C. LEGAL MATTERS.
The Sadducees restricted the Levirate law to cases of betrothal (riorN) but denied its obligation when the marriage was consummated (rivon). Thus, for instance, though they regarded abetrothed woman (r1011N) as a wife, and treated her as a mar ried woman in accordance with the Mosaic legisla tion [MARRIAGE], yet, when her betrothed husband died without cohabiting with her, his surviving brother could perform the duty of Levir without committing incest, as she was still a virgin. In this respect, too, the Sadducees, as the erudite Geiger has shown, followed the ancient Levirate law, which is based upon Gen. xxxviii. 7-10, and which—inferring from the similarity of expression used in verses 7 and to that Er too had acted wickedly and not properly consummated the marriage with Tamar—enacted that the Levir is only then to perform the duty towards his deceased brother when the marriage has not been consummated (9ebamoth, 34 b ; h'ereshith Rabbet, cap. lxxxv. ; Geiger, yiialsche Zeitschrift, 30, etc., Breslau 1862). It is to be remarked that the Samaritans of old restricted the Levirate law (Deut. xxv. 5, etc.) in the same manner, and that the Talmud which records it tells us that in support of this restriction the Samaritans appealed to the expression r1V1117i, which they translated outer, and regarded as the adjective of nvi nwN, construing it with the pre ceding rorin 26, whilst they took 11 V't6 as explicative of the preceding by way of repetition, translating the whole passage ' the wife of the de ceased who is outside (i.e. the consummation of the marriage) is not to be for another man' (Yern salem Yebamoth, i. 6 ; Kirchheim, KarmeShontron, p. 36). The Karaites, who may be regarded as modern Sadducees, explain the Levirate law in the same manner. This restriction of the Levirate law on the part of the Sadducees imparts additional force to the incident recorded in the gospels (Matt. xxii. 23, etc. ; Mark xii. a8, etc. ; Luke xx. 27, etc.) Here we are told that the Sadducees, not believing in a resurrection, put the following ques tion to our Saviour :—The first of seven brothers married a wife and died childless, whereupon the second brother performed the duty of levir, and lie too died without issue ; then the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh brother successively performed the duty of levir, so that she alternately became the wife of seven husbands—now whose wife is she to be at the resurrection ? With the restricted application of the Levirate law before us, it will be seen that though this ironical question was chiefly directed against the doctrine of the resurrec tion, yet it at the same time also attacks the ortho dox Pharisaic view of the Levirate law which was undoubtedly shared by our Saviour. What the
Sadducees thereby say is, as Geiger rightly remarks, that according to their application of the Levirate law, which restricts it to the betrothed woman (r11:11N), apart from the extremely rare occurrence of death between the betrothal and connubial intercourse (rigll.:1), especially several times under similar circumstances, the relation of the woman to her last husband wbo consummated the marriage is far more intimate than to any of the other husbands to whom she was simply betrothed. Supposing, therefore, for argument's sake that there will be a resurrection, and that the woman will rise with all the seven brothers, no difficulty will be experienced according to the restricted application of this law, inasmuch as she will be the wife of the last husband who alone consummated the marriage. According to the Pharisaic practice, however, the Levirs have to marry the widow after the marriage has been consummated, so that she is the real wife of all the seven brothers ; hence the ironical question put to our Saviour, According to the Pharisaic doctrine of the Levirate law, in which you believe, the difficulty will be to decide whose wife she is to be ?' ii. The ceremony of taking off the shoe (rir,17), in case the surviving brother refuses to perform the duty of Levir towards the vvidow of his deceased brother, is explained most rigidly by the Sadducees insisting upon the letter of the law that the rejected , -widow is to spit into the man s face (1'n1, Deut. xxv. 9), whilst the Pharisees, adapting the law to the requirements of the time, regarded the spitting .before his face as satisfying the demands of the injunction [MARRIAGE], and hence explained the passage accordingly Taanith, cap. iv.) iii. The same conservatism and rigour the Sad ducees manifested in the right of retaliation, insisting upon the literal carrying out of the law, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,' etc. (Exod. xxi. 23, etc.), whilst the Pharisees, with a due regard for the interests of the people, maintained that pecuniary compensation is sufficient (Baba Kama, 53 b ; 34 a, b ; Taanith, c-ap. iv. 2).