Asiatic race which was found in early Elam and Babylonia, from which the Hittites and Hurrians descended.

The evidence for a prehistoric stage of polyandrous marriage among the ancestors of the Heb. people is of no great weight. However, the evidence for the presence of socalled matriarchate, or “mother-right” is of far greater significance. The value of this evidence must be appraised with moderation, for some of the arguments are farfetched and rather weak.

Arabia was the cradle land of the Sem. society. Authoritative sources offer evidence that a number of deviations from normal monogamous marriage were well known in early Arabia, and therefore among the primitive Semites. Worthy of mentioning particularly are three types of deviations:

1. Polyandry,a family system that includes a plurality of husbands.

2. Beena-marriage,in which the husband goes to live in the wife’s village and the children are regarded as members of her tribe. Jacob’s marriage to Leah and Rachel is a case in point (Gen 29:28).

3. Mot-a marriage,differs from Beenamarriage only because of its temporary nature.

The question whether the clan has preceded the family as the first social unit in the early stages of development has been debated by W. Robertson Smith, who, at the beginning of his discussion on relations of gods and men in the oldest Sem. communities, considered the clan as the earliest social unit. This theory is not supported by the present sociological research. By his investigations Robert H. Lowie makes it probable that the earliest social unit is the family, and that larger social groups such as clans and “sibs” came later as natural developments.

In harmony with the views sustained by later sociological inquiry, what was the nature of the marriage ties in the earlier stages? Some scholars claim that in the primitive society monogamous marriage was practically unknown. They claim that promiscuity characterized the relation of the sexes. E. Westermark argued for permanent mating. The progress of knowledge appears to have vindicated the correctness of his position. He argued that polyandry did not represent the earliest stages of the evolution of human marriage, but rather degenerations from the primitive types.

B. Marriage in Biblical times. The most fruitful sources for the understanding of the nature of the family ties are to be found in the OT, particularly in the Pentateuch and the Book of Ruth. See Family.

The story of the creation of the first two human beings reveals monogamous marriage as the expression of the will of God. Polygamy first appeared in the reprobate line of Cain, when Lamech took two wives.

1. Marriage in pre-exilic times. The Bible contains evidence of a certain evolution of marital relations without presenting exclusive clear patterns.

In the period of the patriarchs evidence is offered that Abraham married his own halfsister. Later the laws of Moses prohibited such marriages. In patriarchal times cases were recorded, like that of Jacob, when the same man married two sisters. Again, later, the law of Moses prohibited such marriages. Many of the institutions developed in the patriarchal period later disappeared.

The creation of new marital relations in the early OT period must be understood against the background of the relationships and roles ascribed to various members of the family. The relationships between brothers were of fundamental significance. A brother in that era meant all the members of a family, or even a tribe. Each brother was obligated to offer protection and help to all the other brothers, when conditions made his services necessary. “Go-el,” meaning protector or “redeemer” was a close relative bound to redeem his brother from slavery, bound to buy the family patrimony sold under necessity, bound to bury his deceased brother or sister, bound to observe the levirate law, bound to take upon himself the obligation of blood vengeance for a murdered brother. Clear distinctions of relationship degrees were not easily made because of the wider, larger and more inclusive consanguinal family structure of their society.

Under the Judges and monarchy, Israel shifted toward a wider practice of polygamy. Bigamy was recognized as a legal fact (Deut 21:15-17). But it is clear that the most common form of marriage in Israel was monogamy. No cases of bigamy among the commoners are found in the books of Samuel and Kings. The Books of Wisdom, which provide a picture of the society for this period, never mentioned polygamy. The Book of Tobias, which is a family tale, never refers to any other kind but monogamous families. The image of a monogamous marriage was in the minds of those prophets who represented Israel as the one wife chosen by the one and only God, Yahweh. Ezekiel developed the same metaphor into an allegory (Ezek 16).

2. Marriage in postexilic times. In the postexilic period the family underwent changes but remained essentially oriental and patriarchal in character. Monogamy was the general practice. The father had the responsibility of educating his sons and training them in some practical and useful trade(s). The Heb. traditions helped to preserve some high standards of OT and postexilic sexual morality by comparison with other Near Eastern peoples.

The Babylonians practiced basically monogamy, but the Assyrians were polygamous.

There is no direct information about the period of the second Temple. From the Apoc. it appears that they continued to be monogamous, although not without exception. Selection of mates, the nature and the size of the dowry, and other decisions were made normally by the parents.

The papyri of Elephantine show that the mohar (dowry) was considered the property of the woman, even though usually it was given to her father. In the period of the second Temple, the mohar was replaced by the sum registered in the Kethubah (marriage contract). For a virgin bride the amount suggested was fifty silver shekels and for a bride, if she was widowed or divorced, the amount was reduced to half.

According to the law, kiddushin meant that the bride could have been bought (betrothed) either by money, by writ (a brief contract) or by cohabitation. Betrothal by contract was suspended before the Middle Ages. In the case of betrothal by cohabitation the man and the woman entered a private chamber, having first declared to witnesses their intention to become betrothed. At the end, and following the period of the second Temple, it was customary for the wedding of a virgin to be held on a Wednesday. This arrangement offered the husband, if he found the absence of the tokens of virginity, the necessary time to bring the case to court on Thursday. The widows and the divorcees were married on Thursdays so that they could enjoy with their husbands uninterrupted two days before the Sabbath.

The prevailing Jewish concept was that marriage was the proper state for a man.

3. Marriage during the Talmudic period. The regenerative forces of the Jewish people were greatly enhanced by the institution of Jewish marriage. The Jew’s whole life, including his sexual instincts, was scrupulously subjected to the supervision of religion. Social factors, such as the increasing concentration of the Jewish masses within the lower middle class contributed to a greater exercise of sexual self-control. In this realm of human behavior the rabbis chose the path of moderation. They fought with relative effectiveness all forms of licentiousness. They did not consider, like Paul, the sexual appetite as evil in itself—that is, as some Church Fathers interpreted Paul.

The Talmudic legislators neither elevated marriage to the position of a sacrament nor did they regard it as a mere contract in civil law. The act establishing the communion between husband and wife was termed kiddushin, or “sanctification,” without implying the indelible character of a sacrament. In general, married life was regarded as sacred and under the direct ordering and control of Providence. The ascetic trends which ran through Talmudic Jewry had no bearing whatsoever upon marriage.

The Talmudic writers were determined to promote marriage. It was esp. vital for Judaism to build the strength of the family structure as a good foundation of their ethnic life. They were willing to relax some ancient customs, such as to reduce the acquisition of a wife to “mere mutual consent,” in order to facilitate marriage. The rabbis in the 3rd cent., however, outlawed this informal type of marriage, penalizing the transgressors by public flogging.

Rabbinic law treated illegitimate children almost on a par with the legitimate offspring. They enjoyed the full rights of inheritance of the estates of their fathers. Josephus correctly summarized the point of view held by the rabbis saying that the law recognizes no sexual connections except the natural union of husband and wife, and that only for the procreation of children. To avoid temptation, the sages recommended early marriages. The traditional mohar constituted serious limitations for many Jews interested in marriage, particularly after the ravages of the Bar Kochba revolt and after they became a little more urbanized. Charitable provision for needy brides eventually became the major responsibility of the community. Others had to choose between married life and scholarly pursuits. The rabbis felt the need of a compromise in such cases and to relax somehow the legal requirements. “If one’s soul is longing for learning he could postpone the assumption of marital relations beyond the stated age of eighteen.” This was in a period of heavy taxes when students could scarcely marry and study at the same time. Some remained single to the age of thirty and even forty. To encourage both learning and marriage, some men of wealth selected promising young students for their daughters and helped them through their early difficult years. The rabbis were quick to recognize and advocate such preferential treatment as a matter of good general policy.

4. Marriage in NT times. Early in the history of the Church the idea of virginity, as a state of purity, esp. pleasing to Christ, took roots among Christians and later received the sanction and the encouragement of the Church Fathers. Marriage has never been explicitly condemned or forbidden by Christian teachers; but it was placed third and lowest in the scale of Christian purity. The highest is absolute virginity. The next lowest is celibacy adopted after marriage or after the death of the husband. Marriage was regarded only the third best choice. “St. Paul looked upon marriage as a substitute for a worse state, that of illicit sexual intercourse.”

All of the earlier Fathers had a worthier ideal of marriage than their successors. Clement of Alexandria, who died in a.d. 220 declared that marriage as a sacred image must be kept pure from those things which defile it. In like manner Ignatius, in his epistle to Polycarp, and Athenagoras pled for Christians to maintain the purity of the marriage state. Jerome, who at the close of the 4th cent. preached the beauties of the monastic life, showed his growing antipathy to the married state. He based his strong opinion on the oftquoted statement of Paul, “It is better to marry than to burn.” He used to say: “It is good to marry simply because it is bad to burn.” In like manner Ambrose and Augustine manifested high appreciation for celibacy. Under such influences the praise of celibacy became more insistent and the deeply felt depreciation of marriage more simply and seriously accepted.

Marriage received the sanction of Christ Himself and the more reluctant recognition of Paul. Jesus preached mercy along with justice. An uncompromising view of adultery and other sexual offences is evidenced throughout the NT (Matt 5:27). The special insistence on purity for Christians is in all probability a good indication of the laxity of the age (Acts 15:29; 1 Cor 5:11; Gal 5:16-21).

C. Marriage in post-Biblical times. The Jewish institutional traits of marriage were the subject of continuous development through the centuries, following the Biblical period. The priestly benediction of the union is mentioned neither in the Bible nor in the Talmud. The Talmud recommended that a “congregation” should be instituted for the purpose of celebrating a wedding. The presence of ten adult males was regarded as desirable. In the Middle Ages many Jewish communities formalized this desire into a binding statute. In the 10th cent. marriages were performed before a congregation in the bridegroom’s abode, or in the synagogue.

By the 14th cent. the huppah (actual cohabitation) had become a mere religious emblem. Instead of a real room, it became a symbolical room, a canopy, or even a veil or garment (tallit) thrown over the heads of the bridal pair. In the 10th cent., the introduction of liturgical marriage hymns had become noticeable. On the whole at this time the Jews had become more tolerant in regard to mixed marriages. The Jews were reluctant, however, to consider marriage with the families of the newcomers in the community. This was due partly to fear, caused by the newcomers, partly to the long history of persecution suffered by Jews from the hands of the foreigners among whom they lived, and partly to the spirit of exclusiveness and pride of the Jewish people.

Time has refined some of the grosser elements connected with weddings. The bridal procession leading the party from the home of the bride to the home of the bridegroom was changed in the Middle Ages, with the party going to the synagogue and not to the bridal chamber.

Wedding odes were characteristic of medieval Jewish weddings. So were songs and jests in which wit and merriment scintillated to the end. The seven-day wedding feast was marked by incessant performances, which were not interrupted by the Sabbath. Wit of another kind was displayed at the wedding table. The wedding discourse by the rabbi was a conspicuous function.

II. Various cultural traits

A. Bars to marriage. In early Israel it was a general practice for a man to marry within his own clan (Gen 24:4; 28:2; 29:19; Judg 14:3). Long after the tribal framework of Israel’s life had been broken up, marriage within the same family was still considered ideal.

Cousin marriages were common in Israel during Biblical times and continue to be preferred even today among the Middle East Arabs.

Cases of consanguineous marriages are reported in the Bible. Abraham married his halfsister, Sarah (Gen 20:12). Amnon married Tamar, his sister (2 Sam 13:20). For good reasons the case of Amnon and Tamar can be seriously questioned as a legitimate marriage, but such marriages were still known in Judah even at the time of Ezekiel, although he condemned them as abominations. Later on, in the priestly code (Lev 18:6-18; 20:17-21) such marriages were forbidden. The law of Moses (18:12, 13; 20:19) prohibited marriages between a man and his aunt (Exod 6:20; Num 26:59) and between a father and his daughter, or mother and son (Lev 18:7) as well as between a brother and sister (Lev 18:9; Deut 27:22).

Marriage to relatives by marriage was also forbidden (Lev 18:8, 14, 15, 16, 17; 20:12, 14, 20, 21; Deut 27:23). Marriage simultaneously to two sisters was also forbidden (Lev 18:18). The rabbis added some other twenty to the forbidden degrees. They were mostly extensions of the existing Torah prohibitions; for instance, a man was forbidden to marry the wife of his father’s half-brother.

Marriage with Canaanites was prohibited (Deut 7:3). Priests were forbidden to marry a harlot or a divorcee (Lev 21:7). A high priest was prohibited to marry a widow and he was restricted to one wife (Lev 21:13, 14). According to the later Jewish law, the consent of parents was no legal requirement when the parties to the marriage were of age. Melziner stated that because of the high respect and veneration in which father and mother have ever been held among Israelites, “the cases of contracting marriage without the parents’ consent belonged to the rarest exceptions.” One very important reason for the connection between filial submissiveness and religious beliefs was no doubt the extreme importance attached to the curses and blessings of parents. The Israelites believed that parents, and esp. a father, could by their blessings and/or curses determine the destiny of their children.

Another prohibition was related to seniority. Such custom was found in China, and among Sem. and Aryan peoples. “And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn” (Gen 29:26 KJV).

Marriages with foreign women did take place as in the case of Esau, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Ahab, and others. Many of these were marriages of kings which were partly inspired by political considerations. The kings, however, encouraged a fashion that spread to their subjects. After the settlement in Canaan, an embargo on racially and ethnically mixed marriages was considered necessary (Exod 34:15, 16; Deut 7:3, 4). Mixed marriages nevertheless continued as in the case of Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:27) and Hiram (1 Kings 7:13, 14). Deuteronomic law takes for granted that non-Israelite women captured in war will be married by their captors. This was not considered an infringement of Israel’s law. The actual prohibitions prob. date from the days of monarchy when national and religious solidarity were considered to be of the greatest importance.

The attitude of the Essenes and the sectaries of Qumram toward marriage, as revealed in the DSS, suggests that a definite laxity had developed in regard to the prohibited degrees.

B. Choosing the bride. It appears that both boys and girls were married very young. Later the rabbis fixed the minimum age for marriage at twelve for the girls and thirteen for the boys. The parents usually made the decisions for the young people. However, there were love marriages in Israel. The young man could make his preferences known or he could make his own decision without consulting his parents. He could make his own decisions even against the wishes of his parents.

C. Mohar—the price of the wife. Mohar is usually a present to the bride’s father, either in the form of a sum of money or its equivalent in kind. Sometimes mohar can be an unusual deed; the mohar is not a fixed sum. It depends upon the social standing and the wealth of the parties concerned as well as the means of providing and the wish of the girl’s father. Mohar is a compensation to the father for the loss of his daughter as well as the means of providing her with certain necessities. The fundamental purpose of the mohar seems to be to insure the woman against being left unsupported if widowed.

The word occurs only three times in the Bible (Gen 34:12; Exod 22:16; 1 Sam 18:25). For a compulsory marriage after a virgin had been raped, the law prescribed the payment of fifty shekels of silver (Deut 22:29). The ordinary mohar must have been less.

A fiancé could compound for the payment of the mohar by providing a service as Jacob did for Leah and Rachel, David did for Michal, and Othniel for Caleb’s daughter.

In the thinking of the Israelites mohar seems to have been not so much a price paid for the woman as a compensation given to the family. It is also probable that the father enjoyed only the usufruct of the mohar, and that actually the mohar reverted to the daughter at the time of succession, or if her husband’s death reduced her to penury.

Gifts presented by the bridegroom on the occasion of the wedding were quite different from the mohar (Gen 34:12). The presents were rewards for the acceptance of the proposal of marriage. In general the custom of providing a dowry never took root in Jewish territory. Fathers gave with their daughters no gifts other than maidservants. There were special cases when fathers gave portions of land with their daughters.

In order to protect the wife in the event of her becoming widowed or divorced, it was established by the Jewish law that before the nuptials the husband was to make out an obligation in writing, which entitled her to receive a certain sum from his estate in case of her divorcement. This obligation was termed kethubah or the marriage deed. For the security of the wife’s claim to the amount fixed in the kethubah all the property of the husband, both real and personal, was mortgaged. The kethubah is still retained in most Jewish marriages, though it has little legal significance in many countries.

In the Talmudic law the mutual consent of the parties to marry each other has to be legally manifested by a special formality, which gives validity to the marriage contract. The usual formality is that called kaseph or “money.” The man gave to his chosen bride a piece of money, even a peruta (the smallest copper coin in use in Pal.), or any object of equal value, in the presence of two witnesses, with the words, “Be thou consecrated to me.” In the Middle Ages the piece of money was replaced with a plain ring.

The Babylonian law required the bride’s parents to make their daughter a wedding gift or settlement which remained her property, the husband receiving the interest as income on it.

At the time of the Mishnah and Talmud, the gifts the bride brought with her from her parents began to be known as a “neduniah,” or dowry. The sum involved was registered in the kethubah. If it was money which the husband would invest in his business he promised to repay his wife, under specific conditions, the full amount plus one-third interest. If it consisted of clothing and household goods, their value was registered but the husband was committed only to repayment of the value less one-fifth, to allow for depreciation.

D. Marriage formalities and ceremonies. In the ancient Near E marriage was a civil matter. The marriage deed was a legal contract defining the rights of the parties concerned. For the Israelites it was a covenant or b’rith.

Since early times, there have been two stages to a Jewish marriage: betrothal and marriage proper. The betrothal is a legally binding promise of marriage (Deut 20:7). A man betrothed was exempt from military service. The betrothed woman was regarded as though she were already married. Any other man who violated her was stoned to death as an adulterer.

The rabbis continued the distinction between the two stages of marriage: “erusim” or “kiddushin” (betrothal) and “huppah” (the word means “canopy”) which represented the actual ceremony of bringing home the bride.

1. Kiddushin. According to the law the bride might be bought (betrothed) either by money, by writ (a brief contract) or by cohabitation. Betrothal by contract was suspended before the Middle Ages, and is now almost unknown. In the case of betrothal by cohabitation, the man and woman entered a private chamber, having first declared to witnesses that their actions would count as a betrothal. During the NT times this manner of betrothal was disapproved because of its licentious nature. This left the betrothal by money as the last alternative. In the early Middle Ages betrothal by ring was introduced into Pal. and this has remained the custom ever since.

At the time of the Restoration, after the Exile and thereafter, the betrothed girl was expected to remain virgin. During and after the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, however, the requirement of chastity was relaxed and the betrothed girl was permitted sexual relations with her future husband.

2. Huppah—the actual wedding ceremony of bringing home the bride. Marriage was a time for rejoicing. The chief ceremony was the entry of the bride into the bridegroom’s house. The bridegroom was the king for a week. During the whole week their majesties wore their festal clothes, did not work, and merely looked on at the games—except that now and then the queen joined in a dance. Accompanied by his friends with tambourines and a band they went to the bride’s house where the wedding ceremonies were to start. The bride richly dressed, adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14, 15), usually wore a veil, which she took off only in the bridal chamber. Escorted by her companions, the bride was led to the home of the bridegroom. Love songs were sung in praise of the bridal pair. Speeches were made in their honor, exalting the graces of the newly wedded. Big feasts were prepared in the house of the bride and sometimes in the bridegroom’s parents’ house. At the close of the feast the bride was conducted by her parents to the nuptial chamber (Judg 15:1). The bride remained veiled throughout all these ceremonies (Gen 29:23). After the wedding night (Gen 29:23) it was customary for the bride’s parents to preserve the blood-stained sheet as proof of the girl’s virginity (Deut 22:13-21). The duty of preserving evidence of the bride’s antenuptial chastity was intended as a safeguard against the slanders of a malicious or inconstant husband. There were no marriage festivities for concubines.

III. Dissolution of marriage

A. Historic developments. The fundamental principle of the government of the patriarchal family was the absolute authority of the oldest male ascendant, who was the law giver and the judge, and whose rule over his wives, children and slaves was supreme. This power remained his right throughout the subsequent history of the Jewish people, although in the course of time it was greatly modified and curtailed.

As far back as the history of domestic relations can be traced, the husband’s right to divorce was absolutely untrammeled. It was only with the gradual breakup of the patriarchal system, and the substitution of an individualistic system for a socialistic state, that the woman acquired, at first merely negative rights, such as protection against her husband’s rights, and finally, positive rights.

This ancient right of the husband, to divorce his wife at his pleasure, is the central thought in the entire system of Jewish divorce law. It was not until the 11th cent. of the common era that, by the decree of Rabbi Gershom of Mayence, the absolute right of the husband to divorce his wife at will was formally abolished, although it had already been for all practical purposes non-existent in the Talmudic times.

The OT, written at a time when the domestic law of the patriarchal family was in full vigor, accepted divorce as a matter of fact.

Divorce is the legal dissolution of the marriage relation while both parties are still alive. The ethical principle of marriage is certainly against such a dissolution; but the ethical principle is not always sufficient for life’s actual circumstances. When, instead of being a source of the highest felicity, marriage becomes the source of the deepest woe and misery, then the sanctity of matrimony makes it advisable that the unhappy union should be dissolved.

B. Deterrents to divorce. Law did not prevent the husband from divorcing his wife under any and all circumstances. In the following cases the wife could not be divorced:

1. Seduction. If the husband accused his newly married wife of antenuptial unchastity, and the charge proved to be slanderous, she could not be divorced.

2. Ravishment. In the case the husband ravished his wife before marriage, she could not be divorced.

3. Insanity. When the wife had become insane or an alcoholic, she could not be divorced.

4. Captivity. While the wife was in captivity she could not be divorced. It was the duty of the husband to ransom her.

5. The minor wifecould not be divorced.

6. Religious disqualifications. Mishnah provided for another exception. If the woman for any reason whatsoever had religious disqualifications which could not be removed, the ravisher had to marry her and to keep her as wife for ever.

7. Divorce difficult and expensive. Another deterrent to divorce exercising some restraint on the husband was the legal necessity for the husband to seek help of one learned in the law who usually tried to bring reconciliation. The husband also was compelled to pay the wife her dowry, and a certain amount of money, of the property brought to him by the bride or her parents at the time of the marriage. Gradually men became accustomed to going to the rabbi when they wished to divorce; and, forgetting their ancient rights, they accepted new guiding principles regulating marital relations.

8. Deaf-mute after marriage. The deafmute if becoming deaf-mute after his marriage could not lawfully divorce his wife.

C. Kinds of divorce. Four kinds of divorce were possible on the basis of the rabbinical law:

1. Divorce by mutual agreement of the parties. In this case the wife was entitled to receive the dowry fixed in the kethubah.

2. Divorce enforced upon the wife on the petition of the husband. The wife as the guilty party forfeited her dowry.

3. Divorce enforced upon the husband on the petition of the wife. The husband was compelled to give her the bill of divorcement and to pay her dowry.

4. Divorce enforced by court,without petition of either of the parties.

D. Divorce and the support of the children. The influences that modified the legal status of the wife (according to the decree issued around 1025 C.E. [a.d.] by Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah of Mayence) and entitled her to demand and receive a divorce from her husband, affected her rights with respect to her children. In Talmudic times she seems to have had stronger rights than her husband to their custody.

The first regulations concerning the custody of the children of a divorced woman appear to have been made during the early Mishnaic period and were related exclusively to the charge and care of sucklings.

Rabbinical decisions concerning children beyond nursing age provide evidence that both the male and the female children were given to the mother. However, the custody of the boys could be claimed by the father after their sixth year.

The Rom. law gave the court the power to award the custody of the children of the divorced couple according to its discretion.

The Jewish law, under the decision of Rabban Ulla held the father responsible for the support of his son while in the custody of the divorced wife until he had reached the age of six. The father was required by the law in all cases to support his daughter.

E. Divorce procedures. Divorce procedures, at first simple, became complex. By using complex technical forms lawyers and judges sought precision and the avoidance of dispute and litigation. The complicated system of procedure among the Jews acted as a check on the theoretically unrestricted right of the husband to divorce his wife at his pleasure.

The husband had not only the right to divorce his wife but also to couple the divorce with conditions upon the fulfillment of which its validity depended. The husband could make his own death the condition upon which the divorce became valid. The purpose of this, in all likelihood, was the desire of the husband to give his wife the chance of avoiding a Levirate marriage. With a Bill of Divorce with this condition, at the moment of his death she was not his widow, but a divorced woman; not any longer restricted to marry any of the husband’s brothers but free to marry any man of her own choice.

1. Causes favoring the husband. The husband was entitled to divorce:

a. In the case of the wife’s adultery, and even on strong suspicion of adultery.

b. In the case of the wife’s public violation of moral decency.

c. In the case of the wife’s change of religion or evidence of disregard for the ritual law in the management of the household.

d. In the case of the wife’s obstinate refusal of connubial rights for a full year.

e. In the case of the wife’s refusal to follow him to another domicile.

f. In the case when the wife insulted her father-in-law, in the presence of her husband, or for insulting her own husband.

g. In the case when she suffered certain incurable diseases, rendering cohabitation impractical or dangerous.

2. Causes favoring the wife. Jewish women could obtain divorce on their own rights, in the following cases:

a. False accusation of antenuptial incontinence. Philo has recorded the fact that the woman was entitled, if she wanted, to be released from the marriage with the man who by his false accusation had become odious to her.

b. Refusal of conjugal rights. The Torah says, “her food, her raiment, her duty of marriage shall he not diminish.” This was obligatory on the husband. Its refusal constituted good ground for divorce.

c. Impotence. If the marriage was childless after ten years of cohabitation and the wife charged the husband with physical impotence, she was entitled to divorce.

d. Vow of abstinence. Under the Mosaic law, the husband had the right to annul the vows of his wife. If after the annulment of her vow, she persisted in her resolution, she was released from the payment of the Kethubah, if he chose to divorce her, since the wife provided the cause for divorce. For the same reason the wife could choose to divorce her husband.

e. Physical blemishes. If the husband was afflicted with any serious disease such as leprosy, or where he was engaged in some malodorous business such as gathering dog’s dung, the wife was entitled to a divorce.

f. Nonsupport. When the husband could no longer give her the absolute necessities of life, he was obligated, on her application, to give her a divorce; and her Kethubah remained a lien on all his subsequently acquired goods, until he had paid it in full.

g. Restricting wife’s lawful freedom. Where the wife by a vow deprived herself of any right or privilege, and the husband did not absolve her, as he might have done, she was entitled to a divorce. When the husband treated his wife tyrannically and sought to deprive her of her lawful freedom, she was entitled to a divorce.

h. Wife beating and desertion will cause the court to compel the husband before desertion to give his wife a bill of divorce.

i. Licentiousness. As long as polygamy and concubinage were legally sanctioned, there was a marked distinction made between the sexual immorality of the husband and that of the wife. Technically, adultery at that time could be committed only by the wife. After a change in the sex mores, with a more rigid acceptance of monogamy, the licentious conduct of the husband was deemed more serious, and his wife was entitled to divorce him on grounds of adultery.

j. Divorce of betrothed wife. Betrothal among the Jews in the old days took place twelve months before marriage. The bride being in all respects bound as a wife she could be freed only by death or divorce, under the same divorce laws as the married woman.

k. Crime. The husband committing a crime compelling him to flee from the country gave the wife the right to petition for divorce.

F. The levirate marriage. Brother marrying the widow of his dead brother was one of the ancient customs of Israel.

The Mosaic law (Deut 25:5-10) provided for the possibility and necessity, at the death of one brother, to have his childless wife marry one of the surviving brothers.

The first son of this union was to be regarded as the son of the dead brother.

The purpose of the levirate marriage was:

1. To prevent the name of the dead brother from being put out of Israel (Deut 25:6; Ruth 4:15).

2. To restore the name of the dead to his inheritance (Ruth 4:5).

3. To keep the family property intact. The child born of levirate marriage would be the heir of the dead husband; he would also be the heir of his real father. This fits the purpose of preserving and consolidating a family property.

The custom went through a process of development before being written in Deuteronomy. At first the levirate law was binding on the entire family of the dead husband (Gen 38). In the code of Deuteronomy the obligation of the levirate law was limited to the brothers only, and moreover, to brothers living together.

The woman’s brother-in-law could refuse levirate by allowing his reputation to suffer as he was subjected to the ceremony of “Halitzah” (Deut 25:7-10). Modern Judaism has reduced the custom to the ceremony of the “Halitzah.” The obligation was not superseded if the deceased left daughters.

Leviticus 18:16 forbids marriage with a deceased brother’s wife without any qualification. This represents a clear collision of codes. The famous disputation with the Sadducees clearly implies that the Levitical law was regarded as binding in the time of Jesus (Matt 22:25ff.).

IV. Succession and inheritance

The rule of primogeniture was generally accepted in Israel. The rule held good throughout Israel’s history, was confirmed by the Mishnah and Talmud and is valid to this day in Jewish religious law.

The first-born received the prime choice of the inheritance. He was expected, however, to share it, equally, by lot, with the others. Upon the death of his father, he inherited twice the share of his brothers in the family property (Deut 21:17). At the same time he became the head of the family. While his father was living, the eldest son was second in rank and authority and had special religious, social and economic responsibilities.

Every first-born was considered sacred to God in Israel. The first-born humans were redeemed and were not sacrificed as were the animals (Exod 13:15). The consecration of all Levites to the service of God was regarded as a suitable substitute for the rest of the people (Num 3:12, 13; 8:16-18).

The Jewish father, according to Israelite custom, was expected to make a will before his death (2 Sam 17:23; 2 Kings 20:1; Isa 38:1). In so doing, however, the father was legally restrained from trying to deprive his oldest son of his right to a double share in the inheritance.

Only legitimate sons were entitled to inherit. Children of concubines were not included in the inheritance. A Heb. father could declare the sons of his concubines legitimate during his lifetime. In the case of Abraham, he could have made Ishmael his legal heir. According to the Bible record he received, however, a command from God to comply with the wishes of his wife, Sarah (Gen 21:10-12). The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah born “upon the knees” of their mistresses, ranked with the sons of Rachel and Leah (Gen 49:1-28).

As a general rule the daughters were not included in the inheritance of their fathers. There were exceptions as in the case when a man had no sons. In such a case, in order to keep the estate within the tribe, the girls were expected to marry men of their father’s tribe and were entitled to their father’s inheritance. Cases in point were the daughters of Zelophehad (Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12), and the daughters of Eleazar who were married to their own cousins (1 Chron 23:22). Job’s three daughters inherited equally with their brothers—but Job was not necessarily a Heb.

When a man died leaving neither sons nor daughters, his relatives were the inheritors and not his wife. A childless widow would be remarried under the levirate law, or else return to her father’s house (Gen 38:11; Lev 22:13; Ruth 1:8). A widow with adult sons would expect them to support her, but if she had small children it was her job to administer her husband’s estate until they grew up and entered into their inheritance.

V. The status of women

A Heb. woman’s status was inferior to that of women in Egypt—who were found to serve as heads of their families, or in Babylon, where a woman could acquire property, be a party to a contract and share in her husband’s inheritance. In Israel a woman could only own her marriage portion of the dowry, and even this was administered by her husband. She was excluded from her husband’s inheritance but had the right to administer her husband’s estate until her sons became of age after their father’s death.

Even though the Israelite women have not enjoyed greater privileges their status was far higher than that of the Assyrian women who were treated as, or worse than, beasts of burden.

The birth of children, esp. of boys, usually heightened the status of women. The law commanded that children honor their mother on an equal basis with their father. A wife, if divorced, regained her freedom and enjoyed the right to remarry. A wife could never be sold by her husband.

Israelite women were allowed to play a part in various religious gatherings and rituals, bringing sacrifices in their own name (Lev 12:6, 8; 1 Sam 1:23, 24); partaking of the sacred meal (Deut 12:12, 18; 14:22, 29) offering prayers at the shrines (1 Sam 1:9-12).

The Israelite women even played their part in public affairs. Only a general atmosphere of social respect for them could have produced women of the caliber of Miriam, Deborah, Jael, Huldah and Athaliah.

A. Virgins. A girl was expected to be chaste until marriage. The bride’s parents had the responsibility to preserve the “tokens of virginity” of their daughter, the blood-stained garment or sheet from the nuptial bed. Such proofs were preserved as proper evidence in case the husband accused his wife of unchastity. In the case that he was found to be a liar he was first whipped, then fined twice the amount of a normal dowry (Deut 22:13-19). However, if the accusations were true the wife was stoned (22:20, 21).

B. Married women. The Israelite law has developed detailed and strict regulations governing a woman’s sexual role and life. Her rights were few, her obligations many. With a few exceptions she was deprived of the right to divorce her husband. Legally she was regarded as a piece of his property. The generally accepted sexual double standards placed upon her the burden of the code of sexual morality.

C. Widows. The only certain provision for widows in the law and tradition was the dowry and the marriage settlement she had received under the Kethubah. She could choose to remarry one of her brothers-in-law under the levirate law. She was also free to remain with her husband’s family or to return to the house of her father (Gen 38:11; Ruth 1:8, 9). If she was the daughter of a priest she was free to partake of “priestly portions” as before her marriage (Lev 22:13). The widows with children were in the most pitiable condition and the Bible makes reiterated appeals for charity toward them (Exod 22:21-23; Deut 10:18; Isa 1:17).

The Code of Hammurabi and the Ugaritic Epic of Danael (Daniel) show that widows did not have legal status and were in great need of protection all over the Near E, in Israel as much as in Assyria and Babylon.

D. Adultery. According to the Jewish law adultery was the most serious violation of a marriage or betrothal contract by the woman. A husband’s infidelity did not constitute adultery among the Jews, just as among the Greeks and the Romans. The misconduct by the wife was considered to be the “great sin” in the OT and various Egyptians and Ugaritic texts. Adultery by either a married woman or a betrothed girl was considered to be not only a crime against the husband, but a moral offense, “an evil act in Israel.” Both the lover and the unfaithful wife were liable to suffer the death penalty (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-27). The wife accused of infidelity had to undergo the ordeal of the “bitter water” (Num 5:12-31) in order to prove her innocence or guilt.

VI. Status of children

A. Childbirth. The role of professional midwives helping at the time of childbirth is clearly indicated (Gen 35:17; Exod 1:16). Two customary ways are mentioned as means by which childbirth was helped, in the ancient times in general, among the people of the Near E, and particularly among the Jews. A text in Exodus 1:16 suggests that “a woman in labor sat on two stones placed at a small distance from each other, to provide the equivalent of the birth-chair mentioned in the Talmud.”

Children are described also as being born on the knees of another person, probably of a midwife or a relative helping the mother.

In the cases of multiple births, the rights of the first-born were well guarded and the birth sequence carefully noted (Gen 25:25; 38:27). The newborn was washed with care, rubbed with salt and wrapped in swaddling clothes (Job 38:8, 9; Ezek 16:4). The mother or wet nurse, if the family was wealthy, was responsible for nursing the baby. Usually the baby was weaned at the age of three (2 Macc 7:27). On the day the baby was weaned a feast apparently was arranged (Gen 21:8).

B. Naming the child. The child was named as soon as it was born. Sometimes the mother was expected to name the child (Gen 29:32; 30:24; 35:18; 1 Sam 1:20), sometimes the father (Gen 16:15; 17:19; Exod 2:22).

In many cases the names chosen included partly the name of God (El, Yahu) such as El-Nathan, “God Gave.” Sometimes such names appeared shorter, for instance Nathan for El-Nathan. Other more popular names were those of living things, such as Deborah (bee), expressing the wish that the child would have the qualities of its namesake. Occasionally the children were given names from the plant world, or an outstanding trait or feature, or event coinciding with his birth. An example of a Biblical name of this type is Ichabod (“Without Honor,” 1 Sam 4:21).

After the restoration and esp. during the NT period, Aram. names became quite common. At about the same time these were found beside or instead of Heb. names. The practice of modern times of naming a boy at his circumcision occurred only in the NT (Luke 1:59; 2:21) and not in the OT.

C. Child rearing. The relation of Heb. parents and children could be identified with a family of the patriarchal type. The father was responsible for the training of his children, including the religious training. It was expected from him to “command his children and his household after him,” to “keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment” (Gen 18:19 KJV). Every Heb. male child was circumcised on the eighth day of his life and thus set apart to Jehovah (17:10). In the earlier years the child was under the close care of his mother. After his fifth birthday the boy came more directly under the care of his father, who instructed him in the Torah and in the Talmud. Moreover, every father was expected to teach his son a trade as a means of livelihood.

At about the time of Christ, Rabbi Joshua ben Gamala instituted schools apart from the homes in every town and village of Pal. The chief subject matters in the new schools continued to be the Mosaic law and the two portions of the Talmud, the Mishna and the Gemara. Because of the intercourse with Greece, it is likely that the Gr. language was also studied.

The education of girls was not neglected. Above all things their education was designed to fit them for their special sphere of responsibility, the management of the household. They were helped to become better wives and better mothers also through their participation in the family worship and the study of the sacred writings. The Heb. family was, therefore, an institution of significant moral, religious, social and economic value.

VII. Mixed marriages and the future of the Jewish family

Although not encouraged but rather forbidden, marriages with foreign women did take place among the Israelites both before they had any real appreciation for a sense of national unity and later throughout their history. Esau married two Hitt. women (Gen 26:34), Joseph married an Egyptian (41:45), Moses, a Midianite (Exod 2:21); David, an Aramean (2 Sam 3:3), Solomon, a harem with many foreign women (1 Kings 11:1), Ahab, a Phoenician (16:31).

These were all marriages of kings or prominent men. They began, however, a fashion that spread among their subjects and the commoners. After the settlement in Canaan the need to protect the religion and high national interests brought about an embargo on mixed marriages (Exod 34:15, 16; Deut 7:3, 4). The mixed marriages nevertheless continued; Bathsheba married a Hitt. (2 Sam 11:3), Hiram’s mother married a Phoenician (1 Kings 7:13, 14).

The more rigid prohibitions date from the days of the monarchy when the national and the religious solidarity were so important for the security of the nation. After the restoration from exile the restrictions ceased to be enforced and many mixed marriages were contracted. During the Hel. period the need to preserve the purity of the Jewish community prompted the reinforcement of restrictions relating to mixed marriages.

Mixed marriages are much more readily accepted by the Jewry of today. Many of them however are really disturbed about the present trends and developments. David Kirshenbaum feels that “slowly and unperceptibly, like cancer cells, the disease of mixed marriages penetrates, consumes and destroys the Jewish family and the Jewish hope of survival.” He appears to be convinced that the Jewish home has become spiritually empty. Mixed marriages have a dangerously disruptive effect. There will be no longer any historic Jewish continuity if the rate of mixed marriages will increase among the Jews. There will be no point of contact among the past, present, and future. Coupled with a general acceptance of mixed marriages is the religious and spiritual laxity of the Jewish parents. In many cases they completely neglect the spiritual upbringing of their children. These conditions do not foretell a bright future for the Jewry of today.

At the same time, considering all the threatening forces, one cannot be but deeply impressed by the strength and solidarity of the Jewish family. Through the centuries, the Jewish family, prob. more than any other influence, has been responsible for the continuing vitality and for the survival of this nation of wonder, the most peculiar among all the nations of the world.

Bibliography W. Smith, Religion of the Semites (1894), 35; D. W. Amram, The Jewish Law of Divorce (1896), 24, 26, 120, 121, 130, 150, 163, 168ff.; M. Mielziner, The Jewish Law, Marriage and Divorce (1901), 1-131; R. H. Lowie, Primitive Society (1920), 4-8; E. Westermarck, History of Human Marriage (1922), 41, 75, 93, 216, 217, 307-310; E. Westermarck, A Short History of Marriage (1926), 125, 166; G. A. Barton, Semitic and Hamitic Origins (1934), 85, 99, ch. II.; E. Westermarck, The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), ch. II; C. Panunzio, Major Social Institutions (1939), 147; W. Goodsell, A History of Marriage and the Family (1939), 1-53; E. B. Reuter, Handbook of Sociology (1941), 117; S. R. Brav, Marriage and the Jewish Tradition (1951), 26-83; D. Kirshenbaum, Mixed Marriage and the Jewish Future (1958), ch. 1; B. Cohen, Law and Tradition in Judaism, 40-66; Ed. W. J. Cahuman, Intermarriage and Jewish Life (1963), 9-193; G. Cornfield, Pictorial Biblical Encyclopedia (1964), 311-320; P. H. Goodman, The Jewish Marriage Anthology (1965), 72-81; E. P. Barrows, Sacred Geography and Antiquities (n.d.), chs. 19, 22.