the motive, and entered into, not only without offence | both the throne of David and the worship of the true to, but actually at the suggestion of those who, according to our notions, would feel most deeply injured by it, is a very different thing from what polygamy would be in our own state of society. 2. In the case of polygamy, as in that of other national customs, the Mosaic law adheres to the established usage. Hence there is not only no express statute to prohibit polygamy, which was previously held lawful, but the Mosaic law presupposes its existence and practice, bases its legislation thereupon, and thus authorizes it, as is evident from the following enactments: 1. It is ordained that a king "shall not multiply wives unto himself” (Deut. xvii, 17), which, as bishop Patrick rightly remarks, "is not a prohibition to take more wives than one, but not to have an excessive number, after the manner of Eastern kings, whom Solomon seems to have imitated;" thus, in fact, legalizing a moderate number. The Mishna (Sanhedrin, ii, 4), the Talmud (Babylon Sanhedrin, 21 a), Rashi (on Deut. xvii, 17), etc., in harmony with ancient tradition, regard eighteen wives, including half wives, as a moderate number, and as not violating the injunction contained in the expression "multiply." 2. The law enacts that a man is not to marry his wife's sister to vex her while she lives (Lev. xviii, 18), which, as the same prelate justly urges, manifestly means "that though two wives at a time, or more, were permitted in those days, no man should take two sisters (as Jacob had formerly done) begotten of the same father or born of the same mother;" or, in other words, a man is at liberty to take another wife besides the first, and during her lifetime, provided only they are not sisters. 3. The law of primogeniture (Deut. xxi, 15-17) actually presupposes the case of a man having two wives, one beloved and the other not, as it was with Jacob and his two wives, and ordains that if the one less beloved is the mother of his first-born, the husband is not to transfer the right of primogeniture to the son of his favorite wife, but is to acknowledge him as firstborn who is actually so. 4. Exod. xxi, 9, 10, permits a father who had given his son a bondwoman for a wife, to give him a second wife of freer birth, and prescribes how the first is then to be treated that she is to have alimony, clothes, and the conjugal duty; and 5. Deut. xxv, 47 expressly enjoins that a man, though having a wife already, is to marry his deceased brother's widow. Having existed before the Mosaic law, and being acknowledged and made the basis of legislation by it, polygamy continued in full force during the whole of this period. Thus, during the government of the judges, we find Gideon, the celebrated judge of Israel, "had many wives, and three score and ten sons" (Judg. viii, 30); Jair the Gileadite, also a judge of Israel, had thirty grown-up sons (Judg. x, 4) and a proportionate number of daughters. Ibzan, another judge of Israel, had thirty full-grown sons and thirty full-grown daughters (Judg. xii, 9); and Abdon, also a judge of Israel, had forty adult sons and thirty adult daughters-which was utterly impossible without polygamy; the pious Elkanah, father of Samuel the illustrious judge and prophet, had two wives (1 Sam. i, 2). During the monarchy, we find Saul, the first king of Israel, had many wives and half wives (2 Sam. iii, 7; xii, 8); David, the royal singer of Israel," their best king," as bishop Patrick remarks in his comment on Lev. xviii, 18, "who read God's law day and night, and could not but understand it, took many wives without any reproof; nay, God gave him more than he had before, by delivering his master's wives to him" (2 Sam. xii, 8); Solomon, the wise monarch, had no less than a thousand wives and half wives (1 Kings xi, 3); Rehoboam, his son and successor, had eighteen wives and three score half wives (2 Chron. xi, 21); Abijah, his son and successor to the throne of Judah, married fourteen wives (2 Chron. xiv, 21); and Joash, the tenth king, including David, who reigned from B.C. 378 to 338, had two wives given to him by the godly high-priest Jehoiada, who restored God according to the law of Moses (2 Chron. xxiv, 3 A very remarkable illustration of the prevalence of polygamy in private life is given in 1 Chron, vii, 4, where we are told that not only did the five fathers, all of them chief men of the tribe of Issachar, live in polygamy, but that their descendants, numbering 36,000 men, “had many wives." De Wette, indeed, affirms that "the Hebrew moral teachers speak decidedly for monogamy, as is evident from their always speaking of one wif, and from the high notion which they have of a good wedded wife-'A virtuous woman is the diadem of ber husband, but a bad wife is like rottenness in the bones (Prov. xii, 4); 'Whoso findeth a wife findeth happiness' (xviii, 22); ‘A house and wealth are an inheritance from parents, but a discreet wife is from the Lord (xix, 14). Prov. xxxi, 10-31 describes an industrious and managing wife in such a manner as one only could be it" (Christl. Sittenlehre, vol. iii, sec. 472). Similarly Ewald: "Wherever a prophet alludes to matrimonial matters, he always assumes faithful and sacred monogamy contracted for the whole life as the legal one” (lik Alterthümer Israels, p. 177 sq.). But we have exactly analogous passages where parental felicity is described: "A wise son is happiness to the father, but a foolish son is the grief of his mother" (Prov. x, 1; xv, 20); “A wise son heareth his father's instruction" (xiii, 1); and upon the same parity of reasoning it might be said that the theory of having only one son is assumed by the sacred moralist, because, when speaking of happiness or misery, which parents derive from their offspring, only one son is alluded to. Besides, the facts which we have enumerated cannot be set aside by arguments. 3. As nothing is said in the post-exilian portions of the Bible to discourage polygamy, this ancient practice also continued among the Jews during this period. During the second Temple, we find that Herod the Great had nine wives (Josephus, Ant. xvii, 1, 3); his two sons, Archelaus the Ethnarch, and Antipas the Tetrarch of Galilee, had each two wives (Josephus, Ast. xvii, 13, 2; xviii, 5, 1); and John the Baptist and other Jews, who censured the one for violating the Mosaic law by the marriage of his deceased brother's wife who had children (Josephus, Ant. xviii, 13, 2), and the other for marrying Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Herod-Philip (Matt. xiv, 3, 4; Mark vi, 17, 18; Luke iii, 19), raised no cry against their practicing polygamy: because, as Josephus tells us, "the Jews of those days adhered to their ancient practice to have many wives at the same time" (Josephus, Ant, xvii, 1, 2). In harmony with this ancestral custom, the post-exilian legislation enacted various statutes to regulate polygamy and protect the rights and settlement of each wife (Mishna, Jebamoth, iv, 11; Kethuboth, x, 1-6; Kiddeshin, ii, 7). As a striking illustration of the prevalence and legality of polygamy during this period may be mentioned the following circumstance which is recorded in the Talmud: Twelve widows appealed to their brother-in-law to perform the duty of Lerir, which he refused to do, because he saw no prospect how to maintain such an additional number of wives and possibly a large increase of children. The case was then brought before Jehudah the Holy, who promised that if the man would do the duty enjoined on him by the Mosaic law, he himself would maintain the family and their children, in case there should be any, every sabbatical year, when no produce was to be got from the land which was at rest. The offer was accepted by the Levir, and he accordingly married his twelve sisters-in-law; and after three years these twelve wives appeared with thirty-six children before Jehudah the Holy to claim the promised alimony, as it was then the sabbatical year, and they actually obtained it (Jerusalem Jebamoth, iv, 12). Rab ba ben-Joseph, founder and president of the college at Machuza (A.D. 338–352), taught that a man may take as many wives as he pleases, provided only that he can maintain them all (Jebamoth, 65 a). From the remark in the Mishna, that a Levir may marry his deceased brother's four widows (Jebamoth, iv, 11), the Babylonian Gemara concluded that it recommends a man to have no more than this number (Babyl. Jebamoth, 44 a); and from this most probably Mohammed's injunction is derived (Koran, iv, 3). It was Rabanu Gershom ben-Jehudah of France (born cir. 960, died 1028), who, in the 11th century, prohibited polygamy under pains of excommunication, saving in exceptional cases (Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, v, 405-507). His motive for doing so is a matter of dispute; the older Occidental rabbins say that the prohibition originated in a desire to preserve the peace of the family, while the Oriental rabbins will have it that it was dictated by the governments of Christian countries. His interdict, however, made but slow progress, even in Germany and France, for which it was chiefly designed. Thus Simon ben-Abraham of Sens, one of the most celebrated French Tossaphists, tells us (cir. 1200): "The institution of R. Gershom has made no progress either in our neighborhood or in the provinces of France. On the contrary, it happens that pious and learned men and many other people marry a second wife in the lifetime of the first" (B.-Joseph, Eben Ha-Ezar, 1). The practice of marrying a second wife in the event of the first having no issue within ten years also obtained in Italy till about the 15th century—the pope giving a special dispensation for it. The Spanish Jews never recognised R. Gershom's interdict; bigamy was practiced in Castile till the 14th century, while the Christian government of Navarre declared polygamy among the Jews legal, and the law of king Theobald allowed them to marry as many wives as they could maintain and govern, but they were not permitted to divorce any one of them without sending all away (Kayserling, Geschichte der Juden in Spanien, 1,71). Nor was the said interdict acknowledged by the о Jews in the East; and monogamy is there practiced simply because the bride makes a special agreement, and has a clause inserted in the Kethubah (1), or marriage-settlement, that her husband is not to marry another as long as she lives. An exception, however, is made in case there is no issue. the Karaites on monogamy and polygamy, the celebraAs to the opinion of ted Jehudah ben-Elia Hadassi (flourished 1149) remarks, in his famous work against rabbinic Judaism, "The Pentateuch prohibits one to marry two wives with a view to vex one of them (nn8 71733, Lev. xviii, 18); but he may take them provided he loves them and does not grieve either of them, and treats them both affectionately. If he does not diminish their food, raiment, and conjugal rights (Exod. xxi, 11), he is allowed to take two wives or more, just as Elkanah married Hannah and Peninnah, and as David, peace be upon him, and other kings and judges did” (Eshkol HaCopher, ed. Eupatoria, 1836, p. 129). From this it is evident that polygamy was not prohibited by the Jewish law, nor was it regarded as a sin, and that the monogamy of the Jews in the present day simply in obedience to the laws of the countries in which they live. There were, however, always some rabbins who discouraged polygamy (Aboth, ii, 7; Jebamoth, 65 a, al.); and the elevated notion which they had of monogamy is seen in the statutes which they enacted that the highpriest is to be the husband of one wife and to keep to her (Jebamoth, 58 a; Maimonides, Hilchoth Issure Bia, xviii, 13; Josephus, Ant. iii, 12, 2); and which the apostle Paul also urges on Christian bishops (1 Tim. iii, 2; Titus i, 16). V. Proscribed Degrees and Laws of Intermarriage.— 1. There were no prescribed degrees within which a man was forbidden to marry in the pre-Mosaic period. On C 9 Table of Degrees of Marriage prohibited by the Mosaic Law, in the ascending and descending scales. the contrary, the fact that Adam married "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh," and that his sons married their own sisters, rather engendered an aversion to marry out of one's own kindred. Hence we find that Abraham married his half-sister (Gen. xx, 12); Nahor, Abraham's brother, married the daughter of his brother Haran, or his niece (Gen. xi, 29); Jacob married two sisters at the same time, who were the daughters of his mother's brother (Gen. xxviii, 2; xxix, 26); Esau married his cousin Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael (Gen. xxviii, 8, 9); Amram married his aunt Jochebed, his father's sister (Exod. vi, 20); and Judah married his daughter-in-law, Tamar, the widow of his own son (Gen. xxxviii, 26-30). This aversion to intermarriage with strangers and other tribes, which made Abraham pledge his faithful steward by the most sacred oath not to take for his son a wife from the daughters of the Canaanites (Gen. xxiv, 2-4); which occasioned such "a grief of mind" to Isaac, because his son Esau married Hittite women (Gen. xxvi, 34, 35); and which was the cause of great dissatisfaction in the family of Moses when he married a Midianitish woman (Exod. ii, 21); was afterwards greatly increased on the ground of difference of creed. The same feeling of aversion against intermarriage (πıyaμía) with foreigners prevailed among other nations of antiquity, and may also have been the cause why marriages with the nearest of kin were practiced among them. Thus the Athenians were allowed to marry half-sisters by the father's side (Corn. Nepos, Præf.; Cimon, i; Plutarch, Cimon, iv; Themistocl. xxxii); the Spartans married half-sisters by the same mother (Philo, De spec. leg. p. 779); and the Assyrians and Egyptians full sisters (Lucian, Sacriff. 5; Diod. i, 27; Philo, De spec. leg. p. 779; Selden, De jure naturali et gentium, v, 11). In later times, when the desire to preserve purity of blood, which was the primary cause for not intermarrying with alien tribes, was superseded by religious motives, the patriarchal instances of epigamy recorded without censure during this period became very inconvenient. Hence means were adopted to explain them away. Thus the marriage of Judah with a heathen woman, the daughter of Shuah, a Canaanite (Gen. xxxviii, 2), is made orthodox by the Chaldee Paraphrase, the Midrash (Bereshith Rabba, c.lxxxv), the Talmud (Pesachim, 50 a), Rashi (ad loc.), etc., by explaining to mean , merchant, as in Job xl, 30; Prov. xxxi, 24; and the Jerusalem Targum finds it necessary to add that Judah converted her to Judaism (777). The marriage of Simeon with a Canaanitess (Gen. xlvi, 10) is explained away in a similar manner (comp. Bereshith Rabba, c. lxxx; Rashi on Gen. xlvi, 10). 2. The regulations next introduced in this respect are of a twofold nature: It will be seen from the foregoing table that, while some kindred are proscribed, others are allowed, e, g. s father's sister is forbidden while a brother's daughter is not. This has occasioned great difficulty in tracing the principle which underlies these prohibitions. Philipp‐ son is of opinion that it may be deduced from the remarks which accompany the respective vetoes. The stepmother is proscribed because "it is thy father's nakedness" (Lev. xviii, 8); the son's or daughter's daugh ter because it "is thine own nakedness" (ver. 10); the father's or mother's sister because she is the "father's or mother's flesh" (vers. 12, 13); and the brother's wife because "it is the nakedness of thy brother” (ver. 16). "From this it is evident," this erudite rabbi submits. "that, on the one side, son, daughter, and grandchild are identified with the father, while, on the other side, brothers and sisters are identified with each other, became they have one and the same source of life. Accordingly. we obtain the following data. All members proceeding from a common father or mother constitute one issue. because they possess together the same source of life; while the ascendants and the descendants in a straight line form one line, because they have one after the other and from each other the same source of life; and hence the law-1. Two members of the same issue, or two members of the same line, are not to intermarry, because they have the same source of life. But inasmuch as the ascending is the primary to each descending issue, and the descending the derived to every ascending. an ascending issue may press forward out of the straight line, or step down into the following, i, e. the primary into the one derived from it; while the succeeding cannot go backwards into the foregoing, i. e. the derived into the primary. Now, as the man is the moving cause in carnal intercourse, hence the law-2. A male member of the succeeding issue must not marry a female member of the preceding issue, while, on the contrary, a male member of the preceding may marry a female of the succeeding issue, provided they are not both of a direct line. Half-blood and step-relations make no difference in this respect, since they are identified, both in the issue and in the line, because husband and wife become identified. It is for this reason, also, that the relationship, which the wife always assumes in marriage with regard to her husband, is such as a blood relation bears to her; hence it is, for instance, that a brother's wife is proscribed, while the wife's sister is allowed. Thus the principle of the Mosaic proscriptions is a profound one, and is fully borne out by nature. Connubial intercourse has for its object to produce a third by the connection of two opposites; but that which proceeds from the same source of life is merely of the same kind. Hence, when two, originally of the same kind, unite, it is contrary to the true design of copulation, and can only proceed from an overpowering and excess of rude and animal passions. It is a desecration of the nature and morality of man, and the highest defilement" (Israelitische Bibel, i, 588 sq.; 3d. ed. Leipz. 1863). a. The most important change in the Biblical gamology is the Mosaic law about the prohibited degrees among the Israelites themselves. While in the preMosaic period no prohibition whatever existed against marrying one's nearest and dearest relatives, the Mosaic Different penalties are attached to the infringement law (Lev. xviii, 7-17; xx, 11, etc.) proscribes no less of these prohibitions. The punishment of death is to than fifteen marriages within specified degrees of both be inflicted for marrying a father's wife (Lev. xviii, 8; consanguinity and affinity. In neither consanguinity xx, 11), or a daughter-in-law (Lev. xviii, 15; xx, 12); nor affinity, however, does the law extend beyond two of death by fire for marrying a woman and her daughdegrees, viz. the mother, her daughter, aunt, father's ter at the same time (xviii, 17; xx, 14); of being cut wife, father's sister, sister on the father's side, wife of the off or excommunicated for marrying a sister on the fafather's brother, brother's wife (excepting in the case of ther's side or on the mother's side (xviii, 9; xx, 17); a Levirate marriage), daughter-in-law, granddaughter, of not being pardoned for marrying a father's or motheither from a son or daughter, a woman and her daugher's sister (xviii, 12, 13; xx, 19); of not being pardoned ter, or her granddaughter either from a son or daugh- and childlessness for marrying a father's brother's wife ter, and two sisters together. The preceding table ex-(xviii, 14; xx, 20); and of childlessness alone for marhibits these degrees. We must only remark that the squares stand for males, the circles for females, the triangles within the squares for deceased, the numbers refer to the order in which they are enumerated in Lev. xviii, 17, and that the husband and wife, who form the starting-point, are represented by a double square and double circle. rying a brother's wife (xviii, 16; xx, 21), excepting the case of a Levirate marriage (Deut. xxv, 5–10). No penalty is mentioned for marrying one's mother (xviii, 7), granddaughter (xviii, 10), or two sisters together (xviii, 18). From this enumeration it will be seen that it only specifies three instances in which capital punishment is to be inflicted. eorum, or, cujus membrum virile præcissum est, as the Mishna (Jebamoth, viii, 2) explains it, is not allowed to marry (Deut. xxiii, 1). iii. A man is not to remarry a woman whom he had divorced, and who, after marrying another husband, had become a widow, or been divorced again (Deut. xxiv, 2-4). iv. Heiresses are not allowed to intermarry with persons of another tribe (Numb. xxxvi, 5-9). v. A high-priest is forbidden to marry a widow, a divorced woman, a profane woman, or a harlot, and restricted to a pure Jewish maiden (Lev. xxi, 13, 14). vi. Ordinary priests are prohibited from marrying prostitutes and divorced women (Lev. xxi, 7). The grounds on which these prohibitions were enact- | male nethin to an Israelite; or, vice versa, if a Jewess is ed are reducible to the following three heads: (1) moral married to a bastard or nethin—the child goes after the propriety; (2) the practices of heathen nations; and (3) inferior party; where the woman cannot be betrothed social convenience. The first of these grounds comes to the man, but might legally be betrothed to another prominently forward in the expressions by which the person-e. g., i. if a man married within any one of the various offences are characterized, as well as in the gen- degrees proscribed by the law-the child is a bastard eral prohibition against approaching "the flesh of his or mumzer" (Kiddushin, iii, 12). ii. Any person who is flesh." The use of such expressions undoubtedly con-, cujus testiculi vulnerati sunt, vel certe unus tains an appeal to the horror naturalis, or that repugnance with which man instinctively shrinks from matrimonial union with one with whom he is connected by the closest ties both of blood and of family affection. On this subject we need say no more than that there is a difference in kind between the affection that binds the members of a family together, and that which lies at the bottom of the matrimonial bond, and that the amalgamation of these affections cannot take place without a serious shock to one or the other of the two; hence the desirableness of drawing a distinct line between the provinces of each, by stating definitely where the matrimonial affection may legitimately take root. The second motive to laying down these prohibitions was that the Hebrews might be preserved as a peculiar people, b. The proscription of epigamy with non-Israelites is with institutions distinct from those of the Egyptians absolute with regard to some nations, and conditional and Canaanites (Lev. xviii, 3), as well as of other hea- with regard to others. The Mosaic law absolutely forthen nations with whom they might come in contact. bids intermarriage with the seven Canaanitish nations, Marriages within the proscribed degrees prevailed in on the ground that it would lead the Israelites into idolmany civilized countries in historical times, and were atry (Exod. xxxiv, 15, 16; Deut. vii, 3, 4); and with the not unusual among the Hebrews themselves in the pre- Ammonites and Moabites, on account of national antipMosaic age. For instance, marriages with half-sisters athy (Deut. xxiii, 4-8); while the prohibition against by the same father were allowed at Athens (Plutarch, marriage with the Egyptians and Edomites only exCim. 4; Themistocl. 32), with half-sisters by the same tends to the third generation (Deut. xxiii, 7, 8). The mother at Sparta (Philo, De spec. leg. p. 779), and with Talmud, which rightly expounds the prohibition to "enfull sisters in Egypt (Diod. i, 27) and Persia, as illus-ter into the congregation of the Lord" as necessarily extrated in the well-known instances of Ptolemy Philadelphus in the former (Paus. i, 7, 1), and Cambyses in the latter country (Herod. iii, 31). It was even believed that in some nations marriages between a son and his mother were not unusual (Ovid, Met. x, 331; Eurip. Androm. 174). Among the Hebrews we have instances of marriage with a half-sister in the case of Abraham (Gen. XX, 12), with an aunt in the case of Amram (Exod. vi, 20), and with two sisters at the same time in the case of Jacob (Gen. xxix, 26). Such cases were justifiable previous to the enactments of Moses: subsequently to them we have no case in the O. T. of actual marriage within the degrees, though the language of Tamar towards her half-brother Amnon (2 Sam. xiii, 13) implies the possibility of their union with the consent of their father. The Herods committed some violent breaches of the marriage law. Herod the Great married his halfsister (Ant. xvii, 1, 3); Archelaus his brother's widow, who had children (xvii, 13, 1); Herod Antipas his brother's wife (xviii, 5, 1; Matt. xiv, 3). In the Christian Church we have an instance of marriage with a father's wife (1 Cor. v, 1), which St. Paul characterizes as "fornication" (Topvría), and visits with the severest condemnation. The third ground of the prohibitions, social convenience, comes forward solely in the case of marriage with two sisters simultaneously, the effect of which would be to "vex" or irritate the first wife, and produce domestic jars. tending to epigamy (comp. 1 Kings xi, 2; Kiddushin, iv, 3), takes the third generation to mean of those who became proselytes, i. e. the grandchildren of an Ammonite or Moabite who professes Judaism (Mishna, Jebamoth, viii, 3; Maimonides, Iad Ha-Chazaka, Issure Biah, xii, 19, 20). This view is confirmed by the fact that the Bible only mentions three intermarriages with Egyptians, and records at least two out of the three to show the evil effects of it. One occurred after the Exodus and in the wilderness, and we are told that the son of this intermarriage, while quarrelling with a brother Jew, blasphemed the name of God, and suffered capital punishment (Lev. xxiv, 10-14); the second occurred towards the end of the rulership of the judges, and tradition endeavors to show that Ishmael, the murderer of Gedaliah (Jer. xli, 1, 2), was a descendant of Jarha, the Egyptian son-in-law of Sheshan (1 Chron. ii,34,35; and Rashi, ad loc.); and the third is the intermarriage of Solomon, which, however, is excepted from the censure in the book of Kings (1 Kings iii, 1 sq.; xi, 1, 2). intermarriages with Edomites not a single instance is recorded in the O. T.; the Jewish antipathy against them was transmitted down to a very late period, as we find in the declaration of Jesus, son of Sirach, that his soul hates the inhabitants of Seir (Ecclus. iv, 25, 26), and in the fact that Judas Maccabæus carried on a deadly war with them (1 Macc. v, 3; 2 Macc. xx, 15–23). Of An exception is made in the case of female captives Besides the proscribed degrees, the Mosaic law also of war (Deut. xxi, 10-14), which is evidently designed forbids the following intermarriages: i. No Israelite is to obviate as far as possible the outrages committed afto marry the progeny of incestuous and unlawful copu- ter the evil passions have been stirred up in the conlations, or a mamzer (1, Deut. xxiii, 2). In the ab- flict. The law, however, most humanely ordains that sence of any Biblical definition of this much-disputed the captor, before making her his wife, should first alexpression, we must accept the ancient traditional ex- low her to indulge herself for a full month in mournplanation contained in the Mishna, which is as follows: ing for her parents, from whom she is snatched away, "When there is betrothal without transgression of the and to practice the following customary rites expressive law about forbidden marriages—e. g. if the daughters of of grief: 1. Cut off the hair of her head, which was the priests, Levites, or Israelites are married to priests, Le- usual sign of mourning both among the Jews and other vites, or Israelites-the child goes after the father; nations of antiquity (Ezra ix, 3; Job i, 20; Isa. xv, 2; where there is betrothal, and this law has been trans-Jer. vii, 29; xvi, 6; Ezek. vii, 18; xxvii, 31; Amos viii, gressed-e. g. if a widow is married to a high-priest, a divorced woman or one who performed the ceremony of chalitsah to an ordinary priest, or a bastardess or a fe 10; Micah i, 16); 2. Cut off her nails, which were stained to form a part of personal adornment; and, 3. Put off the raiment in which she was taken captive, since the women who followed their fathers and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their captors in case of a defeat (Ovid, Remed. Amor. 343; Rosenmüller, Das alte u. neue Morgenland, ii, 308). lives, she is secondary or forbidden to our father Jacob, x. His daughter's daughter-in-law, i. e. her son's wife only. xi. The daughter of his son's daughter only. xii. The daughter of his son's son only. xiii. The daughter of his daughter's daughter only. xiv. The daughter of his daughter's son only. xv. The daughter of his wife's The first complaint of epigamy with aliens is, strange son only. xvi. The daughter of his wife's daughter's to say, made against Moses, the lawgiver himself (Numb. daughter only. xvii. The mother of his wife's father's xii, 1). In the days of the Judges the law against in- mother only. xviii. The mother of his wife's mother's termarriage was commonly transgressed (Judges iii, 6), father only. xix. The mother of his wife's mother's and from the earlier portions of the book of Proverbs, mother only. xx. The mother of his wife's father's fawhich ring with repeated denunciations of foreign wom- ther only. Thus, of these secondary prohibitions, there en (Prov. ii, 16, 17; v, 8-11; xv, 17), as well as from the are four which are infinite: a, the mother's mother and warnings of Isaiah (ii, 6), it is evident that intermar- all upwards; b, the father's mother and all upwards: e, riages with foreign women were generally practiced in the grandfather's wife and all upwards; and, d, the son's private life in after times. Of the twenty kings of Israel son's wife and all downwards" (Hilchoth Ishuth, i, 6). who reigned from the division of the kingdom to the The principle by which the scribes were guided was to Babylonian captivity, Ahab is the only one mentioned extend the prohibition to the whole line wherever the who married a foreign wife (1 Kings xvi, 31); while of Mosaic law refers to lineal ascendants or descendants, as the nineteen kings of Judah after the division none in- well as to those who might easily be mistaken by hav termarried with aliens. Marriages between Israelitish ing a common appellation. Thus mother's mother's women and proselyted foreigners were at all times of mother's mother, ad infinitum, is forbidden, because the rare occurrence, and are noticed in the Bible as if they Mosaic law proscribes the mother, so also the wife of were of an exceptional nature, such as that of an Egyp- the grandfather, because the wife's father is forbidden tian and an Israelitish woman (Lev. xxiv, 10); of Abi- in the Mosaic law; while the mother of the father is gail and Jether, the Ishmaelite, contracted probably proscribed, because the appellation grandmother is used when Jesse's family was sojourning in Moab (1 Chron. without distinction for both the mother's and father's ii, 17); of Sheshan's daughter and an Egyptian, who was mother. From Maimonides's list, however, it will be staying in his house (1 Chron. ii, 35); and of a Naph-seen that he, like Alfasi, restricts prohibition ii to the thalite woman and a Tyrian, living in adjacent districts mother of the grandfather, and prohibitions xii-xvi, (1 Kings vii, 14). In the reverse case, viz. the mar- xx, to the son's grandchildren, great-grandmother, and riage of Israelites with foreign women, it is, of course, great-grandchildren, but does not extend it to any furhighly probable that the wives became proselytes after ther ascendants or descendants. The whole subject is their marriage, as instanced in the case of Ruth (i, 16), and extensively discussed in the Talmud (Jebamoth, 21, 22; probably in that of Solomon's Egyptian wife (Psa. xl, 10); Jerusalem Jebamoth, ii, 4), and by Maimonides (lod but this was by no means invariably the case. On the Ha-Chazaka, Hilchoth Ishuth, i, 6, etc.), to which we contrary, we find that the Canaanitish wives of Solomon must refer. It must, however, be remarked that Philo's (1 Kings xi, 4), and the Phoenician wife of Ahab (1 Kings list of proscribed degrees is much shorter. After exxvi, 31), retained their idolatrous practices, and intro-plaining why Moses prohibited marriage with one's own duced them into their adopted countries. Proselytism mother or sister, he says, "For this reason he has also does not, therefore, appear to have been a sine quâ non forbidden other matrimonial connections, inasmuch as in the case of a wife, though it was so in the case of a he ordained that a man shall not marry his grandhusband: the total silence of the law as to any such daughter (μn Ivyaṛṣıðñv, μý viðñv), nor his aunt on condition in regard to a captive, whom an Israelite the father's or mother's side, nor the wife of an uncle, might wish to marry, must be regarded as evidence of son, or brother; nor a step-daughter while in the lifethe reverse (Deut. xxi, 10-14), nor have the refinements time of her mother or after her death, because a stepof rabbinical writers on that passage succeeded in es- father takes the place of a father, and a step-daughter tablishing the necessity of proselytism. The opposition is to be looked upon as his own daughter. Neither does of Samson's parents to his marriage with a Philistine he allow the same man to marry two sisters, either at woman (Judg. xiv, 3) leads to the same conclusion. the same time or at different times, even in case one of them had been married to another and is divorced; for he did not consider it pious that one sister should succeed to the place of her unfortunate sister, whether the latter is still cohabiting with him, or is divorced and has no husband, or is married to another husband" (De special. legibus, 780). Still shorter is the list of Josephus, who says, "The law prohibits it as a heavy sin and an abomination to have carnal intercourse with one's mother, step-mother, father's or mother's sister, one's own sister, or a son's wife” (Ant. iii, 12, 1). Marriage with a wife's step-mother is allowed by the Babylonian and forbidden by the Jerusalem Talmud; the Spanish Jews follow the former, while the GermanoFrench communities adopt the latter. Intermarriages between cousins, uncle and niece, entire step-brother and step-sister, are quite legitimate. Indeed, for an uncle to marry a niece, which the English law forbids, has been considered by the Jews from time immemorial as something specially meritorious. The Talmud says that the promise given in Isaiah, "Then shalt thou call and the Lord shall answer" (lviii, 9), refers to that man especially "who loves his neighbors, befriends his relations, marries his brother's daughter, and lends money to the poor in the hour of need" (Jebamoth, 62 b, 63 a). 3. In the post-exilian period, besides the fifteen proscribed degrees enumerated in Lev. xviii, 7-17; xx, 11, etc., the Sopherim, or scribes (B.C. 322-221), prohibited marriage with other relations (Mishna, Jebamoth, ii, 4), and those prohibitions were afterwards extended still further by R. Chija ben-Abba the Babylonian (A.D. 163193), and friend of Jehudah I the Holy (Jebamoth, 22 a). The prohibited degrees of the scribes are denominated , i. e. 3, the second or subordinate in rank with respect to those forbidden in the Bible, and may be seen in the following list given by Maimonides: "i. The mother's mother, and this is infinite, for the mother's mother's mother's mother, and so upwards, are proscribed. ii. The mother of his father's mother, and no further. iii. His father's mother, and this is infinite, for even the father's mother's mother's mother, and so upwards, are proscribed. iv. The mother of his father's father only. v. The wife of his father's father, and this is infinite, for even if she were the wife of our father Jacob, she is forbidden to every one of us. vi. The wife of his mother's father only. vii. The wife of his father's brother by the mother. viii. The wife of his mother's brother, whether by the mother or by the father. ix. His son's daughter-in-law, i. e. his son's son's wife, and this is infinite, for even if she were the son's son's son's son's wife, descending to the end of the world, she is forbidden, so that, as long as the wife of one of us As to the ethical cause of the proscribed marriages, or the cases specified, including parallels by affinity, the ancient Jews, to whom the oracles of God were commit |