Page:Cihm 33811.djvu/19

Rh the obligation of this law altogether. These, are: 1 Where the widow of the deceased is the daughter of the "brother" [i. e. next kinsman—otherwise a man might marry his own daughter]. 2. When she is his daughter's daughter; or 3. his son's daughter. 4. Where she is his step-daughter; (daughter of the so-called "brother's" wife). 5 and 6. Where she is his wife's grand-daughter, whether daughter of her daughter or of her son. 7. Where the widow is mother-in-law of the "brother," or nearest kisnman; or 8 and 9. The mother of his mother-in-law or his father-in-law. 10. Where she is his own sister [which she could not be if deceased husband and he were own brothers]; or 11, his mother's sister; or 12, his wife's sister. 13. Where she is the uterine brother, or 14, of a "brother" who had not been contemporary with him (i. e. who died before the now nearest kinsman was born). [N. B. from case 13 it is quite clear that the law was not supposed to contemplate the marriage of a huaband's own brother with his sister-in-law—this being here specially forbidden]. 15. Where she is daughter-in-law (i. e. where the deceased husband's "brother", so-called, or next kinsman, was ). "Every one may see here how wide is the use of "brothers." The list begins with the widow's own father, and ends with her father-in-law.

It is a matter of regret and wonder alike that the late Dr. McCaul, on whose Hebrew learning Mr. Punshon and doubtless others too, relied, should have mistaken a matter so plan and now placed within reach of English readers in the publication above referred to. "Brother then in Deut XXV. does not necessarily mean own brother; and the tradition of the Jews, for whom the law was intended, shows that they did not hold that interpretation which the moderns have strangely accepted, nor think it allowable, but on the contrary strictly repudiated it. A single quotation (7 Sect. 3 Chap, of same Treatise) shows that "nearness of kin" was an obstacle of an indelible character, which does not "cease". "When of three brothers (i. e. kinsmen), two are married to two sisters and one to a stranger; if one of them who marries the sister died, and he who had married the stranger marries the widow, and then the wife of the second brother, and also the third brother, then the widow will be for ever prohibited to the second or surviving brother, because she was for some time prohibited to him (as his wife's sister.")

The consequences of disregarding the general prohibition in favour of the particular Levirate enactment, may be easily worked out, but are too horrid for contemplation. That the view set out in the Mishna was that accepted by the Jews, appears from another quarter. John the Baptist's rebuke of Herod was not on the ground of adultery; for Herodias, as appears from Josephus, was now divorced from Philip; and if a brother's wife were no otherwise forbidden than as as any other man's wife, it could not be unlawful, according to the Mosaic law, for Herod to marry her. But John's testimony, sealed with his blood, was against the incest of "having a brother's wife:" "it is not lawful for the to have her." I need not here point out all the force of the "parity of reasoning:" it will be "wonderfully" clear or very inconvenient, as the case may be.

Josephus gives us his own testimony in a similar case, to the same effect, (Antiq. B. xvii.-cxiii). "Moreover he (Archelaus Son of Herod the Great) transgressed the law of our fathers, and married Glaphyra, the daugter of Archelaus (King of Cappadocia), who had been the wife of his brother Alexander; which Alexander had three children by her