MARRIAGE
785
MARRIAGE
and acted upon by those who were cliarged with the administration of the law from time immemorial. The only exception which the sages made was when a man divorced his wife because of an evil report which he maliciously circulated about her; then he was not al- lowed to remarry her (Mishna, Gittin, iv, 7). 3. If the divorced woman marries again, and the second husband either dies or divorces her, slie is not allowed to remarry her first husband : this was to preclude the possibility of procuring the death of, or a divorce from, the second husband, in case the parties wished to be reunited. 4. If a man seduces a maiden, and on this account is legal- ly obUged to marry her, " he may not put her away all his life" (Dent, xxii, 28, 29). Or, 5. If he groundlessly impugns her chastity, he also loses the power of ever divorcing her (Deut. xxii, 13-19). This, as well as the preceding benign la\v, was evidently designed to make men care for those women whom they had either virtu- ally or actually deprived of their moral character, and who, if these men were allowed to desert them, might never be able to get husbands. Thus these laws, while checking seduction, inasmuch as the man knew that he would have all his lifetime to be wedded to and care for the injured woman, also prevented those females who had momentarily fallen from being branded for life, and compelled to give themselves up to prostitution. 6. Though the Mosaic law has no express statute that the wife, under certain circumstances, may demand a di- vorce from her husband, yet it is undoubtedl}' implied in the enactment contained in Exod. xxi, 10. For if a bondwoman who became the wife of her master could quit him if he did not fulfil the conditions of a husliand, it is but natural to conclude that a. free wife would, un- der similar circumstances, be able to claim the protec- tion of the same law. A few instances of the violation of the divorce law, between the period of its enactment and the Babylonian captivity, are incidentally recorded without any censure whatever. Thus we are told that Saul took away Michal, his daughter, David's wife, without David's formally divorcing her, and gave her to Phalti (1 Sam. xxv, 4-1), and that David took back again Michal, who had been united to another husband (2 Sam. iii, 14-16). Still the laws of divorce and of pro- hibiting reunion after the divorced woman had been married to another husband are alluded to by Jeremiah as well known and commonly observed (iii, i, 8).
3, The rather uncertain grounds on which the Mosaic law permits divorce (Deut. xxiv, 1-4) were minutely defined during the period after the exile. Though the school of Shammai restricts the phrase "1!;1 mi" to rinchastify, and the Sadducees too insisted that divorce is not to be tolerated except when the woman is guilty of adultery (Eschol Hu-Copher, Alphuh. xcix ; Ben-Cho- nanja, iv, 276), yet the Jews as a nation, as well as most Christian expositors, agree with the school of Hillel, (Mishna, Gittin, ix, 10) that it (lenotes/«Mfc or defurmi- ties, as the context plainly shows. Now, in stating the grounds on which the Jewish expositors of the law, in the time of Christ and after, regarded dissolution of marriage as justifiable, we must distinguish the cases in which the legal authorities themselves took up the mat- ter, from those in which the married parties asked for divorce.
a. Dissolution of marriar/e occasioned by the lawful authorities took place — i. When the woman is guilty of adultery, ii. When the woman carries on secret inter- course with a man after her husband has warned her against it {Sota, 27 ; Jebumoth, 24). iii. Where, though betrothal had taken place, j-et a matrimonial law {ma- trimonium injustum) is violated, either referring to the proscribed degrees or to other matters enacted by the rabbins, iv. When the husband is infected with lep- rosy (Kethuboth, 77).
b. It v-as granted on the demand of the married par- ties. Thus the husband could effect a dissolution of marriage— i. When his wife, by violating the Mosaic law, caused him, without knowing it, to be guilty of
v.— Ddd
transgression (Mishna, Kethuhoth, vii, 6). ii. If the wife violates the bounds oi' modesty — e. g. bj^ going into the street with uncovered hair, flirting with young men, etc. (ibid.), iii. If the wife is suspected of adultery, iv. If the ^voman curses her father-in-law in the presence of her husband (Kethuboth, 72). v. If the wife will n^.t follow her husband to another place (Kethuboth, 110). vi. If the wife refuses her husband the conjugal rights for twelve months.
The wife can demand a divorce — i. If after marriage the husband contracts a loathsome disease (!llishna, Ke- thuboth, vii, 9, 10). ii. If after marriage he betakes him- self to a disgusting business (ibiil. the Gemara thereon, 75). iii. If he treats her cruelly (Eben Ha-Ezar, 154). iv. If her husband changes his religion (ibid.), v. If the husband commits an offence which makes him flee from his country (Eben fla-Ezar, 9). vi. If he leads a dis- solute and immoral life (Eben Ha-Ezar, Gloss on Sects, 11). vii. If he wastes his property and neglects to maintain her (Mishna, Kethuboth, vii, 1). viii. If he re- fuses her connubial rights (Mishna, Kethuboth, v, 6). There are other grounds on which divorce can be ob- tained, but for these we must refer to the Mishna, Git- tin, as they are too numerous to be detailed. The bill of divorcement must be handed over, either by the hus- band or a messenger, to the wife or one deputed by her, with the words, " This is thy divorce ; thou art hence- forth divorced from me, and canst marry whomsoever thou likest" (Mishna, Gittin, ix). It must, however, be remarked that divorce was greatly discouraged by the Talmudists, and it is declared that '■ he who divorces his wife is hated of God. The altar sheds tears over him who divorces the wil'e and companion of his youth'' (Gittin, 90 a).