by
William Barclay
So then let us turn to the actual process of marriage among the
Jews.
There are certain passages in the Old Testament which
lay down the degrees within which marriage is prohibited
(Leviticus 18:6-18; 20:11-21; Deuteronomy 27:20). The following
is the list - a mother, any wife of a father, sister or
half-sister, daughter, or son's daughter, or daughter's daughter,
the daughter of any wife of a father, paternal aunt, maternal
aunt, an uncle's wife, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, a woman
and her daughter, or her son's daughter, or her daughter's
daughter.
It is to be noted that the marriage of an uncle to his
niece is not actually forbidden, and it sometimes, though
rarely, happened. It is also to be noted that there is no
barrier to the marriage of cousins germane, and in fact a was a
relationship which was considered an excellent one for marriage.
In this case there was no fear of in breeding. Neither the Talmud
nor the Mishnah forbid in so many words marriage to
foreigners....Abraham's first-born child was the son of an
Egyptian girl (Genesis 16:5); Moses had a Midianite, and a
Cushite wife (Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1); and Ruth, the
ancestress of David, was herself a Moabite (Ruth 1:4).
We may here stop to look at another marriage custom
and obligation among the Jews. It was the institution known as
"Levirate Marriage." "Levir" is in Latin a brother-in-law; the
Hebrew word is "ysham." The regulations are to be found in
Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and in the Mishnah the tractate Yebamoth
deals with it. The rule was that, if a man died without a son his
brother must take the widow and raise up a family for dead
brother.
The first-born son of such a union was regarded as the son of the
dead man. We find the Sadducees posing the question to Jesus of
what would happen at the resurrection to a woman who had been
married to seven brothers in succession (Matthew 22:23; Mark
12:18; Luke 20:27; Ruth 4:20). In a very primitive Genesis story
(Genesis 38:9) we find a certain Onan being killed because he
avoided his duty.
There were occasions when a man refused to carry out this
obligation, and then the ceremony of "halitzah" took place. The
widow was entitled to take off one of the man's shoes and to spit
in his face and to say: "This is for the man who would not
continue his brother's line." The fact that the Sadducees asked
Jesus their test question shows that "levirate marriage" still
existed in New Testament times.
Before we look at the process of marriage in detail, we may note
the broad, essential duties of husband and of wife. The husband
has feed and clothe and properly support his wife (Exodus 21:10).
The wife had to grind the meal, to make the bread, to cook the
meals, to nurse and feed the child, to make the bed, and to work
in wool. If as her dowry she brought with her some slave girls,
she was relieved of part of the work. If she brought as many as
four slave girls, she could "sit in a chair like a lady." No
matter how many slaves she had, she had always to wash her
husband's feet and hands, and it was pointed out that idleness
was always morally dangerous (Kethuboth 5.5), so that even the
best dowered wife was advised to work.
IN JEWISH MARRIAGES THERE WERE THREE STAGES
(1) There was the Engagement.
This was made by the parents or by professional matchmakers. It
could be made even when the couple were in infancy, and was
regularly made before they had ever seen each other. It was
considered far safer to arrange a marriage in this way than to
leave it to the unaccountable dictates of the emotions. So
serious a step had to be taken with wisdom and with care and with
prudence, lest the young couple be unduly influenced by the kind
of beauty which rapidly fades, and forget the importance of
character and of family breeding.
(2) There followed the Betrothal.
This could not take place until the couple were of age. A GIRL
came of age at TWELVE years and one day, and at this stage she
could REFUSE to accept the young man. The word for betrothal is
"Kiddushin," which is really a religious word, and which means
the consecration of the bride for her husband; by this act in the
sight of God and of man she is consecrated to her husband, to be
set apart for him.
There were three ways in which betrothal could be rendered VALID
(Kiddushin 1.1).
(a) It could be carried out by a symbolic sale in which the
bridegroom handed the bride an article of value (Kiddushin
2.1-3). In later times it was usually a ring. The article was
handed to the bride in front of two witnesses with the words: "By
this ring may she be consecrated, betrothed, to me."
(b) It could be carried out by a written agreement. The
bridegroom had to give the bride her "kethubah," her document,
her "jointure." In this document the bridegroom assigned a
certain sum of money to the bride, which she was legally bound to
receive either in the case of death or divorce. The necessity to
supply this sum of money was one of the biggest controls of
divorce.
In the case of a virgin, betrothal lasted for one year, "to give
her the opportunity to collect her trousseau," and in the case of
a widow it lasted one month (Kethuboth 5.2).
During the period of betrothal a young man was exempt from
military service (Deuteronomy 20:5-7).
***Betrothal was as binding as marriage. A betrothed girl who was
unfaithful was treated in the same way as an adulterous wife
(Deuteronomy 22:23, 24).***
***Betrothal could only be ended by divorce. During that time the
couple were known and regarded as man and wife.***
***Should the man die, the girl was known as a widow, and in the
law we find that curious phrase "a virgin who is a widow."***
***This explains the relationship of Joseph and Mary as we find
in the first chapter of Matthew. In verse 18 they are betrothed;
in verse 19 Joseph is called Mary's husband, and he is said to
wish to divorce her. It all happened during the time of betrothal
in which the two were regarded as man and wife, and which could
only be ended by divorce. Betrothal was marked by a feast, and
afterward the young couple, who may hardly have seen each other
hitherto, were allowed to be alone together, in order to come to
know each other better.***
(c) The third way of betrothal was by way, of cohabitation and
intercourse, but this was considered disgraceful.
It was at this stage that what we might call the BUSINESS ASIDE
OF THE MARRIAGE WAS ARRANGED AND COMPETED.
In the very earliest times the most important thing was the
"mohar." From the fact that it was a payment connected with
marriage the "mohar" might be regarded as a dowry; but the mohar
was in fact a payment from the bridegroom to the father of the
bride. To put the matter at its simplest, in a primitive
agriculture society, when the head of the household lost a fit
and healthy and active daughter, he lost an asset; he lost, as it
were, one of his staff or establishment, and he had to be
compensated for the loss. So we read of the marriage present, the
mohar, which the intending bridegroom had to give to the father
of the bride (Genesis 34:12; 1 Samuel 18:25). If we put together
the rulings in Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28,29, we get the
information that the purchase price of a daughter was fifty
shekels, which is equal to about seven pound-fifty (of course
this is British money as Barclay was British. The amount of seven
pound-fifty back in 1973 was not very much at all in our times -
Keith Hunt). There was further the "mattan," which comprised
of certain gifts that the bridegroom gave to the bride. Sometimes
if a young man was penniless, he paid for his bride with a term
of service rendered to her father. So Jacob served seven years
and received Leah, and then served another seven years to win
Rachel whom he really loved (Genesis 29:18-20, 30).
(Actually this made not have been the case at all. He did serve
seven years and received Leah, but when her father told Jacob to
fulfil "her week." the reading of Gen 29:27 has often been mis-
read. You will notice nothing is said that Jacob served another
seven year and THEN received Rachel. Laban said, "Fulfil her
week," - the wedding week, which often lasted indeed seven day.
Laban told Jacob to fulfil her week, THEN he gave him Rachel. The
wording of verse 27 "for the service which you SHALL serve with
me yet SEVEN OTHER years." In other words Laban made a deal with
Jacob..."Fulfil the marriage week with Leah and I will give you
also Rachel on condition that you will serve me yet another seven
years." The custom of the time was met, that the first-born
should be given in marriage first and also then those after the
first-born. Remember that polygamy was allowed by god in the OT
times and was indeed practiced at times, as it was here with
Jacob. Understanding this verse this way means that Jacob did end
up to both Leah and Rachel after serving seven years, but agreed
to serve another seven years also - Keith Hunt).
Certainly in later times the dowry existed in the modern sense of
the term, in the sense of the property which a girl brought with
her on her marriage. Rebekah brought her maids with her (Genesis
24:61); so Laban gave Leah, Zilpah to be her maid - (Genesis
29:24); and so Caleb gave his daughter the upper and the lower
springs (Judges 1:15).
By the time of the Talmud the bride brought with her a dowry in
the modern sense of the term. It is laid down that the minimum
dowry that a father can give his daughter is 50 "zuz;" the zuz
was a coin which was worth about five new pence. It was
considered to be an act of "sanctified loving-kindness" to help
to provide a dowry for a bride who came from a home which was so
poor that there was no dowry for her (Shabbath 127 a).
(3) The third stage was the wedding itself.
A wedding was a great day in a Jewish community and it was
nothing less than a religious duty to attend it (Pes. 49 a). All
the relations, all the friends, and the whole village would come.
Autumn was the best time of all to get married, for then the
grain and the grape harvests were gathered in, and there was time
for relaxation and rejoicing. Virgins were generally married on
Thursdays and widows on Fridays (Kethuboth I.I).
There was no particularly RELIGIOUS aspect of the events. ***In
New Testament times there was nothing remotely like a religious
service.*** It was rather a time of rejoicing and feasting. In
the evening the bride was brought from her father's house
splendidly dressed and even crowned. She was brought in
procession carried in a litter, with songs and music,
and with the friend of the bridegroom (John 3:29) - we would call
him the best man - organizing the procession. When they reached
the bridegroom's house, the bride was blessed by the parents and
by all the guests (Genesis 24:60; Ruth 4:11; Tobit 9:46). ***This
was the only really religious part of the ceremony.*** The bride
taken to her room with her bridesmaids. The rest of the guests
with the bridegroom spent the early part of the evening in games
and dancing. Then followed the wedding supper, at which the
presents and the gifts were given. The bride was brought in
veiled and then the bridegroom withdrew veil, as he only had the
right to do.
Seeds were thrown down and pomegranates crushed to ensure
fertility. Up to this time the men and the women guests
had been part. Now they joined for further festivity. Late in the
evening the bride and the bridegroom departed. But there was no
honeymoon; rather they stayed at home and for a WEEK (this is the
seven days mentioned by Laban to Jacob in Gen.29 - Keith Hunt),
they were treated like a king and queen in joyous festivities.
Then finally they settled down to the routine of life and to the
making of a home and the rearing of a family.
Of the height of the Jewish ideal of marriage there is no doubt;
but the tragedy was that the real fell so far short of the
ideal.
Three things it was said, a Jew will never commit - murder,
idolatry, and adultery......
Certainly the ideal was there but the time was to come when the
tenure of marriage was so insecure that it was difficult to
persuade Jewish girls to marry at all.
For certain things divorce was not a matter of choice; it was
compulsory. Divorce was compulsory for adultery; a woman who had
committed adultery had to be divorced, whether her husband wished
it or not (Kethubim 3.5). Divorce was compulsory for ten years of
sterility. If a Jewish wife did not bear a child within ten
years, she had to be divorced. She might marry again under the
same conditions. If she had a miscarriage, the ten years were
reckoned from the date of the miscarriage (Yebamoth 6.6). It was
considered to be nothing than a duty divorce a bad wife. "A bad
wife is like leprosy to her husband. What is the remedy? Let him
divorce her." "If one has a bad wife, it is a religious duty to
divorce her" (Yebamoth 63 b). There was one strangely merciful
law. Insanity was never a ground for divorce. If the husband was
insane, there could be no divorce, for he could not execute the
deed. And if the wife was insane, it was forbidden to divorce
her, because then she would have no protector (Yebamoth 14.1).
How then in view of the high ideal did divorce become so
tragically common?
Two factors were influential in downward path.
First, in Judaism a woman had no legal rights, and, therefore,
she could not ever initiate divorce proceedings. "A woman," says
the Law, "may be divorced without her consent, but a man can be
divorced only with his consent" (Yebamoth 14.1). In fact, all
that a woman could do was to appeal to the court to put pressure
on her husband to divorce her. "The court," says the Law, "may
bring strong pressure to bear upon the husband, until he says, I
am willing to divorce my wife" (Arachin 5.6). The grounds on
which such pressure could be exerted were very few. It could be
exerted for refusal to consummate the marriage (Kethuboth 13.5);
for impotence (Nedarim 11.12); for inability or unwillingness to
support the wife (Kethuboth 77 a); if the husband took a vow not
to have intercourse for one week according to Hillel, or two
weeks according to Shammai (Kethuboth 5.6). Pressure could be
exerted if the husband developed a loathsome disease, such as
leprosy, or if he engaged upon a loathsome occupation, such as
that of a tanner, or a gatherer of dog's dung, used in copper
smelting (Kethuboth 7.9,10). Desertion in itself was not a ground
for divorce; death had to be proved, but only one witness,
instead of the usual two, was required (Yebamoth 88 a). Apostasy
and migration from Palestine were also grounds on which a woman
could appeal to be divorced (Kethuboth 110 a; Yebamoth 88 a)
So then in the first place it is to be remembered that the wife
had no rights of divorce. All that she could do was to appeal
to be divorced, an even that on limited grounds.
Second, the ease of the Process of divorce was an encouragement
to divorce. The regulation governing the conditions of divorce
is given in full in Deuteronomy 24:1-4: "When a man takes a wife
and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because
he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of
divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house,
and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes
another man's wife, and the latter husband dislikes her and
writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends
her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her
to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may
not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled;
for that is an abomination before the Lord."
In effect, there was no legal process at all. All that was
necessary was a bill of divorce, correctly drawn up and
handed to the woman in the presence of two witnesses which was
final. And a correctly drawn up bill of divorce read as simply as
follows: "Let this be from me your writ of divorce and letter of
dismissal and deed of liberation, that you may marry any man you
wish" (Gittin 9.3).
This was the only legal step which had to be taken.
Clearly, the important point is the nature of the grounds of
divorce. The round is, "if the husband has found some indecency
in her" (A.V.,"some matter of uncleanness") Everything will hinge
on how that phrase is to be interpreted, and there was the widest
range of interpretation.
Shammai said it meant infidelity and nothing else. Hillel
said that it could mean as little as that a wife had spoiled her
husband's meal. Akiba said that a man might divorce his wife if
he had found someone whom he thought fairer (Gittin 9.10). On
Shammai's interpretation the door of divorce was closely guarded;
on Hillel's the way was broad; and on Akiba's there were no
limits at all to the grounds of divorce. Human nature being what
it is, it is easy to see which view would prevail. There was one
thing which did in fact effectively limit divorce, and that was
the purely financial side of the matter. In the case of divorce
the price that the man had paid for the bride was lost. Any dowry
had to be returned. We have already seen how at the arranging of
the marriage the kethubah, the settlement on the wife in the
event of death or divorce had to be paid; and many a man had to
remain married, because he had spent the dowry and was quite
unable to discharge the settlement.
In the event of a divorce there was nothing for a woman to do
except to go back to her father's house, if he was still alive,
or to eke out the wretched existence of a widow. In only one
thing did the law favor the woman. Unless she was divorced for
adultery, she kept the children. She kept the sons until they
were six years of age, and the daughters until they were married.
At one other condition of the law we must still look, for it
shows perhaps better than anything else the triviality of the
grounds of divorce, and how precarious marriage could be for a
woman. As we have said, normally the man had to pay the kethubah,
if he divorced his wife. But there were certain cases in which he
was exempted from this duty, which is the same as saying that
there were certain things which rendered the wife a guilty party.
The list of things in the case of which the law laid it down that
the husband did not need to pay the kethubah reads as follows:
these do not get the kethubah - a woman who transgresses
Jewish law, a woman who goes about in public with uncovered
head, spinning in the streets, talking with all sorts of
men; a woman who speaks disrespectfully of her husband's
parents in his presence, a scolding woman, who is defined as
a woman whose voice can be heard in the next house
(Kethuboth 7.6).
It is easy to see how trivial the grounds of divorce were. Of
course, in Palestine there were happy marriages, and husbands and
wives who were faithful and loving. But in the time of Jesus
marriage in Palestine had very nearly broken down and the
treatment of women was shameful indeed. It is never to be
forgotten that it was against that background that Jesus made his
demands for chastity.....
.............
William Barclay does go on to relate how marriages and women were
in the Greek, Roman, and Hellenistic world. Though very
interesting, that must be for another time and another study.
Entered on Keith Hunt's Website August 2003
|
