IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

.^' 4:

1.0

I.I

1.25

fiia

\« 112

12.2

1.8

1-4 IIIIII.6

'^A

■<^.

-(W <■>■'

^l.

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, NY. 14580

(716) 872-4503

S^JP

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

1980

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques 3t bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

[~7| Covers damaged/

D
D

a
n

Couverture endommagde

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul6e

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

I I Coloured maps/

Cartes gdographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas 6t6 film6es.

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.

□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur

a Pages damaged/
Pages endommagdes

□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es

I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/

Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu6es

Pages detached/
Pages d^tachdes

^ Showthrough/
Transparence

I I Quality of print varies/

Quality in^gale de I'impression

Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplementaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fagon &
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

Additional comment's:/
Commentaires suppl^Tientaires:

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

National Library of Canada

L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grSce A la
g6n6rosit6 de:

Bibliothdque nationale du Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettet^ de l'exemplaire film6, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinto
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — »- (meaning "CON-
TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de chaque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbole V signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre
filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir
de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la m^thode.

STA^ •

( lah-sliah el Achotttah).

( ^\

A WIFE TO HER SISTER:

BEING A

TREATISE IN WHICH THE QUESTION, SO LONG AND

WARMLY DISCUSSED, WHETHER MARRIAGE WITH

A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER IS PROHIBITED, .

UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW, IS, IN A CLEAR

AND PRECISE MANNER, PLACED BEFORE

THE ENGLISH READER.

"• JACOB M. HIRSCHFELDER,

LECtUBRR in oriental IJTERATURB, university college, TORONTO.

it •* And thou shalt not take a wife to her sister to cause jealousy or enmity.,

her life tome."— JiEV. xviii. 18.

TORONTO ;
ROWSELL & HUTCHISON.

1878.

.f i''''

(lah-shah el Achothah),

A WIFE TO HER SISTER :

BEING A

TREATISE IN WHICH THE QUESTION, SO LONG AND

WARMLY DISCUSSED, WHETHER MARRIAGE WITH

A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER IS PROHIBITED,

UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW, IS, IN A CLEAR

AND PRECISE MANNER, PLACED BEFORE

THE ENGLISH READER.

JACOB M. HIRSCHFELDER,

LECTURER IN ORIENTAL I.ITERATURB, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, TORONTO.

"And thou Shalt not take a wife io her sister to causj jealousy or enmity., ..in

her life rt'ww."— Lev. xviii. 18.

TORONTO :
ROWSELL & HUTCHISON.

1878.

/',.

4 '.. :.'

■i"'-'

Entered according to Act of Parliament of Canada, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, by Jacob Mair Hirschfelder, in the
office of the Minister of Agriculture.

Vi-j

rroRONTo: eowszlii and Hutchison, printers, kino street.

'« ■■■

'^Z¥

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

** And thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to cause jealousy or
^enmity in her life time." — Lev. xviii. 18.

It may safely be asserted that few Biblical subjects
\^\, have called forth such warm and lengthy discussions

as the question relating to the legality of contracting
marriage with a deceased wife's sister. It has been
discussed by learned and astute commentators of all
nationalities : it has formed the subject of debate in
legislative halls, and yet apparently there exists as
much doubt and diversity of opinion on this vexed
question, as if the subject had never been alluded to.
In England, especially, the question has for some
years past attracted a great deal of attention, and
has, year after year, been warmly debated in the halls
of the Imperial Parliament, but so far with no further
result than the repeated passing of a bill by the House
of Commons legalizing such marriages, only to be as
often rejected by the House of Lords.

The existence of so great a diversity of opinions
seems clearly to indicate that the subject must be
surrounded with very great difficulties, and seeing
that already so much has been said and written upon
^1 this question, it would be presumption in me to hope
of being able either to advance any arguments which
may not already have been advanced, or to be able
to change by any reasoning already deeply-rooted

4 A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

opinions. Yet, whilst I may fail in these respects, I am
still not altogether without hope of being at least able
of laying the subject before the reader in such a clear
and concise manner as will enable him after carefully
reading the arguments that can be adduced on both
sides, to form more readily and intelligibly an opinion
of his own.

I may state here, that I approach the subject alto-
gether with an unbiassed mind. I know of no relation,
remote or near, who has married or is likely to marry
a wife's sister ; and, therefore, no consideration of this
kind could likely induce me to lean more favourably
to one side than the other in the discussion of the
subject.

If we appeal to the earlier history of the Jews, we
find at least one instance recorded of such a marriage
having taken place. The patriarch Jacob not only
married two sisters, but had them simultaneously as
wives. It is true, that Jacob did not at first contem-
plate this double marriage, but only after having
been deceived by Laban, who fraudulently substituted
the elder sister Leah for the younger sister, that he
agreed to serve another seven years in order to obtain
Rachel, whom he loved. Still, we cannot for a moment
suppose that, however deeply Jacob might have felt
the fraud practised upon him, he would ever have con-
sented to marry the sister also, had such an alliance
been deemed sinful in his eyes. Indeed, it is quite
evident, from other recorded marriages, that before
the Mosaic laws were promulgated, the laws of affinity
and consanguinity were not strictly observed, if
observed at all. According to Gen. xx. 12, Sarah, the
wife of Abraham, was his half-sister. "And yet
indeed," says the patriarch Abraham, ^^ she is my
sister ; she is the daughter of my father, but not the
daughter of my mother ; and she became my wife."
Josephus, in his Afttiquiiies, b. i. ch. vi. par. 5, tells u

A WIFE TO HER SISTER. 5

that Sarah was the daughter of Haran, Abraham's
brother, and this opini6n was likewise adopted by
later Jewish writers, who urge that Sarah was adopted
by Terah after her father's death, so that she was only
his adopted daughter. But the language employed
by Abraham himself, is too precise to admit of such a
hypothesis. To this we may add, that Haran is
distinctly spoken of. Gen. xi. 29, as " the father of
Milcah, and the father of Iscah," but nowhere as the
father of Sarah ; and the supposition that Sarah is
identical with Iscah, as some writers have supposed, is
simply mere conjecture. Again, according to Exod.
vi. 20, Amram, the father of Aaron and Moses, took
Jochebed, his father's sister, to wife." It is, therefore,
apparent that whatever natural disinclinations may
have existed among the ancient Hebrews in contract-
ing marriages with such near relatives, they were at
least not looked upon as sinful, or the sacred writer in
recording them, would certainly not have passed them
over without uttering one word of censure against them.
As no matrimonial laws then existed, and as the
Hebrews at that time were a nomadic people, wandering
about from place to place with their flocks in search
of pasture, and, therefore, were necessarily cut up in
small communities, we can easily understand how
marriages such as those above mentioned should have
taken place, especially when we take into considera-
tion the great disinclination that existed of contracting
alliances with other tribes (See Gen. xxiv. 3, 4 ; xxvi.
34> 35 > xxvii. 46). In course of time, however, when
the Hebrew people assumed a nationality of a more
marked character, though not yet possessed of a
country of their own, the Almighty, not merely as
their God, but also as their King and Ruler, gave his
chosen people, by his servant Moses, both religious
and civil laws, by which their duties to God, and
their duties regulating their intercourse with their

6 ■ A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

neighbours, were distinctly and definitely defined. Of
these, the laws regulating the degrees of relationship
with which marriages are prohibited, form a prominent
part : and are recorded in Lev. xviii. 6-i8, xx. II-21 ;
Deut xxvii. 20, 22, 23. These matrimonial laws were,
however, entirely based upon the fundamental princi-
ple already annunciated at the creation of Eve, namely,
that the husband and wife should be " one flesh ;" and,
therefore, it is of the utmost importance in discussing
any question relating to affinity, that this fundamental
principle shall on no account be lost sight of, other-
wise it would not easily be seen, what relationship
there existed, for instance, between a man and his
uncle's wife, his brother's wife, or his wife's sister,
coming as they do altogether from a different family,
or, as the case may be, even from a different race.
The relationships in the above cases arc, therefore, no
blood-relationships, but merely contracted by mar-
riage ; but as the uncle's wife, according to the funda-
mental principle, becomes one with the uncle, hence
she stands in the same relationship to the nephew as
does the uncle ; and so, according to the same principle,
the brother's wife becomes the sister of the brother, and
the wife's sister becomes the sister of the husband.

Having made these preliminary remarks, we may
now proceed to enquire what is recorded in the
Mosaic law regarding the marriage with a deceased
wife's sister.

On turning to Lev. xviii. 18, we find the following
prohibition : — " And thou shalt not take a wife to her
sister, to cause jealousy (or enmity), to uncover her
nakedness, beside her, n'''^nill ibechay-yehd), in; her life
timer Now nothing can be clearer than that accord-
ing to the plain wording of the text, a man is only
prohibited from marrying the sister of his wife so long
as the latter is still alive. There is not the slightest
allusion that he may not do so after her death. On

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

the contrary, from the use of the expression " in her
life time,'' it may safely be assumed that the text
rather intends to convey that such a marriage may
then be consummated. To place any other construc-
tion upon the text would render the use of the word
''ri^'Tl^'* ibechay-yeha), "in her life time!' altogether
meaningless.

But it will now be asked, if the sacred text is so
plain, wherein then lies the difficulty with which the
subject is said to be beset } The reply to this ques-
tion is furnished by verse i6, where we read, "Thou
shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife ;
it is thy brother's nakedness." This prohibition is
repeated again, ch. xx. 21, with the addition of the
punishment for violating this law, that " they shall be
childless." It is proper to remark here, that the
expression "they shall be childless," has by many
commentators been explained merely to mean that
the children born of such a marriage should find no
place in the public registers, so that in a civil point of .
view they would in reality be childless. This view is
adopted by Sir J. D. Michaelis, in his " Commentary
on the Laws of Moses." He remarks : " They shall be
childless. This does not mean that God would miracu-
lously prevent the procreation of children from such a
marriage ; for God nowhere promises any continual
miracle of this nature ; but only that the children pro-
ceeding from it should not be put to their account in
the public registers, so that in a civil sense they would j

be childless." (Vol. ii. p. 1 14, Eng. Edit. London.)

So, in somewhat a similar manner, Fred. Gardiner,
D. D., in his Commentary on Leviticus* : — " In the

* Dr. Gardiner is Professor of Literature and Interpretation of the
O. T. in the Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn., and his
Commentary on Leviticus forms part of Lange's great Commentary
on the Bible. J. P. Lange, D.D., is Professor of Theology in tiie
University of Bonn, and Chief Editor of the Cemmentary bearing
his name.

!^ .

•

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

punishments described in ch. xx., against the sins here
prohibited, it will be found that a distinction is made
in the degrees of guilt. One, the larger class is to be
capitally punished (in one case even the bodies of
both parties are to be burned), while in the other class
the penalty is simply that 'they shall be -childless.'
It cannot be supposed that a perpetual miracle was to
be maintained through all the ages of Israel's history,
but the meaning evidently is, that the children of such
marriages should be reckoned not to their actual
father, but to the former husband of the woman. In
the strong feeling of the Israelites in regard to pos-
terity, this penalty seems to have been sufficient."

In this manner, has the phrase " they shall die
childless" been explained by many modern writers.
The Rabbinical interpreters, on the contrary, explain
the phrase, either that they shall remain childless, or
if they have children, that they will prematurely die.
And this view is also adopted by many of our modern
commentators. Dr. Kalisch, for example, says : " It
is evidently meant as a heavenly and supernatural
retribution ; and the term childlessness is to be taken
literally, implying that such an union will not be
blessed with offspring." (Com. on Lev. p. 450.) Keil
and Delitzsch merely explain, that " God would
reserve the punishment to Himself" (Com. vol. ii.,
p. 428.)

We do not generally lay so much stress upon the
opinions of commentators — especially as orthodoxy is
not always the order in our days — but rather place our
chief reliance upon the usage of words in Scripture.
If a word in a certain passage presents any difficulty
as to its proper meaning, we generally endeavour to
trace the force of it by comparing other passages in
which it occurs, thus making Scripture as it were its
own interpreter. In the present case, we fear, how-
ever, we cannot obtain much assistance from that

■' I

A WIFE TO HER SISTER. 9

source. The word tD"^*!*^*!!? (Artrtm), childless, occurs
only /our times in the Old Testament, namely, Lev.
XX. 21, 22, in reference to one taking his uncle's wife,
** they shall die childless"; and in reference to one
taking his brother's wife, "they shall be childless."
But these are precisely the two passages in which the
meaning of "childless" is not quite clear, and about
which, as we have seen, different opinions exist. We
have, therefore, only two other passages to fall back
upon. In Gen. xv. 2, Abram says, ** Lord God, what
wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless." In this
passage, the meaning is perfectly clear, as the context
plainly indicates, for in verse 3, Abram says, " Behold
to me hast thou given no seed." But in the remain-
ing passage, viz., Jer. xxii. 30, the term "childless"
is applied to Coniah, who evidently had children, —
"Write ye this man childless, a man ^/tat shall not
prosper in his days ; for no man of his seed shall
prosper, sitting upon the throne of David." And in
verse 28, it is distinctly stated, " Wherefore are they
cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land
which they know not ? " In modern history, too, we
have, for example, the marriage of Henry the VIII.
with his brother's widow, Catharine of Arragon, a
marriage which, although unfortunate, was certainly
not childless. On the whole, however, it appears to
me that the expressions " they shall die childless,"
" they shall be childless," point to a supernatural
retribution, that God would visit such alliances with
punishment Himself In the Septuagint version, the
Hebrew word ''T'l^? {Ariri) is rendered always by
dT€Kvo<i, t.e.f childless, or bereaved of children. I have
dwelt upon this point at some length, since from the
severity of the punishment we may generally infer
the degree of guilt, and as it likewise brings the
importance of the prohibition more prominently
before us. > . . . ;• * '

lO A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

Now, as it is clearly forbidden for a man to
marry the widow of his brother, wh}^ then should a
woman be permitted to marry the widower of a
deceased sister ? The degree of relationship in both
cases are precisely the same. It is true, that, accord-
ing to Deut. XXV. 5-10, the marriage with a brother's
widow is under certain circumstances not only clearly
and emphatically commanded, but the refusal to obey
this injunction was even to be visited with a lasting
disgrace.* And there have not been wanting writers
who have charged the Hebrew lawgiver with incon-
sistency in solemnly enjoining here what he elsewhere
has strictly forbidden. But these writers have evi-
dently overlooked two important points, namely, in
the first place, that these are Divine laws, and that
Moses was only the mouthpiece ; and secondly, the
necessity that may have existed of guarding against
evils, the pernicious results of which we are perhaps
at this distance of time unable to fathom. The
granting of an exception in a special case does by no
means imply inconsistency, but rather presupposes the
existence of circumstances which render a deviation
from a general law imperative. Kalisch need not,
therefore, have come to the rash conclusion that " the
prohibition and the custom cannot have existed simul-
taneously, they must belong to different periods," and
that the levitical author must have lived in the post-
Babylonian period."!"

* The custom of marrying the brother's childless widow has been
adopted from the Mosaic law by other Eastern nations, who still
practise it. Olearius, speaking of the Circassians, says, "When a
man dies without issue, his brother is obliged to marry the widow."
(Ambassador's Tx'avels in Persia, p. 417.) Volney also remarks, that
the Druses retain to a certain degree, the custom of the Hebrews
which directed a man to marry his brother's widow (Voyage en Syrie,
Tom ii. p. 74).

+ Commentary on Leviticus, p, 362.

:i'»

A WIFE TO HER SISTER. • 1 1

From Gen. xxviii., 6-11, it appears there existed
already in the days of the patriarchs the custom that
if a man died without children it was the duty of the
next brother to marry the widow of his deceased
brother. This ancient custom was afterwards en-
graf'^ed into the Mosaic code ; but as there had already
been laid down a law forbidding such a union, the
sacred writer assigns the reason why this exception is
made, namely : " And it shall be, that the first born
which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his
brother which is dead, that his name be not wiped out
of Israel." Deut. xxv., 6. It is quite plain that the
provision was made to guard against the extinction of
Hebrew households.* Why this should have been so
carefully guarded against, as I have already stated,
we may probably not understand now in all its bear-
ings. Still, there can be no doubt, that to a great
extent it was intended to protect and preserve the
agrarian rights of Hebrew families. To preserve as
much as possible the equilibration of the portions of
landed property as originally allotted when they took
possession of the Holy Land.

To this may be added another and even higher
motive why this natural desire, inherent in man for
the immortality of name, should have existed with the
ancient Hebrews to such a very high degree. The
promise of the Messiah, the seed of women, who was
to bruise the serpent's head, was well calculated to
inspire them with an earnest longing for the per-
petuating of their families, and may have been the
chief cause which led to the promulgating of this
provision in order to guard as much as possible
against the entire extinction of Hebrew families.

We can, however, easily imagine of many cases
arising in which such a marriage would be distasteful

. ' * Compare Ruth iv.

12 A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

to the brother, and hence the law does not actually
compel him, but provides rather an easy mode by
which he may free himself from the obligation by
merely publicly declaring before the assembled elders
that he was not disposed to marry his brother's widow.
Such an easy mode of escaping from an unwelcome
obligation would have tended to render the injunction
to a great extent nugatory had not provision been
made to brand the man as a traitor to his brother's
family for allowing personal consideration to outweigh
a solemn duty he owed to a deceased brother. As
the ceremony was public, and the disgrace which it
entailed was to last as long as the person lived, it
would, no doubt, have the effect of deterring many
from shirking the duty on mere trivial grounds. The
mode of conducting the ceremony is laid down with
such great precision as altogether to preclude the
possibility of any undue harshness being exercised,
whilst, on the other hand, the importance of the
preservation of family name is in the most impressive
manner brought before those witnessing the ceremony.
We may remark, that the loosing of the shoe, which
formed the chief part of the ceremony on such an
occasion, had, no doubt, its inception from the custom
of any one taking possession of landed property by
going to it, and standing upon it in his shoes, and
so asserting his right to it. In this way it became
the custom of renouncing any claim to property to
take off the shoe, and handing it to him who was to
become the owner of it. * This custom prevailed also
among the ancient Germans. By the taking off of
the shoe is therefore symbolized, that the brother, by
refusing to marry the widow, has likewise forfeited
every claim to his brother's property, which might now
go to the next nearest relative, upon whom devolved

* Compare Ruth iv. 7.

> ■

A WIFE TO HER SISTER. ^^

the duty, according to the existing custom, to marry
the widow.* The widow was also to spit out before
him, which, among the Orientals, was an expression of
extreme detestation or contempt ; and is even now so
among the Arabians of the present day, and that not
only among the common people, but also among the
better classes. It may not be out of place to remark
here too, that whilst the rendering in the English
version " and spit in his face " is certainly quite admis-
sible, yet it is by no means necessary, as " and spit out
before him " would afford just as correct a rendering,
as every Hebrew scholar will admit. Indeed the
Hebrew word I'^iSIn {Bephmiav), "in his face," is
over and over again rendered in our version by
"befon him." This arises from the idiom that in
Hebrew in his presence, or before him^ can only be ex-
pressed by " in his face^

But all this merely shews, that under certain circum-
stances it was regarded in those days of such great
importance for a man to marry his childless brother's
• widow that an exception to the general rule forbidding
such a marriage was deemed very desirable, but still
\ leaves the main problem unsolved, why a woman

.should be allowed to mrrry her deceased sister's
husband, whilst a man is strictly forbidden to marry
, his deceased brother's wife.

That this difficult subject should have awakened
a good deal of discussion might well be imagined,
and that from the nature of the question various
theories should have been advanced and different
conclusions arrived at is no more than might naturally
be expected. It is, therefore, but reasonable if we
would avoid forming a one-sided opinion, that all
- . that can be said either for or against should be
carefully considered.

* Compare Gen. xxxviii. Ruth iv.

14 A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

It is highly satisfactory to see, that notwithstanding
so much having been said and written on the subject,
the discussions have generally been carried en in a
very kindly spirit. It would appear as 'f all writers
were duly impressed with the difficulty with which
the subject is surrounded, and have accordingly
shewn due regard to the conscientious opinions of-
those hol^ling different views. K .'eping, then, this
praiseworthy example always before us, we will pro-
ceed to examine carefully, and as briefly as circum-
stances will admit of, the various arguments that have
been advanced on both sides of the question.

In the first place, it has been suggested by Dr.
Kalisch, in his " Commentary on Leviticus," p. 364,
published only a few years ago, that the word " n*""*)!^
{bechayyeha)^ in her life time,'' may not originally have
existed in the text, ^ut might be an interpolation of
later times. This is altogether a new hypothesis, not
having before been hinted at, as far as we are aware,
by any previous interpreter. But the leaving out of
the word in question would still not materially alter
the sense of the verse, and would then read : " Neither
shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to cause jealousy
or enmity, to uncover her nakedness beside her," for
the words " *|"l!lb {litzror), to cause enmity, Ji"^b^
(aieha), beside her," would still imply that the sister
was yet living, for, if dead^ the marriage of her sister
with her husband could not possibly be said "to cause
enmity," nor could it be said to be "beside her."
There remains therefore no other alternative but to
expunge these two words also. To this Dr. Kalisch
apparently has no objection, for he says, "so that the
command would read thus : Thou shalt not take a
wife to her sister, to uncover her nakedness." The
omitting of the three words would certainly convert it
into a distinct prohibition, and thus remove at once
the existing difficulty. But the expunging of three

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

l'\

words out of ten is, to say the least, applying the
pruning knife with a vengeance, and what makes it
still worse, the words do not even occur consecutively
in the verse. This interpolation hypothesis has, how-
ever, so very little in its favour, and so much against
it, that we cannot wonder that it has never before been
even thought of. The very fact; that all ancient and
modern versions agree in their rendering with the
original Hebrew clearly proves the genuineness of the
words.

The ancient versions, we may safely assume, were
made from the most carefully executed and authen-
ticated manuscripts that could .be procured. We
may further also lake it for granted that in doubtful
passages the translators would consult different manu-
scripts and adopt the reading which had the greatest
preponderance of evidence in its favour. These
versions, therefore, have been always justly appealed
to when necessary in establishing the authenticity of
the sacred text, and we can in the present case do no
better than to follow the established practice likewise.
The Greek version, generally called the Septuagint,
is no doubt the oldest version. It is now generally
supposed that it was begun in the time of the early
Ptolomies, about 280 or 285 B. C, and that the trans-
lation of the Pentateuch alone was first made, whilst
the translation of the other books followed at uncertain
intervals afterwards. Aristobulus, who wrote in the
second century before the Christian era, says, " that
the Pentateuch was translated very early." This
version was very highly esteemed both by the Egyptian
and Palestine Tews, who seemed to have read it in
their Synagogues. Philo Judaeus carried his rega/d
for this version so far as to believe it to have been
inspired. Now on referring to this version it will be
found that it perfectly agrees with the present Hebrew
text.

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

The next, both in point of antiquity as well as in
importance, come the Tars^ms. The term Tat gum
is a Chaldec word and signifies simply a translation or
version. The name was, however, in course of time
restricted in its use so as to apply only to the Chaldee
version or Paraphrases of the Old Testament.

The necessity of a Chaldee version soon made itself
felt after the Babylonian captivity. The Jews had,
during their long intercourse with the Babylonians, to
a great extent, if not in many cases altogether, forgotten
their own language. It was, however, imperative that
the law and other portions of Scripture should be
read in their Synagogues in the original Hebrew, as it
is even to the present day. It became, therefore,
necessary, in order that all might understand what
was read, to have it immediately translated into
Chaldee. These translations, although at first made
orally, were, in course of time, committed to writing,
and thus they have come down to us. These trans-
lations, according to the best supported opinions, were
made either a little before or about the Christian era»
The translation of the Pentateuch is ascribed to
Onkelos, who is said to have been a pupil of the
celebrated Hillel, whilst the translation of the other
books of the Old Testament is ascribed to Jonathan
ben Uzziel, who, according to some authorities, was a
disciple of Gamaliel, the teacher of St. Paul.

From the foregoing remarks the reader may now
form some idea of the importance of the Chaldee ver- '
sion in Biblical criticism, and especially in assisting us
to set at rest any doubt that may arise as to the cor-
rectness or authenticity of the Hebrew text since this
version bears the stamp of authority of the ancient
Jewish Church. If we now appeal to this version, as
evidence of the correctness and authenticity of the
sacred text in the passage under consideration, we
find that it also agrees, word for word, as jt is now
found in the Hebrew Bible.

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

A few centuries later the Syriac version, which, from
its close adherence to the original Hebrew, is called
"the Pshito," i. e., the literal, likewise affords its
testimony to the authenticity of the Hebrew text, as
the rendering in this version also agrees, word for
word, with!^the original. This version was in common
use among the Christians throughout Syria, and hence
Ephraim, the celebrated Syrian divine and writer, who
flourished in the fourth century of the Christian era,
speaks of it as ** our version." • .-»

Still a few centuries later, about the beginning of the
sixth century, we have a most overwhelming testimony
furnished, in the revision of the Biblical text under-
taken by a celebrated body of Jewish scholars from
the principal seats of learning in Palestine. It was
found that during the many centuries in which the
Hebrew Scriptures had to be multiplied by manuscript,
a great many errors had gradually crept into the
sacred text. These errors may have originated either
from the paleness of the ink in the manuscripts from
which the transcriptions were made, or from the
carelessness of transcribers. In order to free the text
from such errors, the scholars, above referred to, col-
lected the best manuscripts extant, and by a careful
collation were thus enabled to detect any faulty
reading. Still so great was the veneration in which
they held the sacred text that they would not take
upon themselves the responsibility of making any
alteration ; they, therefore, suffered such erroneously
written words, no matter how faulty or how evident
the error, to remain in the text, and placed the emend-
ation in the margin, merely placing a little circle or
asterisk above the word in the text in order to draw
the reader's attention to the existing mistake, and to
direct him to look at the bottom of the page. These
emendations are very numerous, and are now found in
the margin of all Hebrew Bibles. Among these
3

l8 A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

marginal notes are noted also a great many various
readings which were found in the different manuscripts.
Thus, for example, in Isa. liii., 4, a marginal note
indicates that in another manuscript the pronoun jj^in .
{h c?), hCy occurred, but which is not at present found -
in the text in any edition of the Hebrew Bible.* It
is worthy of notice that in the five books of Moses
the marginal notes are not nearly so numerous as in
some of the other books, \vhich would indicate that
greater care was exercised in transcribing them,
probably owing to the fact that the reading of these
books formed an important part in the Divine service
of the Hebrews.

The very great importance of these marginal notes
is universally admitted, since without them the text
would in many cases be very obscure, and hence the
authors of these notes in appreciation of their labours
obtained the appellation Masorites, ^''^O'l^ (Moscrim)^
i. e.y handers doivn, as having thus handed down o
posterity the correct reading of the text.

Now, as we find no marginal emendations noticed
in Lev. xviii. 18 (indeed there is only one in the whole
chapter, and that one merely in regard to an accent),
we can come to no other reasonable conclusion than
that all manuscripts, which were examined in the
revision, agreed with the reading of the present text.

Here, then, we have the implicit testimony of all
ancient versions, and of the best ancient manuscripts,
clearly establishing the authenticity of the present text
in the passage under consideration ; and yet, in the
face of this overwhelming evidence, what arguments

* For the information of those who may not be familiar with the
contractions occurring in the marginal notes, I may state, that the
various readings of manuscripts are accompanied with the letters

JS^j 5' which are the initials of the words }j^5*in{5^» &^riD5» (woscAa,
acharena)f i. e., another copy or manuscript.

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

does Dr. Kalisch bring forward to establish his
interpolation theory ? Let us hear : — " We appeal,"
he remarks, " to every one familiar with the Hebrew
idiom, whether the term Mn her life time,* n^inU*
which chiefly causes the difficulty, does not read like
an addition hardly standing in its right place. In the
Koran, the coresponding command is simply, *you
are also forbidden to take to wife two sisters.' "
(Com. on Lev. p. 364.)

To these objections of Dr. Kalisch, we answer, if
the word " n"'^n!ll, in her life time," did exclusively
relate to the first clause of the verse, its position at
the end of the verse would certainly be somewhat
isolated- -though there are other examples where the
words do not exactly follow in their logical order* —
but here it refers evidently to all the different consti-
tuent parts of the verse, namely, " Thou shalt not take
a wife to her sister tu her life time, to cause enmity i7i
her life time, to uncover her nakedness, beside her, in
her life time" and therefore the word unquestionably
stands in its right place. We have precisely a similar
construction in Gen. vii. 13: "In the self same day
entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japhath, the
sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of
his sons, with them, into the ark." Here the words
"into the ark" are rightly placed at the end of the
verse, since they do not only refer to Noah, but to all
that are mentioned in the verse who came with him.

As regards the corresponding command in the
Koran, where the words, "in her life time!' do not
occur, we may merely say, that the laws laid down in
chapter iv. are by no means a literal transcript of the

* Compare (in the Hebrew Bible) Gen. xli. 57 : "And all the
countries came into Egypt to buy corn unto Joseph," instead of
" into Egypt to Joseph to buy corn," as given in the Eng. vers.
Compare also Lev. xviii. 5 ; Isa. xxxix. 6.

20 A WIFE TO HER SISTER,

Mosaic laws, and from the fact that the marriage with
a deceased brother's wife is not mentioned at all
among the prohibited decrees there given, would indi-
cate that the command, "you are forbidden to take to
wife two sisters," simply means whilst both are alive.
We shall here'after, however, have occasion to refer
to more reliable authorities than the Koran to shew
how the verse under consideration was interpreted. .

Enough, I think, has now been said to convince the
reader that there docs not exist the slightest founda-
tion upon which this interpolation theory could be
based. Indeed, Dr. Kalisch himself seems not to have
been very deeply impressed with the soundness of his
theory, for he says : " It need not be remarked that
this suggestion is no more than conjecture ; but if the
received reading is considered authentic, unity of
principal and harmony of detail are destroyed in the
Levitical lists of forbidden degrees" (p. 364).

It is, of course, quite legitimate for a critic to leave
the beaten path, and strike out a new theory for him-
self, but in doing so it is unqestionably of the highest
importance that it should be placed before the ordi-
nary reader in such a manner as to enable him to
form an intelligent opinion regarding its soundness.
This we regret Dr. Kalisch has not done in suggesting
his interpolation theory, and it is not at all unlikely
that many of his readers — who are not capable of
judging of its soundness for themselves, or who will
not go to the trouble of investigating it — may be
influenced to adopt it, coming as it does from a
Hebrew scholar and commentator of well known
ability. The emendation proposed by Dr. Kalisch
changes the command into a positive prohibition,
whereas, according to the plain text, the prohibition is
limited to the sister's lifetime. In England, where the
subject has attracted so much attention, both inland
out of Parliament, and where so many families are

( '

A WIFE TO ITER SISTER. 21

affected by the existing law, a question of so much
importance ought not to have been dealt with in such
a summary manner.

But, apart from this consideration, this interpolation
theory involves a practice which cannot be too strongly
resisted. Where one might well ask, would be the
end, if every critic were allowed to tamper with the
sacred text in order to gratify some whim of his own?
There would be an end to all sound criticism ; for the
Hebrew language is certainly not so inflexible as not
to be capable to be made to say anything.

For our part, we have no hesitation in saying that if
the E.iglish law prohibiting marriage v/ith a deceased
wife's sister has no more solid foundation to rest upon
than the interpolation theory, the sooner it is expunged
from the statute book the better.

The second theory which we shall now proceed to
consider is, that which holds that our verse under
consideration does not relate to a marriage with a
deceased wife's sister at all, but that it contains a law
prohibiting polyga ny. The origin of this theory may
probably be traced back to the year 1575, when Iman.
Tremellius, and Franc. Junius, in their I.atin translation
of the Bible from the Hebrew, rendered our verse:
"Thou shalt not take one wife to another," which
rendering is also given in the margin of the authorized
English version. This rendering has also been adopted
by many commentators, but who, notwithstanding,
maintain a marriage with a deceased wife's sister was
unlawful, such a marriage being already forbidden
by the prohibition of marriage with a deceased
brother's widow.

Now, in order to form an adequate idea of the
soundness or unsoundness of this theory, it is necessary
to examine it from two different standpoints, and
enquire, first, does the Hebrew text philologically
admit of its adoption ? and secondly, if so, would it

22 A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

also harmonize with other portions of Scripture bear-
ing upon this point ? As regards the first question, it
is necessary for the information of those who may not
be familiar with Hebrew idioms to state, that the
English phrase one to another, if referring to masculine

objects, may be expressed byl"pn5s^ bjJ^ 12?''&^ i}^J^ ^^ -\

achiv), literally a man to his brother. So, for example, ^

Gen. xxxvii., 19, " And they said a man to his

brother," i. e., one to another, " Behold, this dreamer

Cometh." So again. Exodus xvi. i5) "And when the

children of Israel saw it, they said, a man to his

brother," (Eng. vers.: **one to another.") And so

very frequently in other places. Hence, by the same

idiom, when ihe phrase refers to feminine objects, it is

sometimes expressed by nriri5J< D!^ ntlJi^ {Ish-shah el

achothah), i. e., a wife to her sister, as for example

Exodus xxvi. 3, " The five curtains shall be coupled

together one to another," Hebrew, " a woman to her

sister " ; " and otJier five curtains shall be coupled one

to another," Hebrew again, " a woman to her sister."

So Ezek. i., 9, "Their wings z£^^;'^ joined one to another."

Hebrew, " a woman to her sister." Compare also

Exod. xxvi. 5, 17, Ezek. iii. 13. Many commentators

have therefore assumed that the Hebrew words might,

in our verse, be likewise rendered, 07ie zvifc to another.

On examining, however, the various passages where

this idiom occurs, it will be found that in all cases it

is only used in a reciprocal or distributive sense, and

hence, it is always preceded by a plural noun with a

plural verb, or by a plural verb alone referring to some

previously mentioned subjects, as may be seen in the

above quoted passages. Such is not the case in Lev.

xviii., 8, where the words " ish-shah el achotJiah " are

neither accompanied by a plural noun nor a plural verb,

but by the singular verb " nptl Jj^b {lo thikkach), thou

shalt not take," referring to no precise person, and

hence no mutual action is there indicated, as in

A WIFE TO HER SISTER. 25

the above cited passages. Besides, it would be quite
against the spirit of the Hebrew idiom to translate
the first noun, literally a wife^ and the second noun
{ackothah), figuratively another. We have here no
alternative, but must either translate both nouns liter-
ally or both figuratively, and as the rendering one to
another would make no sense, we have no choice but
to adopt the rendering of the text given in our author-
ized version, which rendering has also been adopted
by all ancient versions.

But objectionable as the marginal rendering is 'n a
philological point of view, it will be found even r :)re
so when we come to examine its bearing upon other
portions of Scripture, since the verse would then afford
a distinct law against polygamy, whilst we have, on
the contrary, undeniable proofs that no such law could
have existed among the ordinances of the Pentateuch,
although we have certainly reasons to believe that the
prevailing feeling among the Hebrews seems to have
been in favour of monogamy. We can never for one
moment suppose that Moses would be guilty of such
an inconsistency as instituting in one place a positive
prohibition against the plurality of wives, and imme-
diately afterwards laying down such a law, that in
case "a man have two wives, one beloved and one
hated ; and they have born children," he was on no
account to confer the privilege appertaining to the
first born upon a son of the favourite wife, if by rights
it belonged to a son of the hated one. (Deut. xxi.
15-17.) So in Deut. xvii. 17, where Moses lays down
rules for the guidance of Kings, he does not say that
a King may not have more than one wife, but that he
was not to " multiply wives to himself," which is
immediately followed by the injunction, " neither shall
he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." Nay
more, according to 2 Sam. xii. 8, God Himself men-
tions as one of the favours vouchsafed to David that

24 A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

he gave him, besides those he already had, his mas-
ter's wives unto his bosom. (Compare also i Sam.
XXV. 40-43.) The pious Elkana, too, the father of
Samuel, had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. (i,
Sam. i. 2.) Solomon had "seven hundred wives."
(i Kings xi. 3.) Gideon had " many wives." And
so we might adduce other examples from the Old
Testament. From the Talmud any number of pas-
sages might be quoted to show that polygamy was
not considered among the Jews as prohibited under
the Mosaic law. In the xxiv//^ Treatise, called Ketu-
both, which contains laws re-^ailating dowries, marriage
contracts, &c., in ch. x., rules are laid down in case a
man liaving two, three, or four wives. Here is one of
of the rules : " Of him ^vho had married four wives
and dies, the first wife has priority {i. e., to receive her
dower) before the second, the second before the third,
and the third before the fourth."

In July, 1806, there assembled in Paris, in accord-
ance with an Imperial decree, one hundred and ten
Jewish deputies from France and Italy. The object
of the Congress was, to reply to a number of questions
that would be submitted to them by Imperial Com-
missioners in regard to some doctrines of the Jewish
Church. On Tuesday the 29th, the Imperial Com-
missioners appeared before the Assembly, and sub-
mitted twelve questions, the first of which was as
follows: *^ Are the Jezvs allowed to marry several
wives V To which the following reply was given :
" The Jews, in accordance zuith the common ctistom pre-
vailing in Europe, can only have one wife. This has
become, since the Synod held at Worms in the year
lojo, under the presidency of R. Goschon, an established
law, although Moses did not prohibit polygamy!' We
must, however, here repeat, that although the Jews
held that polygamy was not prohibited under the
Mosaic law, it is nevertheless certain that the general
feeling has been always against the practice.

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

As another objection against the adoption of the
marginal reading we may urge, that Moses, in the
chapter, speaks of affinity and consanguinity, and it is
therefore reasonable to conclude that he speaks in our
verse of one sister to another, and not of one woinmi to
another. The rendering of the text in our authorized
version, " a wife to her sister," stands then so far yet
unshaken.

But nothing tends to sharpen the mind so much
as difficulties, for the greater these are, the more
active is the mind to find a way to overcome them.
This natural propensity of overcoming obstacles is
more or less inherent in every person, and exhibits
itself in every walk of life, in the pursuit of science as
well as in other occupations. Difficult questions
naturally call forth a variety of opinions, and the more
abstuse the point the greater the scope for the exercise
of ingenuity. Hence, one can hardly be astonished
at the strange theories sometime met "with in the
endeavour to solve some knotty questions.

The Old Testament, from its antiquity, its idiomatic
and peculiar expressions, its figurative language, its
reference to ancient customs and practices, and not
least, from its language being now a dead language,
offers a large and fertile field to commentators and
critics for the display of their acumen and the exercise
of their ingenuity. That these qualities have not
been allowed to lie dormant, will be found sufficiently
evident on reference to different critical commentaries
on the Bible. It is to one of such ingenious renderings
that I now wish to draw the reader's attention. Dr.
Pusey, whose name is no doubt familiar to most of
the readers, has ender^^oured to surmount the diffi-
culty by rendering ou rse : " Thou shalt not take
a woman besides her sx^^^x as long as she (the former)
lives," by which we- are to understand that a man
should never marry a second sister. But we may well

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

ask why the sacred writer should couch such a simple
•command in such ambiguous and uncommon language,
which certainly would not have been understood by
the generality of the people, if, indeed, even by the
learned. That it has never been so understood by
those to whom the Hebrew was ajliving language, or by
those who made the Hebrew a life-long study, is evi-
dent from the ancient versions, and that not one, either
of the ancient or modern Rabbinical writers, have
ever adopted it. Indeed, we may safely assert, that
had there not existed such a law prohibiting marriage
with a deceased wife's sister, Dr. Pusey himself would
never have thought of adopting such a strange render-
ing. But then, according to the laws of England,
such a marriage is forbidden, whilst, according to the
plain wording of Scripture, it is only prohibited during
the sister's lifetime ; we ought, therefore, not to wonder
that writers should strain a point to bring the Hebrew
text into harmony with the existing law of the
country, and, as all other means failed, this rendering
was no doubt resorted to as a last resource.

This free rendering of x\^'^T\^^{pccJiayyehci),\yY "as
long as she lives," instead of " in her life time!' was no
doubt suggested by the poetical use of the word in a
few instances in the Psalms where such a free rendering
is admissible, as it in no wise alters the sense in those
passages. Thus, for example, David says : " Thus I
will bless thee, ^iipli {bccJiayay), in my life," i. e., "all
the days of my life," or, as the English version has it,
" while I live," (Ps. Ixiii., 5, Eng. vers. v. 4). So again,
"I will sing to the Lord, '^'^riin {bechayay)^ in my life,"
Eng. vers. : "as long as I live," (Ps. civ., 33) ; similar
also, (Ps. cxlvi., 2). But in all these cases "'^im
{bechayay), in my life," is only poetically used for
the sake of brevity instead of the fuller expression
" '^^X\ ^y:^ b3 {kolyemei chayay), i. e., all the days of my
life," and the reason is quite obvious. If the reader

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

will refer to the Hebrew Bible, he will find that in the
passages just quoted in each case the verse contains
two clauses of three words each, thus, by the use of
the sententious expression, the regular form of the
construction of the lines is preserved, whilst by using
the fuller expression the first clause would then have
two words more than its parallel clause. Hence,
in longer verses where the difference in the length of
the clause is not so perceptible the full expression is
always employed. Thus, for example, (Ps. xxiii., 6),
" Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the
days of my life ; and I will dwell in the house of the
Lord for ever." (Compare also Ps. xxvii., 4). In such a
purely prose composition as we have in Lev. xviii. such
a poetic expression would be altogether out of place.

Besides, if the sacred writer merely wished to con-
vey the com^mand that a man may not marry his
deceased wife's sister, why employ such ambiguous
and circumlocutory language ? By omitting the words
*' to cause enmity," and "beside the other in her life
time," the command would at once have been intel-
ligible and emphatic, " Neither sJialt thou take a zvrfe
to her sister^ Or it might have been given in the
same manner as in verse 17, where it is forbidden to
marry a woman and her daughter, " Thou sJialt not
uncover the nakedness of a wife arid her sister.
Expressed in this manner, there would be no longer
any doubt as to its meaning.

We can come, therefore, to no other conclusion than
in as much as the words, "to cause enmity" (or
jealousy) and " beside iier, in her lifetime," were used
by the sacred writer, he intends to convey to us the
permission, that after the death of one sister, when
the marriage with another sister can no longer " cause
■enmity," such a union is permissible.

Then we must also not omit to notice that the
Hebrew word 'llisb {Htzror) rendered in the English

28 A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

version " to vex her'' — the reader will observe that the
pronoun ''her'' is in italics, and therefor not in the
original — primarily means to pack, to bimdle together,
and is here evidently used in reference to packing or
bundling together in matrimonial union, so as to cause
jealousy or enmity;* and it is worthy of notice, that
the synonymous Arabic verb zarra denotes both to be
jealous and to take a second ivife. In i Sam. i. 6, we
have also the synonymous word Ji^^ {tsarah) dis-
tinctly employed in reference to a rival wife, and in the
Mishna the term t\Td {tsaroth), lit. troubles or adver-
sities, is always used to designate the wives of one man.

We think enough has now been said to show, that
so far as the plain reading of the text is concerned,
marriage with a deceased wiff.'s sister is not forbidden
under the Mosaic law.

As to the question why a marriage with a deceased
wife's sister should be allowed, whilst according to
verse i6 and ch. xx. 21, it was prohibited to take a
brother's widow, is quite another matter, and it is very
probable that at this distant period of time we may
not be in a position to explain altogether in a satis-
factory manner this apparent incongruity. It is, how-
ever, quite possible that among the ancient Hebrews
for various cogent reasons the relationship between a
man and his brother's zvidow was considered much
closer than that between a man and his wife's sister,
since the wife becomes actually incorporated into the
husband's family, she takes her husband's name. "We
will eat our bread, and wear our own apparel, only let
us be called by thy name," (Is. iv. i), but the husband
never becomes incorporated into the family of his
wife. The widow, too, became the ward of the sur-
viving brother, and if she had no children the brother
was obliged to marry her. This opened a wide field
to intrigue and avariciousness, if the brother happened
to be an unprincipled, or scheming person ; who can

A WIFE TO HER SISTER. 29

tell v/hat such a man might not do in order to gain
possession of his brother's property, which would cer-
tainly fall into his hands with the marriage of the
widow. There mav also be some force in the suorefes-
tion of Sir J. D. Michaelis. This well known writer
remarks : " Before this time, brothers w^ere probably
in the practice of considering a brother's wife as part
of the inheritance, and of appropriating her to them-
selves, if unable to buy a wife, as the Mongols do, so
that this was a very necessary prohibition. For a
successor prcesnniptivus in i/ioro, whom a wife can
regard as her future husband, is rather a dangerous
neighbour for her present one's honour ; and if she
happen to conceive any predilection for the younger
brother, her husband, particularly in a southern climate,
will hardly be secure from the risk of poison."*

There may have existed other reasons at the time
when these laws were given which rendered the pro-
hibition necessary, but which we cannot now discover ;
— and we do not by any means vv^ish to underrate in the
least the difficulty that some interpretors experience
in reconciling this apparent incongruity in the Mosaic
law — still whatever difficulty may exist on this parti-
cular point, there is not the slightest doubt that the
marriage with a deceased wife's sister was by the
ancient Hebrews not only held as allowable, but was
even encouraged by them.

Now, we think, it will generally be conceded that
since such a practice existed among the Jewish
people, it is very strong evidence that it could not
have been prohibited by the Mosaic law. We must
not forget that those lav.s were first given to that
nation, that they had to be regularly read in their
public services, and as the people at that time did not
possess those facilities which we now have of studying

*" Michaelis on the Laws of Moses," vol. ii, p. 30, Eng. ed.

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

the Scriptures privately, it was the duty of the Levites
to instruct the people in them, and we may rest assured
that such important laws as those appertaining to
marriages with near relatives were most prominently
brought before the people by their teachers. The
customs among the Egyptians, among whom the
Israelites had so long sojourned, and with whose
practices they may easily have become imbued, were
so exceedingly loose in these respects that they did
not even hesitate to contract marriages with their own
sisters, a practice which was by no means confined
only to the common people, since we have instances
on record of even their Kings having contracted such
incestuous alliances ; as for example, Ptolemy Phila-
delphus with his sister Arsinoe, and Ptolemy Ener-
getus with Berenice. The surrounding idolatrous
nations with whom the Israelites might constantly
come into contact after their having taken possession
of the promised land, were no less conspicuous for
their incestuous intercourse than the Egyptians. The
awful depravity of the Canaanites is frequently spoken
of in Scripture, and the record of the awful fate of
Sodom and Gomorrah stands as an everlasting memo-
rial of the fearful wickedness of that people. Among
the enlightened Persians the marriages called quaet-
vodat/ia, embracing even those with mothers and
daughters, were considered as most pleasing to the
Gods.

No -wonder, then, that the Mosaic matrimonial laws
were introduced with the solemn exhortation, " Speak
unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I ant
the Lord your God. After the doings of the land of
Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, ye shall not do ; and after
the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I will bring
you, shall ye not do ; neither shall ye walk in their
ordinances." (Verses 2, 3.) Considering then that
these laws were not only given for the purpose of

■^'

-<rr

A WIFE TO HER SISTER. 3 1

eradicating any incestuous practices that the people
may have adopted during their stay in Egypt, but
that they were likewise to serve for their future guid-
ance after having entered the promised land, we
cannot for one moment doubt that the Israelites were
carefully instructed in all the laws appertaining to-
forbidden degrees.

Now, what do we find to have been the practice
among the ancient Jews, as far back as we are able to
trace it, in regard to marriage with a deceased wife's
sister .? We have already stated that the Septuagint
version, executed several centuries before the Christian
era, and the Targum of Onkelos, or Chaldee para-
phrase, made about the Christian era, have both
rendered the eighteenth verse in such a manner as
leaves no doubt that such a union was allowed. These
translations were made by learned Jews not only
thoroughly familiar with Hebrew, but no doubt also
thoroughly familiar with the laws and practices of their
nation. Had there existed any difficulty as to the
proper meaning of the original, they would doubtless
in this instance, as they indeed have frequently done
in other places, have rather given a free rendering, such
as would have removed all doubt as to its meaning,
than adhered so closely to the original text. Their not
having done so must be accepted as a proof that the
Hebrew text appeared perfectly clear to them, and
that it admitted of but one interpretation.

Philo Judceus, — sometimes called the Jewish Plato,
or Pythagoras, — who flourished in the first century of
the Christian era, and who is the oldest writer on the
laws of Moses whose writings have come down to us,
remarks : " Again, He docs not permit the same man
to marry two sisters, neither at the same time nor at
different periods, even if he have put away the one
whom he previously married, for while she is living,
whether she be living with him, or whether she be put

32 A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

away, or if she be living as a widow, or if she be
married to another man, still he did not consider it
holy for her sister to enter upon the portion of her
who had been unfortunate, by this injunction teaching
sisters not to violate the requirements of justice towards
their relations, nor to make a stepping stone of the
disasters of one so united to themselves by blood, nor
to quiesce in or to pride themselves in receiving atten-
tion from those who have shewn themselves enemies
to their relations, or to reciprocate any kind offices
received from them." Then he goes on to say : " For
from such things as these arise bitter jealousies and
quariels, and enmities which scarcely permit of recon-
ciliation."* Thus it will be seen that Philo, himself a
Jew, and living at a time when those laws must have
been well understood, interprets this prohibition as
appl^'ing only to the sister's life time, since it would
endanger the love and harmony that ought ever to
exist between sisters, and as it would surely tend to
give rise to bitter jealousies and the most implacable
enmities.

Before we proceed to give quotations from the .
Mishna, it will be necessary to offer a few brief
explanatory remarks upon that work, since the
ordinary reader can hardly be supposed to be familiar
either with the scope of the work or with the high
position it occupies in the Jewish Church.

The term ^5tb^2 {Mishna) denotes second law, and
was so named in distinction to the first or written law
in the Pentateuch. The Mishna, according to the
popular belief of the Hebrews, contains the oral
instructions which Moses Is said to have received on
Mount Sinai, and which he commanded to be taught
to the people by their religious teachers. They are
thus said to have been handed down orally from

* Philo Judseus, vol. iii. pp. 9, 10.

A WIFE TO HER SISTER. S3

Moses to Joshua, from Joshua to the elders, A-om the
elders to the prophets, until they were finally com-
mitted to writing about the middle of the second
century by Rabbi Judah, surnamed " the Holy."
According to the general received opinion of at least
the greatest portion of the Jewish people, the Mishna
contains God's explanation of the Written Law and
is held by them of equal sanctity, but having been
handed down orally, it is hence called the Oral 'Law.
The explanations or precepts contained in the Mishna
enter into the minutest detail how the various com-
mandments in the Pentateuch are to be observed.
Thus, for example, with respect to the proper obser-
vance of the Sabbath day, the Mishna contains a
treatise of no less than tv/enty-four chapters, in which
are enumerated thirty different kinds of principal
occupations, and subdividing itself in innumerable
minor works which are forbidden to be performed on
that day.

Now in a similar manner in the treatise Yebamoth,
which treats on the obligations of a brother marrying
the childless widov/ of a deceased brother, and of the
ceremony connected with it, and on other matrimonial
laws in general, a vast number of regulations are laid
down explanatory of the Mosaic laws recorded in
Lev. xviii. xx. and Deut. xxv., and among them in
chapter x. § 4 of that treatise the following rules are
laid down, which are no doubt intended to be explana-
tory of Lev. xviii. 18. " If a man, whose wife is gone
to a country beyond the sea, is informed that his wife
is dead, and he marries her sister, and after that his
wife comes -back, she may return to him. * * After
the death of the first wife he may, hovv-ever, marry
again the second wife." And again, " If, on being told
of the death of his wife, he had married her sister, but
being afterwards informed that she had been alive at
the time [he had married the sister], but is now dead,

34 A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

then any child born before the death of the first wife
is illegitimate, but not those born after her death."
(See Babylonian Taltnitd, Treatise Yebamoth, torn v.,
p. 94, Amsterdam Ed.) In this treatise there occur
even several passages where such marriages are
encouraged, as, for example, chapter iv., § 13, p. 49.
So also the celebrated and voluminous writer, Rabbi
Maimonides, held the same views.

The Caraites, however, who reject altogether the
Oral Law and the Talmudic traditions, and are there-
fore regarded as heretics by the other Jews, do not
allow such marriages in their community. They argue
that if the law forbids one degree of consanguinity, that
which is equal or nearer ought to be forbidden also.
There exists a great diversity of opinion as to the
antiquity of this sect. According to their own writers
they belong to the ten tribes that were led captives by
Shalmaneser, but as neither Philo nor Josephus make
mention of this sect, some writers infer from it that
they could not then have existed in their times, and
place their origin in the fourth or fifth century. Some
of the Rabbies maintain that they sprung from the
Sadducces. If this be true, they evidently must be a
reformed sect, since the Caraites believe fully in the
immortality of the soul. There are still some members
of this sect existing in Poland, Russia, Constantinople,
Cairo, and other places in the Levant.

But with the exception of this sect, the Jewish
people as a. whole held marriage with a deceased wife's
sister not only permissible, but in some cases desirable.
Upon this point all Jewish commentators and critics
are perfectly agreed. Even the celebrated Maimonides
and his followers, who denied the Divine origin of the
Oral Law, and held other liberal views, and were there-
fore looked upon as schismatics, were, on this subject,
in perfect harmony with their brethren.

In the early times of the Christian Church, however,
it appears that marriages with a deceased wife's sister

A WIFE TO IIICR SISTER.

were not deemed allowable ; the words of the text
were indeed taken in a literal sense, but still such
alliances were looked upon as ac^ainst the spirit of the
law. Hence the Council of Illibcris, about the year
305, excluded from holy communion for five years
those persons who had contracted such a marriage.
St. Basil was even more severe in punishing such
persons, he visited them with the ecclesiastical penal-
ties fixed for adultery. According to his letter on
this subject, "a custom equivalent to a law, and handed
down by holy men," had been established in the Church
against such marriages. Bishop Diodorus of Tarsus,
on the contrary, held that these marriages were not
prohibited. Influenced by the opinions of the Bishops
some of the Christian emperors likewise enforced this
law. Yet dispensations were readily granted in the
Roman Church from time to time, from which one
would infer that the Popes themselves did not look
upon such marriages as absolutely forbidden by Holy
Writ. In England, marriage with a deceased wife's
sister, was forbidden, in 1603, in a Canon by the
Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. Martin
Luther was of opinion that only those prohibitions in
the marriage laws were binding which were expressly
set forth in Scripture,* and his opinion, no doubt, had
great influerxe in the Protestant Churches. Hence
Frederick the Great, at the very beginning of his
reign, in the year 1740, allowed marriages in ten cases
which hitherto had been prohibited, because they had
been thought to be against the spirit of the law. One
of these is marriage with a deceased w^ife's sister.

Philip Jacob Spener, born in 1635, ^"d who is
regarded as the founder of the sect of Pietists, foil wing
the opinion of Luther, also maintained that marriages
with a deceased wife's sister was allowed, since it was
not unequivocally forbidden in the Bible.

* *' Yom eheliclien T.eliou" (Of married life), 1522.

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

Sir John David Michaclls, Professor of Philosophy
in the University of Gottingen, remarks, in his Com-
mentaries on the Laws of Moses : " Marriai^e with a
deceased wife's sister he permits, but prohibits on the
other hand the marrying of two sisters at once. The
words of the law, Lev. xviii. i8, are very clear, *^T/wu
shalt not lake a tvife to her sister y to be her rivals and
to uncover her nakedness aJong with hers in her lije-
iimey After so distinct a definition of his meaning,
and the three limitations added, I. As to one being
the other s rival (to express v/hicli v/e m.ay observe, by
the way, that the same word is used, as in i Sam. i. 6,
where two wives have but one husband ; 2. As to the
man's uncovering the nakedness of both, and 3. As to
his doing so in the life time of the first, I cannot com-
prehend how it should ever have been imagined that
Moses also prohibited marriage with a deceased wife's
sister, — that very connection which we so often find a
dying wife entreating her husband to form." Vol. ii.
pp. 112, 113.

F. E. C. Rosenmiiller, the distinguished orientalist
and profound scholar and commentator, whose opinions
are always highly esteemed, in his learned production
" Scholia in Vetus Testamentum," in explaining Lev.
xviii. 18, has the following remarks : " Uxoreui ad
sororem ejus ne dncas, duas sorores ne ducas in matri-

monium, scil, n-'^ininj i^^ ^'^'^^ d^^^^ ^^ ^^"^ ^^"^^^ versus addi-
tur, /. e., uxore tua vivente. Non igitur prohibit Moses
matrimonium cum sorore uxoris mortiae. "l^il^^b. Ad
infestandiim, s. infestando, quod Onkelos bene sic red-
didit : ad dolorcm ei creanduut, ita ut oriatur a^mulatio
sive lis inter eas, ut in matrimonio Jacobi."

Dr. Alex. McCaul, late of Trinity College, London,
likewise decidedly held that marriage with a deceased
wife's sister was not prohibited under the Mosaic dis-
pensation.*

* "The ancient interpretation of Lev. xviii. 18," pp. 3G-33.

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

Dr. Gardiner observes, in his preliminary remarks
on Lev. xviii. : " Marriage with a deceased wife's
sister is clearly allowed under the Levitical law, not
merely by not being prohibited, but beii.^, prohibited
during the life time of the sister first taken to wife, it
becomes doubly certain that it was permitted after-
wards. It is even made still more clear by the reason
assigned ; the relation of two wives of the same man
are not apt to be friendly, and Moses would not allow,
either that the natural affection of sisters should be
subjected to this strain, or that the inevitable ani-
mosities of the harem should be increased by previous
familiar relation of sisters.*

Keil and Delitzsch observe : ** No punishment is
fixed for the marriage v/ith two sisters; and, of course,
after the death of the first wife, a man was at liberty
to marry her sister : Com. on Leviticus, vol. ii., p. 410.

Samson Raphael Hirsch, Rabbi of the religious
community of Israelites in Frankfort-on-the-Main,
remarks on our verse : " Es ist mm gesagt : dii kannst
nicJit zwei Schzvestern zugleich JieiratJicn dass sie in
einem Ehebiind zusammeii yereinigt seien. Wenn du
daJier eine gcluirathet hast so kajin die aft d ere, so lange
die erste lebt, nicJit deine Gaitin iverdenr\

" It is now said here, you are not permitted to marry
two sisters at the same time, so that they would be
united in one marriage bond ; if you, therefore, ha/e
married one, then the other may not become your
wife as long as the first lives."

We might yet adduce a host of similar opinions of
the best critics and commentators of America and
Europe, but, we think, those above quoted are sufficient

* "Commentarv ou Leviticus, " published in "Lange's Commeu-
t.iry - the Bible.^"

f ** The Pentateuch translated and interpreted. " Frankfort-ou-the-
Main, 1873.

38 A WIFE TO HER S.ISTER.

to shew the views generally entertained upon this

vexed question. Indeed, within the last and present

centuries, there are comparatively few writers of note

who have looked on the subject in any other light than

that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is unques- J

tionably lawful. — *

Leaving then the exegetical path, and for a moment
taking a glance at the subject from a utilitarian point
of view, here no mist any longer dims the prospect, but
all is clear and serene ; for we venture to say, there is
no one, however great his conscientious scruples re-
garding the lawfulness of such marriage may be, but
who will admit that such alliances from this stand-
point are most desirable.

The lifelong misery which is often entailed upon
children by a second marriage is, alas, only too well
known.

Far be it from us, even to hint, that there are not
many stepmothers to be fo^ind who are kind and
loving towards their little charges ; but we fear these
are the exception, and not the rule.

How often are children driven from their happy
homes and sweet associations, driven into the wide
world among strangers, just at the time when they
most need the counsel and fostering care of parents.
The father, only too often swayed by the will of the
stepmother, perhaps for his own peace and comfort
sake, becomes gradually indifferent to the feelings and
sufferings of his children, and at last entirely forgets
his duties as a parent.

Need we, .then, wonder that a mother, concerned
for the welfare of the dear ones she leaves behind,
should be solicitous that her loss, though it can
never be fully replaced, should yet in a measure be
deprived of the sting which such a bereavement in-
flicts. This she can best hope for from a loving
sister who, thus doubly united in the sacred bond

A WIFE TO HER SISTER.

that^^^'"""'^''^ ^"^ ^^' children, will make them feel

" All are not taken ; there are left behind
-Living belov'ds, tender looks to bring,
And make the daylight still a happy thing.
And tender voices, to make soft the wind?"

I have now fulfilled my promise, made at the
begmnmg of this treatise, and placed the subject in
an impartial manner before the reader, and now leave
It tor his serious consideration.

THE END.

LIST OF BOOKS

By J. M. HIRSCHFELDKR.

■ <•» »

The Biblical Expositor : Containing an

Introduction to the reading of Scripture, and explanations
of select passages of the Old Testament ; a short Essay-
on the spirit and characteristics of Hebrew poetry ; new
translation and critical commentary on Genesis, Chapter
XLIX. Price. .$1 00

The Scripture Defended : Being a reply

to Bishop Colenso's attack on various portions of "he Pen-
tateuah. In this Book a great many difficult passages in
the Five Books of Moses, which have been assailed by
Colenso and writers of the Rationalistic School are fully
explained. Bound in cloth 60

"^"^ MEB^ on the M osaic Account

mentary on Genesis I li>

Lecture on the Immortality of the Soul :

Being a full and critical investigation of that doctrine as
set forth in the Old Testament, with an explanation how
the Sadducees came to deny that doctrine 25

Key to German Conversation : Calcu-
lated to assist the learner to speak the language 25