THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
marry again was recognized. Yet these old customs fell more and more into disuse. Deuteronomy (xxv 7 sqq.) even allows the brother of the deceased to decline to marry his childless sister-inlaw, a thing that was formerly a duty. Otherwise, this law is outspoken in the interest of the widow, assigning her legal rights (Deut. x. 18, xxiv. 17, xxvii. 19), and recommending her, together with the Levites and the poor, to the benevolent care of the people (Deut. xiv. 29, xvi. 11 sqq., xxiv. 19 sqq.). Not till a much later period were certain rights in the property of the deceased conceded to the widow, concerning which the rabbis promulgated detailed rules. The law determines nothing concerning a second marriage, except as to marriage with the brother-in-law.
Intimately related to the hereditary right just discussed was the institution of the levirate. In the earliest period the right to inherit the widow had already become a duty to marry her if the deceased had left no sons. If there was no brotherin-law to marry her, this became the duty of the father-in-law or of the agnate who inherited, whoever he might be; and the first son of this marriage was regarded as the son of the deceased. Since levirate marriage is found chiefly among peoples who hold to ancestor-worship (Indians, Persians, Afghans, etc.), it is probable that 12. The herein lies the explanation of this in- Levirate. stitution in Israel. It is significant that the law in regard to such a marriage was made in favor of the deceased, not of the widow, the purpose being to provide him with descendants (Gen. xxxviii. 8; cf. II Sam. xviii. 18). After this form of belief had lost its significance the levirate marriage continued, having acquired new importance after the settlement in Canaan, in view of succession to property. At this time the custom served to secure the family property. Since the first son of a levirate marriage was reckoned to the deceased, this son inherited from his putative not from his real father. Thus was accomplished what the law had often attempted: the disintegration of property and its acquirement by strangers was prevented, and the family to which it belonged was perpetuated. Deuteronomy had limited this matrimonial duty of the brother of the deceased, allowing him to decline to marry the widow, but such a course brought him into disrepute. The ancient ceremony of the shoe is given an entirely different meaning in Deuteronomy: after having been publicly rejected by her brother-in-law the widow was to go with him to the proper authorities, tear his shoe from his foot and spit in his face (Deut. xxv. 5 sqq.). Later, in default of sons, daughters were given the right to inherit, that in this way the family estate might be preserved (Num. xxvii. 4); and then the levirate became limited to cases where the deceased had left no children at all. The priest-code tried to prohibit the custom entirely, as being incestuous (Lev. xviii. 16, xx. 21); but the ancient custom proved more potent than written law (Matt. xxii. 24 sqq.). It was the heart's desire of the ancient Israelite to have numerous children. For a woman to be sterile was considered a great misfortune, even a
punishment from God (I Sam. i. 5 sqq.); for as the mother of a son the wife held a position of distinction in the family (I Sam. i. 6-7; cf. Gee xvi. 4, xxx. 1 sqq.). For the man to have no sons was even worse, since this threatened the extinction of his house. It is noteworthy that the custom of adopting a strange child, prevalent in ancient Babylon {Code of Hammurabi, §§ 185 sqq.) is not found in ancient Israel. Rather 13. Desire the slave was allowed to inherit (Gen. for xv. 3). Sons were especially de-
Children, sired because they alone perpetuated the family and the family worship, since the daughters married into other familiesand only the sons belonged to the kahal, " congregation," or body of men able to bear arms. Their precedence is shown especially by the fact that they alone could inherit (see Law, Hebrew, Civil and Criminal), in contrast to the custom in ancient Babylon (cf. Code of Hammurabi, §§ 180 sqq.). However, these views were not peculiar to the Israelites, being found also among the Arabs. The fact that a girl could be sold into matrimony and was therefore not without value, formed a sort of counterpoise to the disdain in which she was usually held. At all events, no trace is found in the Old Testament of the thorough contempt for the girl prevalent among other peoples; and, so far as can be seen now, the custom of lulling female infants, a frequent occurrence among Arabs, was never practised by the Hebrews.
The distinction between legitimacy and illegitimacy in their present significance did not exist. In so far as the father was known, all children were legitimate, whether borne by concubines or lawful wives (Gen. xxi. 10). Even Jephthah, the son of a prostitute and, in the strictest sense, illegitimate, was reared with the father's legitimate children; and if later these thrust him out it was only a case of might (Judges xi. 1 sqq.). The hereditary rights of such a son may not have been the same as that of the sons by lawful wives. There seems to have been no rigid custom regarding this, much depending upon the good-will of the father.
The Israelitish women had the reputation of bearing children with great ease (Ex. i. 15 sqq.); though even in the earliest period they employed , midwives (Gen. xxxv. 17; Ex. i. 15 sqq.). At the time of Jer. xx. 15 the father was not present at the accouchement. Job hi. 12 has been interpreted as expressing a symbolic act whereby the father acknowledged the child, similar to the custom of the Roman father of lifting the child from the floor as a token that it was to live. If this be correct, the passage is the only reminiscence of a former custom of child-murder. After the 14. Customs navel had been cut, the newly born at Birth, babe was bathed in water, then rubbed with salt and wrapped in swaddlingclothes (Ezek. xvi. 4). The peasants of to-day think that salt strengthens the child; originally it probably had religious significance. The mother nursed the children herself (Gen. xxi. 7; I Sam. 1. 22; I Kings iii. 21), and only exceptionally did she resort to nurses (Gen. xxiv. 59, xxxv. 8). This custom seems to have become more common later