Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

causes in the English Version of the Pentateuch, is "some uncleanness." Expositors have been greatly divided in their opinions respecting the latitude of interpretation to be given to this term. Some contend that it signified Adultery, and others, such crimes as idolatry, &c.; but the answer to this is sufficiently obvious. Moses had previously prescribed a particular punishment for those, and made Adultery capital; he would, therefore, hardly ordain a Divorce against those who were to be put to death.* Others, again, have given to the term the interpretation of barrenness, involving no moral guilt, as in the other cases. This interpretation might be supported by the consideration, that if such were the cause, it might have been intended to

There has indeed been one mode suggested in which these two enactments would appear compatible, and the law of death and the law of divorce be made to consist together. The one might be a punishment denounced to deter from the commission of the crime, by terror; the other, a permission granted, of a remedial nature, to the injured party, by which a way of mercy was open to the transgressor, and the punishment not regarded as compulsory. The law of death held the adulterous party in a snare; the law of divorce might be intended to mitigate the cruelty of the stronger to the weaker sex, who, if no way were left open but the former, might exact the penalty to its fullest extent.

repress the selection of such a partner as would only serve to gratify the base purposes of carnal indulgence, defeating the intent of marriage, the procreation of children; and it would obtain credit from the natural anxiety of many to become the parent of the promised seed. The probability is, that the word implied some bodily inaptitude, or some involuntary or ceremonial uncleanness or disease, whether natural or contracted, which rendered the woman unpleasant in the sight of the husband, and unfit for the purpose of marriage. The original terms are, my, literally, "nakedness of a thing, or a word, or matter, of nakedness or shame,"-probably, any thing unseemly or indecent. The LXX. have accordingly translated it, ασχημοσυνη πράγματος in Deuteronomy xxiii. 14; and by ao

paza in Deuteronomy xxiv. 1. Selden, in explaining the passage, renders it "rem fœdam ;' "et Judæi Hispanienses, discobertura cosa.'

[ocr errors]

In this latter, it evidently alludes to some personal infirmity, not discovered till after marriage, but such, perhaps, as a good man might bear with; and therefore, our Lord, in alluding to this text, says, Moses permitted them to put away their wives, because of the hardness of their hearts; that is, as before intimated, lest, from a want of charity, they

might ill treat them under such circumstances.

On the subject of this celebrated text, it is well known, that two great divisions of sentiment, on the critical meaning of the term my, and the moral of the precept it contains, have been found in the two schools of Hillel and Shammai. These two learned Rabbies, so frequently mentioned by Josephus, advanced very different notions on this text. The first contended, that the former part of the clause (which was to be read disjunctively) controlled the meaning of the latter, and thus opened the text to a construction, well suited, indeed, to the carnal minds of the people, to imply any, the slightest causes of dislike, as a sufficient ground of separation; dissatisfaction with her mode of preparing his meals, or the sight of any woman more pleasing to him than his wife. We can hardly conceive any thing more pregnant with mischief, than such a perversion of this term. But the more virtuous Shammai, who was for upholding the rigour and purity of the divine law, insists on its exclusive reference to unchastity, to which he confines this case of turpitude.

Ex sententia scholæ Sammaenæ uxor marito, haud erat repudianda nisi si inveniebat in eâ rem turpitudinis, secundum id quod scrip

tum est. At juxtam scholam Hillelianam etiam ob cibum ejus nimio ardore coctum, (causam quantulam cunque,) secundum id etiam quod scriptum est.* It is amusing to see the same passages of Scripture quoted by learned men to justify opposite conclusions.

66

One of the passages in the Gemara, quoted by Lightfoot, favors the interpretation of Shammai; Whosoever, said the law, had corrupted a maid, might not put her away all his days: so neither could a man dismiss his wife, unless he found some foulness, i. e. adultery in her."

Of course, the lax interpretation of Hillel found the greater number of abettors from the corrupt inclinations of men. We shall have occasion, hereafter, to notice the prevalence of these loose notions in the time of Christ, and the check they received from his authority; but we may just remark, how strikingly opposed the purity of his precepts was to the glosses of the Rabbies. R. Akibal (one of the number, a specimen of the rest) says, it was the permission of the Jewish legislator, that, if any one saw a woman, whom he was delighted withal, above his wife, he might dismiss his wife, and marry her; whereas,

Selden Uxor Hebraica. ch. xix.

the interpretation given by Christ, of the prohibition of that legislator, is, "Whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."*

We pass now to consider more particularly the manner of using this privilege of Divorce, and the cases of some of those who are said to have indulged it. Though Divorce was allowed, it was placed under maný regulations. Formerly, it was practised in secrecy, and at the pleasure of either party; but now, certain forms were to be attended to, and a degree of publicity was required.

The wife could not, in a fit of anger, be hastily dismissed, but a legal instrument was to be prepared, called the Bill of Divorcement. The verbal order, rash, peremptory, and perhaps quickly repented of, was now displaced by a written declaration, probably specifying the reasons of the act, and duly authenticated in the presence of grave and qualified witnesses. This instrument was doubtless prepared by a public notary; and we may suppose it more than probable, that it contained some provisions for the maintenance of the wife, out of the husband's substance, termed in the

* Matthew v. 28.

« ПредишнаНапред »