MARRIAGE
'four
or
even
five
wives,'
and
marrying
'as
they
wish,
or
as
many
as
they
wish.'
The
evidence
of
the
Talmud
shows
that
in
this
case
at
least
the
reproach
had
some
foundation.
Polygamy
was
not
definitely
forbidden
among
the
Jews
till
the
time
of
R.
Gfirshom
(c.
a.d.
1000)
,
and
then
at
first
only
for
France
and
Germany.
In
Spain,
Italy,
and
the
East
it
persisted
for
some
time
longer,
as
it
does
still
among
the
Jews
in
Mohammedan
countries.
3.
Bars
to
Marriage.
—
(1)
Prohibited
degrees.
—
Their
range
varies
extraordinarily
among
different
peoples,
but
on
the
whole
it
is
wider
among
unciviUzed
than
among
civiUzed
races
(Westermarok,
op.
cit.
p.
297),
often
embracing
the
whole
tribe.
The
instinctive
impulse
was
not
against
marriage
with
a
near
relative
qua
relative,
but
against
marriage
where
there
was
early
famiUarity.
'
Whatever
is
the
origin
of
bars
to
marriage,
they
are
certainly
early
associated
with
the
feeling
that
it
is
indecent
for
housemates
to
intermarry
'
(W.
R.
Smith,
op.
cit.
p.
170).
The
origin
of
the
instinct
is
natural
selection,
consanguineous
marriages
being
on
the
whole
unfavourable
to
the
species,
in
man
as
among
animals.
This,
of
course,
was
not
consciously
reaUzed;
the
instinct
took
the
form
of
a
repulsion
to
union
with
those
among
whom
one
had
lived
;
as
these
would
usually
be
blood
relations,
that
which
we
recognize
as
horror
of
incest
was
naturally
developed
(Westermarck,
p.
352).
We
find
in
OT
no
trace
of
disUke
to
marriage
within
the
tribe
(i.e.
endogamy),
though,
judging
by
Arab
analogies,
it
may
have
originally
existed;
on
the
contrary,
the
Hebrews
were
strongly
endogamous,
marrying
within
the
nation.
The
objection,
however,
to
incestuous
marriages
was
strong,
though
in
early
times
there
was
laxity
with
regard
to
intermarriage
with
relatives
on
the
father's
side,
a
natural
result
of
the
'
matriarchate
'
and
of
polygamy,
where
each
wife
with
her
family
formed
a
separate
group
in
her
own
tent.
Abram
married
his
half-sister
(Gn
20i2);
2
S
13",
Ezk
22>i
imply
the
continuance
of
the
practice.
Nahor
married
his
niece
(Gn
11^'),
and
Amram
his
paternal
aunt
(Ex
62»).
On.'
marriage
with
a
stepmother
see
below,
§
6.
Jacob
married
two
sisters
(cf.
Jg
16^).
Legislation
is
found
In
Lv
18'-"
20"
(ct.
Dt
27™-
^-
^Y,
for
details
see
the
commentaries.
We
note
the
omission
of
prohibition
of
marriage
with
a
niece,
and
with
widow
of
maternal
uncle.
Lv
18"
forbids
marriage
not
with
a
deceased
but
with
a
living
wife's
sister,
i.e.
a
special
form
of
polyg-amy.
The
'
bastard
'
of
Dt
23^
is
probably
the
offspring
of
an
incestuous
marriage.
An
heiress
was
not
allowed
to
marry
outside
her
tribe
(Nu
36»;
ct.
27^,
To
61"
7«).
For
restrictions
on
priests
see
Lv
21'-
".
There
were
no
caste
restrictions,
though
difference
in
rank
would
naturally
be
an
objection
(1
S
18i8-
^s).
Outside
the
prohibited
degrees
consanguineous
marriages
were
common
(Gn
2i*,
To
412);
in
Jg
14=
the
best
marriage
is
'from
thy
brethren.'
Jubilees
4
maintains
that
all
the
patriarchs
from
Adam
to
Noah
married
near
relatives.
Cousin
marriages
among
the
Jews
are
said
to
occur
now
three
times
more
often
than
among
other
civilized
peoples
(Westermarck,
p.
481).
(2)
Racial
bars
arose
from
reUgious
and
historical
causes.
Gn
24.
28.
34,
Nu
12',
Jg
14=
illustrate
the
objection
to
foreign
marriages;
Esau's
Hittite
wives
are
a
grief
to
his
parents
(Gn
26^
27«);
cf.
Lv
24i».
The
marriage
of
Joseph
(Gn
41«)
ig
due
to
stress
of
cir-cumstances,
but
David
(2
S
3=)
and
Solomon
(1
K
3'
11')
set
a
deliberate
example
which
was
readily
imitated
(16")-
Among
the
common
people
there
must
have
been
other
cases
similar
to
Naomi's
(Ru
V):
Bath-sheba
(2
S
H»),
Hiram
(1
K
7"),
Amasa
(1
Ch
2"),
Jehozabad
(2
Ch
24")
are
the
children
of
mixed
mar-riages.
They
are
forbidden
with
the
inhabitants
of
Canaan
(Ex
34i»,
Dt
7'),
but
tolerated
with
Moabites
and
Egyptians
(23').
Their
prevalence
was
a
trouble
to
Ezra
(9.
10)
and
to
Nehemiah
(10=«
132=).
To
412
e''.
MARRIAGE
1
Mao
1«
renew
the
protest
against
them.
In
the
Diaspora
they
were
permitted
on
condition
of
prosely-tism,
but
Jubilees
30
forbids
them
absolutely;
they
are
'fornication.'
Jewish
strictness
in
this
respect
was
notorious
(Tac.
Hist.
v.
5;
cf.
Ac
lO^s).
The
case
of
Timothy's
parents
(Ac
16'-')
is
an
example
of
the
greater
laxity
which
prevailed
in
central
Asia
Minor.
It
is
said
that
now
the
proportion
of
mixed
to
pure
marriages
among
the
Jews
is
about
1
to
500
(Wester-marck,
p.
375),
though
it
varies
greatly
in
different
countries.
1
Co
7='
probably
discourages
marriage
with
a
heathen
(cf.
v.i^ff-
gs),
but
the
general
teaching
of
the
Epp.
would
remove
any
religious
bar
to
intermarriage
between
Christians
of
different
race,
though
it
does
not
touch
the
social
or
physiological
advisabihty.
4.
Levirate
Marriage
(Lat.Zewir,
'abrother-in-law').
—
In
Dt
25'-'°
(no
||
in
other
codes
of
OT)
it
is
enacted
that
if
a
man
die
leaving
no
son
('
child
'
LXX,
Josephus,
Mt
22*'),
his
brother,
if
he
lives
on
the
same
estate,
is
to
take
his
widow,
and
the
eldest
child
is
to
succeed
to
the
name
and
inheritance
of
the
deceased
(cf.
Gn
38').
If
the
survivor
refuses,
a
formal
declaration
is
to
be
made
before
the
elders
of
the
city,
and
the
widow
is
to
express
her
contempt
by
loosing
his
sandal
and
spitting
in
his
face.
The
law
is
a
codification,
possibly
a
restriction,
of
an
existing
custom,
(a)
It
is
presupposed
for
the
patri-archal
age
in
Gn
38,
the
object
of
this
narrative
being
to
insist
on
the
duty
of
the
survivor;
(6)
Heb.
has
a
special
word
=
'
to
perform
the
duty
of
a
husband's
brother';
(c)
the
custom
is
found
with
variations
in
different
parts
of
the
world
—
India,
Tibet,
Madagascar,
etc.
In
India
it
is
confined
to
the
case
where
there
is
no
child,
and
lasts
only
till
an
heir
is
born;
sometimes
it
is
only
permissive.
In
other
cases
it
operates
without
restriction,
and
may
be
connected
with
the
form
of
polyandry
where
the
wife
is
the
common
property
of
all
the
brothers.
But
it
does
not
necessarily
imply
polyandry,
of
which
indeed
there
is
no
trace
in
OT.
Among
the
Indians,
Persians,
and
Afghans
it
is
connected
with
ancestor
worship,
the
object
being
to
ensure
that
there
shall
be
some
one
to
perform
the
sacrificial
rites;
the
supposed
indications
of
this
among
the
Hebrews
are
very
doubtful.
In
OT
it
is
more
probably
connected
with
the
desire
to
preserve
the
family
name
(a
man
Uved
through
his
children),
and
to
prevent
a
division
or
alienation
of
property.
On
the
other
hand,
the
story
of
Ru
4
seems
to
belong
to
the
circle
of
ideas
according
to
which
the
wife
is
inherited
as
part
of
a
man's
property.
Boaz
marries
Ruth
as
goel,
not
as
levir,
and
the
marriage
is
legally
only
a
subordinate
element
in
the
redemption
of
the
property.
There
is
no
stigma
attached
to
the
refusal
of
the
nearer
kinsman,
and
the
son
ranks
as
belonging
to
Boaz.
The
prohibited
degrees
in
Lv
18
(P)
make
no
exception
in
favour
of
the
Levirate
marriage,
whether
repealing
or
presupposing
it
is
uncertain.
In
later
times
we
have
the
Sadducees'
question
in
Mk
12'»||.
It
does
not
imply
the
continuance
of
the
practice.
It
had
fallen
into
disuse,
and
the
Mishna
invents
many
Umitations
to
avoid
the
necessity
of
com-pliance.
It
was
agreed
that
the
woman
must
have
no
child
(Dt.
'
son'),
and
the
school
both
of
Shammai
and
of
the
Sadducees
apparently
confined
the
law
to
the
case
of
a
betrothed,
not
a
wedded,
wife.
If
so,
the
difficulty
was
twofold,
striking
at
the
Levirate
custom
as
well
as
at
the
beUef
in
the
Resurrection
(Edersheim,
LT
ii.
400).
6.
Marriage
Customs.
—
(l)
Thearranging
of
amarriage
was
normally
in
the
hands
of
the
parents
(Gn
21^'
24'
28"
34<,
Jg
142,
2
Es
9");
there
are,
in
fact,
few
nations
or
periods
where
the
children
have
a
free
choice.
But
(a)
infant
or
child
marriages
were
unknown;
(ft)
the
consent
of
the
parties
was,
sometimes
at
least,
sought
(Gn
248);
(c)
the
rule
was
not
absolute;
it
might
be
broken
wilfully
(28*'),
or
under
stress
of
circumstances
(Ex
2^');
(d)
natural
feeling
will
always
make
itself
felt
in
spite
of
the
restrictions
of
custom;
the
sexes
met
freely,
and
romantic
attachments
were
not
un-
