DIVORCE
840
DIVORCE
in Justification of Moses maintained that he permitted divorces for causes below adultery only for pmdential reasons for the time being. Nor was this limitation by Christ nnnecessary, for at that time it was common for the Jews to dissolve the onion apon veij slight and trivial pretences (liatt. v, 81, 82; xix, 1-9 ; Mark x, 2-12 ; Lake xvi, 18). As wives were considered the property of their hosbands, they did not possess by the Mosaic statutes a reciprocal right, and were not at lib- erty to dissolve the matrimonial alliance by giving a bill of divorce to that effect Josephus was of opinion (AfU, XV, 11) that the law did not permit women to divorce themselves from their hosbands. He believes Salome, sister of Herod the Great, to be the first who put away her husband; though Herodias afterwards dismissed hers (Ant, xviii, 7), as did also the three sisters of the younger Agrippa, and others theirs. The following remarks are in part from Smith, s. v. See Adultery.
The Mosaic law regulating this subject is found in Deut. xxiv, 1-4, and the cases in which the right of a husband to divorce his wife was lost are stated xxii, 19, 29. The ground of divorce was what the text calls a *^3'n r3"1^ (lit. nuditif of a word or tAm^, L e. ofiy- thittg JiUhjff some shameful act or circumstance, as in Deut. xxiii, 14), " some uncleanness" (Deut xxiv, 1), on the meaning of which the Jewish doctors of the pe- riod of the N. T. widely differed, the school of Sham- mai seeming to limit it to a moral delinquency in the woman, while that of Hillel extended it to trifling causes ('*for every cause,'' Matt xix, 8; as among the Druses, Bnrckhardt, TVoe. i, 829X e. g. if the wife burnt the food she was cooking for her husband, or merely over-salted it (Mishna, Gittin, ix, 16). Kabbi Akibidi allows divorce if the husband merely saw a wife whose appearance pleased him better (see Otho, Lex. Rabh. p. 502 sq.). The Pharisees wished, per- haps, to embroil our Saviour with these rival schools by their question (Matt, xix, 8) ; by his answer to which, as well as by his previous maxim (ver. 81), he declares that, but for their hardened state of heart, such que»- tions would have no plaoe. Tet, from the distinction made, ** But I say unto yon" (ver. 81, 82), it seems to fol- low that he regarded all the lesser causes than " forni- cation'* as standing on too weak ground, and declined the question as to the interpretation of the words of Moses (see Tholuck, Senium on the Motmi, p. 220 sq.). We may conjecture that the Mosaic sutute had refer- ence to doubts of his bride's virginity, or of his wife's modesty and fidelity, on the part of the husband, al- thoogfa he might not be able to bring a definite, charge of nnchastity. It would be unreasonable to suppose that by 13^ ninj, to which he limited the remedy of divorce, Moses meant *' fornication," i. e. adultery, for that would have been to ^stultify the law *' that such should be stoned" (John viii, 5 ; Ley. xx, 10). The practical difficulty, however, which attends on the doubt which is now found in interpreting Moses's words will be lessened if we consider that the mere giving »'a bUl" (or, rather, "book," ^BO, pij^Mov, Talm. oa or n^'^fi) " of divorcement" (comp. Isa. 1, 1; Jer. iii, 8), would in ancient thnes require the inter- vention of a Levite, not only to secure the formal cor- rectness of the instrument, but because the art of writing was then generally unknown. This would bring the matter under the cognisance of legal author- ity, and tend to check the rash exercise of the right by the husband. Traditional opinion and prescriptive practice would probably fix the standard of the Hl*^?, and doubtless, with the lax general morality which marks the decline of the Jewish polity, that standard would be lowered (Mai. ii, 14-16). Thus the Gemar. Babyl. GUHn, 9 (ap. Selden, De ux. H«h, iH, 17) aUows divorce for a wife's spinning in public, or going out
'^h head uncovered, or clothes so torn as not proper-
ly to conceal her person from sight Bst tte ite of any case in point in the period which ky ■ the lawgiver himself^ or in any, save a madk i cent one, makes the whole qneetiDD one ofprn* certainty. The case of Phalti and Michal ii m point, being merely an example of one arUtaBra redressed by another (1 Sam. xxv, 44; eoBif.!ia iii, 14-16). Selden, quoting (De ux. Hth. m, 15) Lk Prtrf, p. 8, b, etc speaks of an alleged cosfeoB ff # husband, when going to war, giving the vMe tb Si- lut Svoriiif but the authority is of slight niv. ■ the fact improbable. It is contrary to all kasvi •» ental usage to suppose that tiie right of qnttimAs husband and choosing another was slloved te vtu (Josephus, Ant. xv, 7, 10). Sdonw is noted iiki£>* the first example of it— -one, no doubt, doired fac the growing prevalence of heathen laxity (nc Vk:k- smuth, JSTeOea. iifterOnm. iii, 206). HeiuxaHp^ ably, the caution given 1 Cor. vu, 10. Thmt arc m^ ly mistaken who suppose that a man ra^t lib ka a remarried wife whom he had divorced, exeipt ii:b cases when her second husband had died, erkj ^ vorced her. Such resumption is c^mtemplited k 3 lawgiver as only possible in those two cases, ed^r^ fore is in them only expressly forbidden (3cr.i.r. The divorces of Gentfle wives ordered hv SAa^ (Ezra X, 11 ; xii, 19) rested oo. entirdv &ira grounds. For the view taken among later Jen x this sul^ect, see Joseph. Ant. iv, 8, 23; xvi,7, S: bk 76, a writer whose practice seems to have bees k v- cordance with the views of HilleL On tk eoo. subject, Buxtorf, de Bpomml. et DieorL p. 8S^: ^ den. Uxor. Hebr. iii, 17 sq. ; Michaefia, Lantfitm ii, 886; and Danz, in Menschen's N. T. fakp.C sq., may be consulted. For the Greek sad Isa usages on the subject, see Smith's DktvmBjtjOss. AnHq. s. w. Divortium, Apodeipseoi Dike. X» graphs have been written on the passige in DtfLi; Winkler (Unten. sdkwerv SckriftdeBen, S, %f^ also on the passage in Matt, by Venems (ii ^i> eerU. sacr. ed. 2, append.) ; Wolff, Ik £ie^ J^ nan (Lips. 1789) ; Schindler, Qnuedam dt mOrism (Liegn. 1795); Hommelhosins, Ulnm SmUmjr. (Jen. n. d.). See Marriaob.