Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 04.pdf/52

 37 so that the law intimates that the wife, even J thing in her," and " If he hate her." The after having been divorced, still has cling Rabbis, however, believing that the law re ing to her some of the duties of wifehood. stricted divorce to these cases, set about Although recognizing the second marriage interpreting their meaning; and the discus as perfectly lawful and valid, the law con sion as to ihe sense of the phrase, " some siders it a sort of adultery as far as the first shameful thing," lasted for several centuries. The schools of Hillel and Shammai, two husband is concerned. This is the sense of the clause which prevents the remarriage distinguished teachers of the first century of the divorced woman to her first husband B.C., were divided on this question. The after she has been married to another; for followers of Shammai were the " strict con at Jewish law the adulteress was obliged to structionists," holding that only actual in leave her husband, and he was not permitted decency was a proper cause for divorce; to condone her crime; and in this case, like whereas the school of Hillel, the " loose an adulteress, the divorced woman can never constructionists," would allow divorce for again return to her first husband, although any reason which destroyed domestic peace and happiness. Rabbi Akiba, who lived before she has contracted the second mar riage her husband may take her back again, in the second century b. c, emphatically and in fact is in the opinions of the Rabbis said that a man may divorce his wife when recommended to do so. When read in this he finds another more beautiful than she; light the saying of Jesus (Matt. xix. 9), that no restrictions could be placed on his "Whoso marrieth her which is put away right to send her away whenever it pleased doth commit adultery," is seen to have been him. It is but fair to Rabbi Akiba to say a logical outgrowth of the Jewish law, the that he was himself a model husband, who fundamental principle of which was that a openly confessed to his students at the col wife ought to remain a wife forever. Rabbi lege that the influence of his wife had made him love the law and devote himself to its Meir said : " The man who marries a di vorced woman is not to be classed with him study. who has sent her away; for the latter has The theory of the law was finally settled sent a bad woman out of his house, and the by a dictum of Raba, an eminent Babylonian teacher, who said that if the husband gives former has taken her in. The second hus band ought to divorce her; for if he does a divorce for no cause, the law will recog nize it as perfectly valid, and will not com not," continues the Rabbi, somewhat face tiously, " she will be the death of him; for pel him to restore his wife to her conjugal Under such rulings it might be it is written, ' If the latter husband. . . rights. writes her a bill of divorcement, or if the expected that divorce would be as common latter husband should die; and indeed he as marriage among the Hebrews; but in deserves death, for he hath taken into his fact divorce was almost as rare as murder. house an evil woman.'" For while the Rabbis were discussing the Under what circumstances and for what theory of the law, they took good care that causes may a man divorce his wife? Is it a the practice should be made so difficult by purely private act, or the subject of judicial rules, as to the writing, signing, and delivery interference? On these points the theory of the bill of divorcement, that the whole and the practice of the ancient Hebrews matter was necessarily thrown into the hands of the judges; for no man could, without differed widely. The law above cited simply states two professional assistance, safely traverse the instances when a divorce is given, by way perplexing maze of legal inhibitions and of example : " If she find no favor in his restrictions that barred the way to a di "No one," concludes the " Seder eyes, because he hath found some shameful vorce.