]'<:!. YCA.MV
3G4
POLYGAMY
the state of society in that day. Its enactments were
.:
the discouragement of polygamy; tin- object was forwarded by the following enactments castration of young men, which is usually associated with polygamy, was forbidden i DeuL xxiii, 1 1, and thus attendants in the harem were nol i asily to !"■ obtained ; while marriageable women might reasonably expect each i" obtain a separate husband. (2.) Every act ot sexual intercourse rendered the man unclean for a daj (Lev. xv. 18), which, with a considerable number of
■ ach of them having her peculiar claims upon him, would have been very burdensome. (3.) The fa- voring of one wife among several was forbidden (Exod . and the man was required to perform his marriage obligations in equal measure to every wife. This limitation also would be oppressive to many. Be-
this, the mutual jealous} of the several wives
,i, « hich is the inevitable consequence of po- lygamy 1 1 Sam. i. 2 sq.; 2 Chron. xi, 21 1, renders home life unpleasant (Niebuhr, Besckreibung, p. 73 sq.). The
: . 1 1 keeps some Turks fr polygamy now
(D'O n,ii, 366 sq.; Volney, ii, 360 sq.). The result was that most Israelites contented themselves with a Bingle wife (see Prov. xii, 4; xix, 41; xxxi, 10 sq.), or at most took one or t \% . ■ concubines in addition. The same appears to have been the case with the ancient Egyptians (Wilkinson, 4 nc. Egyptians, ii, 62 sq.). In
following the Captivity monogamy appears to have prevailed (comp. Tobit i - 11; ii. 19; \iii. I. 13; Susan. 29, 63; .Man. xviii, 25; Luke i. 5; Acts v. 1 1. It became acknowledged, too, as a prescriptive obliga- tion, although the doctors of the law still held to their old canon, that a man might marry wives at pleasure— a hundred if he would provided that he had means of Buppori for them. Hence we cannot in 1 Tim. iii. 2; Titus i. 6, think of a simultaneous polygamy (comp. i ■. ,. \in-t. r. 1698 . p. L25 sq.), although it
nin-i be confessed that Paul's expressions, taken alone, most naturally bear this interpretation. The Talmud- i-|s inM-t that no Jew can ha\e iimre than four wives
at e. and a king, at most, but eighteen (Otho, Lex,
i - |.-. see esp. Selden, Jus. Nat. et Gent, v,
<",; Buxtorf, Spousal, p. 17 sq., in Ugolino, Thesaur. vol. x\x : Michaelis, Mot. Rif. ii. 171 sq.; Jahn, 1. ii. comp. Selden, />• Polygamia, bk. vii, in his Otia thet '. p. 349 sq.). According to Deut. xvii, 17, kitiL'- were forbidden to take many wives; but in spite of this prohibition the] • , David, 2 Sam. v, 13; Solomon, l Kings xi, '■'•: Rehoboam, •_' Chron. xi, 21; Abijah, xiii. 21, and others; and so Herod the Great,
Josephus, Ant. xvii. 1,3) had large harems, for whose
Bervice they procured eunuchs in foreign lands. See
II Ull M.
i I object of the Mosaic reflations on
ttie subject was to obviate the injustice frequentlj < -
sequent upon the exercise of t he rights ot" a father or a
master. lined by the humane regulations
iptive whom a man might wish to marry
14), to a purchased wife (Exod. xxi,
1 to a slave who either w a- maun d at ;'u
r n ho, having Bince received a
the hand-- of his master, was unwilling to be
istly, by the law
listribution of property among
the different wives - Deut xxi, L5 17).
1 i e two quite distinct i n
l. \\i. 7 ii doa rve a detailed
it to which the power of
arried. It must be pre-
thal the maiden was horn of Hebrew parents,
at the time of her Bale (otherwise her
father would have no power to Bell), and that the object
of the purchase was that when arrived at pub
should become the wife of hi r masti r, as i~ implied in
in the law relating to her (ExikI. xxi, 7)
and to a slave purchased for ordinary work Deut xv,
12-17\ as well as in the term amah, "maid-servant." which is elsewhere used convertibly with -concubine" (Judg. ix, 18; comp. viii, 31 I. With regard to such it I . that Bhe is nol to "go out as the men- servants after six years' service, or in the year of jubilee), on the understanding that her her already has made, or intends to make her : (2) but, if he has no Buch intention, i milled to retain her in the event of any other person of the Israelites being willing to purchase her of him for the same purpose (ver. 8) ; (3) he might, how- ever, assign her to his son. and in this case she was to be treated as a daughter, and not as a slave (ver. 9 ; (4)
if either he or his son. having married her. took another as -till to be treated as a wife in all respects (ver. 10) ; and. lastly, if neither of the three contingen- cies took place (i. e. if he neither married her himself, nor gave her to his son, nor had her redeemed), then i iie maiden was to become absolutely free without wait- ing for the expiration of the six years or for the year ol jubilee (ver. 11). (2.) In the other case (Dent, xxi, 10-14) we must assume that the wife assigned was a non-Israelitish slave; otherwise the wife would, as a matter of course, be freed along with her husband in the year of jubilee. In this ease the wife and children would be the absolute property of the master, and the position of the wife would he analogous to that of the Roman contttbernalis,vrhovras not supposed capable of any connubium. The issue of such a marriage would remain slaves in accordance with the maxim oftheTal- mudists, that the child is liable to its mother's disqual- ification (Kiddush. iii. 12). Josephus (Ant iv. 8, 28) states that in the year of jubilee the slave, having mar- ried during service, carried oft* his wife and children with him: this, however, may refer to an Israelitish maid-servant. See Captive.