6. Divorce—The rather uncertain grounds on which the Mosaic law permits divorce (Deut. xxiv. 1-4) were minutely defined during this period. And though the school of Shammai re stricts the phrase, nal nnv, to unchastity, and the Sadducees too insisted that divorce is not to be tolerated except when the woman is guilty of adultery (Eshcol Ha-Copher, Alphab. xcix. ; Ben Chonanja, iv. 276), yet the Jews as a nation, as well as most Christian expositors, agree with the school of Hillcl (Mishna Gittin ix. to), that it denotes faults or deformities, as the context plainly shows it. Now, in stating the grounds on which the Jewish expositors of the law, in the time of Christ and after, regarded dissolution of marriage as justifiable, we must distinguish the cases in which the law authorities themselves took up the matter, from those in which the married parties asked for divorce.
a. Dissolution of marriage occasioned by the law authoritier took place—i. When the woman is guilty of adultery ; ii. When the woman carries on secret intercourse with a man after her husband has warned her against it (Sota, 27 ; Ycbamolh, 24) ; Where, though-betrothal had taken place, yet a matrimonial law (matrimonium injustum) is violated, either referring to the proscribed degrees or to other matters enacted by the Rabbins ; and iv. When the husband is infected with leprosy (Kethuboth, 77). b. It was granted on the demand of the married parties. Thus the husband could effect a dissolution of marriage—i. When his wife, by violating the Mosaic law, caused him, without knowing it, to be guilty of transgression (Mishna, Kethuboth, vii. 6) ; ii. If the wife violates the bounds of modesty—e.g., by going into the street with uncovered hair, flirting with young men, etc. (ibid.) ; iii. If the wife is suspected of adultery ; iv. If the woman curses her father-in-law in the pre sence of her husband (Kethuboth, 72) ; v. If the wife will not follow her husband to another place (Kethuboth, io) ; vi. If the wife refuses her husband the conjugal rights for twelve months. The wife can demand a divorce—i. If after marriage the husband contracts a loathsome disease (Mishna, Kehuboth, vii. 9, to) ; u. If he after marriage betakes himself to a disgusting business (ibid. the Gemara thereon, 75) ; iii. If he treats her cruelly (Eben Ha-Bear, ; If her husband changes his religion ; v. If the husband commits an offence which makes him flee from his country (Eben Ha-Ezar, 9); vi. If he leads a dissolute and immoral life (Eben Ha-Ezar, Gloss on Sects, t) ; vii. If he wastes his property and neglects to maintain her (Mishna, .Alauboth, vii. r) ; or, viii. If he refuses her con nubial rights (Mishna, Kethitboih, v. 6). There are other grounds on which divorce can be obtained, but for these we must refer to the Mishna Gitlin, as they are too numerous to be detailed. The bill of divorcement must be handed over, either by the husband or a messenger, to the wife or one deputed by her, with the words, This is thy divorce ; thou art henceforth divorced from me, and canst marry whomsoever thou likest' (Ilfishna Gitlin, ix.) It must, however, be remarked that divorce was greatly discouraged by the Talmudists, and it is declared that he who divorces his wife is hated of God. The altar sheds tears over him who divorces the wife and companion of his youth' (Gitlin, 90 a).
7. Levirate Law. —That this patriarchal law, which, as we have seen, was incorporated in the Mosaic gamology, continued in its full force after the Captivity, is evident from Matthew (xxii. 25-27), Mark (xii. 19-23), and Luke (xx. 28-33). From the question put to our Saviour in these passages, it will be seen that it was incumbent upon each sur viving brother in succession to perform the duty of the Levir. There were, however, cases where this duty could not be performed, about which the Mosaic law gives no directions whatever—e.g., when
the deceased brother's widow a near relation of the Levir, and came within the proscribed degrees, of which the Mishna (7ebanzoth, i. 1) gives fifteen cases ; or when the latter was a child when his brother died and left a widow without issue. There can, therefore, be no question that the administra tors of the law in time of the prophets and at the advent of our Saviour had to define and supplement Levirate law. As the space of this article does not permit us to enumerate these important definitions and enactments, we must refer to the Mishna, Tract Yebamoth, which derives its name (-11c14) from the fact that it embodies these laws. It only remains to be remarked, that the fear lest the per formance of the duty of Levir should come in col lision with the law of consanguinity, made the ancient Rabbins declare that amp the ceremony of taking off the shoe is preferable to marrying the widow, and thus virtually set aside Levirate marriages. As his ceremony, which is called Chaliza from draw out, to pug off), supersedes the ancient law, the Rab bins gave very minute orders about the manner in which it is to be performed. The ceremony is performed in the synagogue after morning prayer, in the presence of three Rabbis and two witnesses, attended by others of the congregation as auditors and spectators. The Levir and widow are called forward, and after being questioned by the principal Rabbi, and avowing his determination not to marry her, the man puts on a shoe of a peculiar form and made for this purpose, and the woman repeats, My husband's brother refuseth to raise tip unto his brother a name in Israel ; he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.' To which the Levir replies, 'I like not to take her.' Upon this decla ration the widow unties the shoe with her right hand, takes it off; throws it on the ground, and spits before him, saying in Hebrew, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house ; and his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that bath his shoe loosed :' when the persons present exclaim three times, His shoe is loosed !' This concludes the ceremony, and the Rabbi tells the widow that she is now at liberty to marry whom she pleases.
Literature—The most important ancient litera ture on all the marriage questions is contained in the third order (110) of the Mishna, five tractates of which treat respectively—I. On the Levirate law ; 2. On the marriage-instrument ; 3. On suspicion of having violated the marriage-bond ; 4. On divorce; and 5. On betrothal. To this must be added the Gemaras or Talmuds on these tractates. Maimoni des devotes six tractates of the second volume of his Sad Ha-Chazaka to Biblical and Talmudic gamo logy, giving an abridgment of the traditional en actments. Jacob b. Asher occupies the entire third volume of his Tar, called Eben Ha-Ezar, with marriage in its various ramifications, and gives a lucid epitome of the ancient code. The life and works of this author are given in the article JACOB B. ASHER of this Cyclopmdia. Of modem writers are to be mentioned Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. i. p. 450 p. i. ff. ; Saul schiitz, Das Mosaische Recht, vol. ii, p. 735 ff. ; by the same author, Archhologie der Hebraer, vol. ii. p. 173 ff. ; Ewald, Die Alterthiimer der Volkes Israel, 218 ff. ; Geiger, Wissenschaftliche Zeitsehrift, Frankfort-on-the-Maine, vol. iv. 36 ff., 345 ff. ; yiidische Zeitschrift, Breslau 1862, vol. i. p. 19 ff., 253 ff. ; Stein and Siiskind's Israelitischer Volks lehrer, vol. i. 192, iv. 282, 301, 315, V. 323, vi. 74, vii. 264, viii. 73, ix. 171 ; Frankel, Grundlinien des Mosaisch-talmuclischen Eherechts, Breslau IS6o ; Leopold Low, Ben Chananja,vols. iii.-vi.—C. D. G.