3. The notions about sanctity of marriage were loftier diu-ing the post-exilian period than in the preceding epochs, as maybe judged from the fact that unfaithful- ness to a wife is denounced by the prophet INIalachi as \iolatmg a sacred covenant, to the transaction of which God himself was a witness (ii, 14). And though it may be questioned whether the prophet's appeal to God as having been witness to the marriage-contract refers to the above-named seven benedictions (ri3"13 ymu) which the bridegroom had to pronounce at the mar- riage-feast, and in which he invoked God's presence and blessing to the compact, as Abrabanel will have it, yet there can be no doubt that marriage is here for the first time expressly described as a covenant (ni"l!3) made in the presence of God. With such a view of the sanctity of marriage, the notion that a wife is a play- thing for a leisure hour rapidly disappeared, and the sages who had to expound the law to the people in the time of Christ taught that the declaration '• Peace shall be in thy house" (Job v, 24) will be realized by him "who loves his wife as himself, and honors her more than himself, and trains his sons and daughters up in the way of righteousness" (Jebamoth, 62 b). Moreover, marriage was regarded as illegal if the man had not given to his wife the instrument (nsina), in which he promises his wife, "I will work for thee, honor thee, maintain thee, and provide for thee, according to the custom of Jewish husbands." The rabbinic laws both define this promise and insist upon its being fulfilled, as may be seen from the following enactments : i. A wife is to be kept in proportion to the circumstances of her hus- band, and have her meals with him at the table ; if he ill-treats her and she removes from him, he is obliged to send her maintenance (Jebamotfi, 64 b)! ii. If the husband goes on a three months' journay witliout mak- ing provision for his wife, the legal authorities of the place are to maintain her from his property {Kcthuhoth, 48 a, 107). iii. He is obliged to perform the duties of a husband within a stated period (Mishna, Kethuboth, v.
6). iv. If her husband dies, she is to be maintained from his property, or by the children, in the same manner as she was in his lifetime, till she is betrothed to another man, and her rights must be attended to before the claims of any one else {Kethuboth, 43, 51, 52, 68, 103 ; Je- rusalem Kethuboth, iv, 14). v. If a woman marries a man of higher rank tlian herself, she rises with him ; but if he is inferior to her, she does not descend to him (nl-lli ^-Q'J ilhvj nrxi [Kethuboth, 48 a, 61 a]). For other rights which the wife possesses we must refer to the Kethubah, or the marriage-instrument given in sec- tion 2 of this period. The husband, on the other hand, has a right to expect from his wife chastity which is be- yond the reach of suspicion, unreserved obedience, and to do the work of a housewife. Other rights are given in the following section on divorce.
VII. Divorce. — 1. The arbitrary power of the husband over his wife in the patriarchal age is also seen in the fact that he could divorce her at his pleasure. There is but one instance of it recorded, but it is a very signifi- cant one. Abraham, though he has a child by Hagar, sends away his half-wife, not requiring any legal or re- ligious mtervention (Gen. xxi, 14), but, as in the case of marriage, effecting it by a mere verbal declaration. Wherever marriages are effected by the violent exercise of the patria piotestas, or without any bond of affection between the parties concerned, ill-assorted matclies must be of frequent occurrence ; and without the remedy of divorce, in such a state of society, we can understand the truth of the apostles' remark that " it is not good to marry" (Matt, xix, 10). Hence divorce prevails to a great extent in all countries where marriage is the re- sult of arbitrary appointment or of purchase : we may instance the Arabians (Burckhardt's Notes, i. 111 ; Lay- ard, Nineveh, i, 357) and the Egyptians (Lane, i, 235 sq.).
2. It must be remarked that the Mosaic law does not institute divorce, but, as in other matters, recognises and most humanely regulates the prevailing patriarchal practice (Deut. xxiv, 1-4). The ground on which the law allows a divorce is termed "13T nil", any shameful thinrj. What the precise meaning of this ambiguous phrase is, and what, according to the IMosaic gamology, gives a husband the right to divorce his wife, has been greatly disputed in the schools of Shammai and Hillel, which were founded before the advent of Christ, and these discussions are given below. It is, however, certain that the phrase does not denote fornication or adultery, for in that case the woman was not divorced, but stoned (Lev. xx, 10; Deut. xxii, 20-22 ; Ezek. xvi, 40 ; John viii, 5). More- over, the phrase ^Dbs iJ^i'D ',n X^J^, with which this statute begins, when used of opposite sexes, as in the case before us, generally denotes favorable impression which one piroduces on the other, by (/raceful manners, or beautiful appearance (Gen. xxxix, 4; Kuth ii, 2, 10, 13; Ezek. V, 2 with 8). That it has this sense here seems to be warranted b}' ver. 3, where it is supposed that the divorced woman marries again, and her second husband also divorces her, and that not on account of immoral- ity, but because he does not like her. The humane regulations which the Mosaic gamology introduced in order to render a divorce legal were as follows: 1. If a man dislikes his wife, or finds that he cannot live happih' with her, he is not summarily to send her away by word of mouth as heretofore, but is to give her a formal and judicial bill of divorcement (rn'^"3 ^EO)i which required the intervention of a legal adviser, and caused delay, thus affording time for reflection, and pre- venting many a divorce resolved on under the influence of passion. 2. Allowing the parties, e\-cn after the dis- solution of the marriage, to renew the connection if they wished it, provided the divorced wife had not in the meantime married another husband, and become a wid- ow, or been again divorced. Not only are bishop Pat- rick (on Deut. xxiv, 4), Michaelis (Lcnvs of Moses, ii, 137, English translation), and many other Christian ex- positors, of this opinion, but it has been so understood