RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Family and Marriage Relations
sisters was permitted. On the whole, these regulations correspond to pre-Islamitic Arabian custom, which Mohammed enacted into law.
The husband could divorce his wife at will, since she was his property (so in Code of Hammurabi); but he forfeited the purchase-price and the wife's property. In the Code of Hammurabi, if the wife is not to blame, the husband must compensate her. This tended to limit divorce. On the other hand, the wife and her family suffered no injustice thereby; at least no moral blemish attached to 7. Divorce, the wife. The law in Deuteronomy evidently attempts to limit divorce. It demands a written bill of divorce (xxiv. 1 sqq.), deprives the husband of the right to divorce a wife at all in two cases (xxii. 19, 28), and decrees that a divorced woman who has married again can not return to her first husband when she is free a second time (xxiv. 1 sqq.), in contrast to the earlier custom, which corresponded to the Arab usage (Hosea iii. 3; cf. II Sam. iii. 14). Finally, this law requires that there must be cause for divorce. Hillel's school interpreted this to mean that any cause was sufficient for a divorce, particularly any unseemly behavior. The more austere school of Shammai found that immoral conduct was meant. Unfortunately the true meaning of the law can not be learned from the Old Testament, and by way of comparison one may well consult the Code of Hammurabi (§§ 141-143), where an un wifely attitude, extravagance, etc. are made grounds for divorce (cf. Ecclus. xxv. 18 sqq., xlii. 9). In Deuteronomy the tendency is toward a higher position for the wife; and Malachi (ii. 13-14) condemns divorces unconditionally. Unlike the women of ancient Babylon (Code of Hammurabi, § 142) the Hebrew woman had no legal right to leave her husband and no means of freeing herself.
The legal status of the Hebrew wife was lower
than that of the wife in ancient Babylon, where,
as regards property at least, she enjoyed a degree
of independence (see Ham.mmurabi and His Code).
In ancient Israel the wife was simply
8. Legal a possession; but it must be added Status of that her position had compensations.
Woman. In bearing sons she gave to the tribe its most valuable possession; and the rights of the husband over her did not extend to her person. She was not a slave that he might sell, as he could his daughter; nor could he sell her handmaid that had become his concubine.
While her lot may have been a rather unhappy one, since a considerable part of the hardest work was imposed upon her, yet the Hebrew woman was by no means intellectually and morally in the position of the Mohammedan townswoman of the present. She had much more freedom, and there is no indication that she was secluded. The wife had her private rooms, which no strange man was allowed to enter (Judges xv. 1, xvi. 9;
0. Social II Sam. xiii. 7; I Kings vii. 8); but Position of she was by no means forbidden to
Woman, associate with men and might even
take part at banquets (Ex. xxi. 22;
Deut. xxv. 11; Ruth ii. 5 sqq.; II Sam. xx. 16;
Matt. ix. 20, xii. 46, xxvi. 7). Women enlivened
the popular feasts with song and dance (Ex. xv. 20-21; Judges xvi. 27, xxi. 19 sqq.; I Sam. xviii. 6). As already mentioned, the position of the wife was gradually improved in the course of time; and in the account of creation J makes her the helpmate and equal of man. Still, the jealousy of the husband continued to deprive her of property-rights. Death by stoning was the penalty for adultery by the wife (Deut. xxii. 22 sqq.; cf. Exek. xvi. 40, and John viii. 5,7). The suspecting husband could force his wife to submit to the ordeal of the bitter water (Num. v. 11 sqq.). The law imposing a penalty for false accusation of a wife (Deut. xxii. 13 sqq.) never became effective. However, this austerity did not prevent the prophets from complaining again and again about adultery (Jer. xxiii. 10, Hos. iv. 2; Mai. iii. 5, etc.).
Very little is known of wedding festivities among the Hebrews. The principal feature was the bringing of the bride into the home of the bridegroom. This ceremony signified the entrance of the girl into the family of the husband. On 10. Wedding the day of the wedding the bridegroom,
Customs, in wedding-ornaments (Isa. lxi. 10) and accompanied by friends (Judges xiv. 11-12; cf. Matt. ix. 15), went to the home of the bride and conducted her to the home of the groom, or to that of his parents (Jer. vii. 34; Cant. iii. 6 sqq.; Matt. xxv. 1 sqq.). The bride was likewise ornamented but veiled (Isa. xlix. 18; Jer. ii. 32, etc.) and was accompanied by her girl friends (Ps. xlv. 14). Only seldom was the bride conducted to meet the bridegroom (I Mace. ix. 37-38). The wedding-banquet took place at the home of the groom; and in families of wealth and distinction this extended over a week or two (Gen. xxix. 27; Judges xiv. 12, 17; Tobit viii. 20). ^
The lot of the widow was a sad one. She had no l hereditary rights whatever in her husband's property (similarly the Code of Hammurabi, § 172), but, in the earliest period, was a part of the estate. Even during his father's lifetime Reuben wanted to enter upon his inheritance (Gen. xxxv. 22), Absalom showed himself his father's successor by seizing David's harem (II Sam. xvi. 20 sqq.), Abner's intercourse with Saul's concubine was a trespass on the rights of Ish-bosheth (II Sam. iii. 7), and in Abishag Adonijah demanded
11. Legal a part of Solomon's inheritance (I Position of Kings ii. 22; cf. 15). In spite of the the Widow, law to the contrary, marriages with the stepmother were not unusual even to the time of Ezekiel (xxii. 10; cf. I Chron. ii. 24 in the Septuagint). The story of Ruth shows that, even if there were no children, the heir had to accept the widow along with the real estate, though not obliged to marry her. He might give her in marriage to another; or, if he chose, he might renounce the entire inheritance in favor of another heir (Ruth iv 5 sqq.). The story of Tamar illustrates the right of the heirs to the childless widow; Judah refused to marry her, but he retained his right over her and regarded her intercourse with other men as adultery (Gen. xxxviii. 24 sqq.). At the same time, the story shows that the right of the widow to
Family Farel