The first important stage in the iseteabiial procedure was the settlement of the amount of the so-called dowry, and the payment or part payment of the same.
he dowry of the OT (rnb Gn 3413, Ex 2271S 18% ; cf. Ex 2216, where RV has ‘pay a dowry’) was not a portion brought by the bride into the husband’s family, but a price or ransom paid to the father or brothers of the bride. That this was its original significance is not open to doubt. In primitive conditions it was naturally claimed as compensation for the loss to a family of a valuable member. Recent research has shown that it was so regarded in ancient times in Arabia (Kinship and Marriage, 68, 78 ff.; Die Ehe bei den Arabern, 433 ff.); and among the same stock it retains this character. ‘An Arab father,’ says Tristram, ‘regards his daughters much as he weal his sheep or cattle, selling them for a greater or less price, according to his rank and fortune and their beauty’ (Hastern Customs, p. 92). And so it appears in OT: Hamor offers to pay for Dinah ‘never so much dowry’ (Gn 341%) ; in Ex 2917 it is referred to as a settled custom. Dt 22” assesses the damages for seduction, which are payable to the father, and thus fixes the amount in one par- ticular case. For the common people the sum to be paid was doubtless settled by custom, while in the case of important alliances it was matter of negotiation (Gn 34"), The ‘dowry’ was not neces- sarily paid in money or kind, but might take the form of service, as in the case of Jacob (Gn 29) and David (1S 18% ; ef. 17%).
With the advance of families in dignity and wealth the ‘dowry’ easily passed into a new stage. It was natural that a portion, if not the whole, should be appropriated to ensure the com- fort and security of the bride. A hint of the custom of so diverting a part is given in the com- plait made by the daughters of Laban, when they
eclare that he ‘hath sold us, and hath quite
devoured our money’ (Gn 31"), In later times the appropriation of the ‘dowry’ to the wife became customary ; it was conserved as capital; and in the event of the death of the husbang, or an
MARRIAGE
arbitrary divorce, it furnished a useful provision. A parallel development took place to some extent among the Arabs, as the Koran assumes that the ‘dowry’ falls to the wife (Wellhausen, Die Ehe bei den Arabern, p. 435).
The dowry in the modern sense was not cus- tomary, but was occasionally met with. The daughters of wealthy houses at least received handsome gifts: Rebekah brings female slaves with her to her new home (Gn 24"), Laban makes a similar present to Leah (29%). As a special instance at liberality, doubtless also with some reference to proprietary rights, mention is made of Caleb’s gift to his daughter of a field of springs (Jg 1). The alliances of the kings with foreign princes furnish examples of the dowry—in one case a princess brings with her a city as her portion ql K ΒΝ
In addition to the mohar, there is mention of other gifts which, naturally prompted by the occasion of a betrothal, might be distributed more or less lavishly as a means of con- ciliation or a token of goodwill (5, Gn 3412). The gift to the bride, which came under this category, was significant of the wealth of the wooer (2453), The latter had its counterpart in the saddk of the Arabs ; and as the bestowal of the saddk came to be treated as part of the marriage ceremony, it is possible that among the Hebrews also it was incorporated in the formal P ure either of the betrothal or of the marriage.
While the settlement and payment (in whole or in part) of the ‘dowry’ was the decisive act in the betrothal, there was probably also an additional ceremony of a more «less formal kind. Of the
rocedure various elements appear to be preserved in the narrative of Rebekah’s betrothal (Gn 24). The terms in which she is asked, and gives her consent, in all likelihood preserve an ancient and
familiar formula (‘ Wilt thou go with this man ?’ ‘I will go,’ v.%); and the same applies to the blessing which is pronounced upon her when she is handed over or ‘sent away’ (v.")
The conjecture that a ring was given to the bride has no support in the passages referred to (Ex 35%, Is 3”), yet the use of the ring, which plays an important part in the Talmudic formalities, may well have been of considerable antiquity.
In the procedure sanctioned by the Talmudic authorities the bridegroom handed to the bride an article of value, such as a ring, or a written document, adding: ‘ By this ring, etc., may she be consecrated (or betrothed) to me.’ The presence of two male witnesses was required, so that the appropriate bene- dictions might be pronounced on the union. According to the Mishna (treatise Kiddushin), there were three modes of be- trothal—by the payment of money, by the conveyance of a contract, and by coition; but the third was prohibited by the later Rabbis under penalties (Hamburger, arts. ‘Trauung,’ ‘ Verlébniss’).