occupies in Europe and in the countries of the East. In the latter they
are men’s slaves: in the former his companions. In the latter they are
objects of contempt even to their own sons. In the former they are the
honoured instruments to impart the first elements of learning and
religion. Here in Europe they appear as co-heirs, with man, of reason,
of intellect, of liberty and immortality; but there they seem to be an
inferior race of beings, at the very most a better sort of domestic
animal. That the European state of things is more agreeable to God’s
intention in the creation of male and female is evident from the
consideration, that there one half of the human race is doomed to
degradation and misery, whilst here they enjoy a becoming respect, and a
much larger portion of happiness; and still more from observing the
effects of the two systems. Here the intellectual and moral powers of
mankind have far advanced towards perfection, but there the human race
is still debased and barbarous. Now that, which makes happy and
improves, must necessarily be more agreeable to God’s purpose in
creation, than that which degrades and makes unhappy; and this argument
will also go far to prove that another striking feature of difference,
which distinguishes the West from the East, is also more in accordance
with the will of God; we mean the fact that here men have only one wife,
whilst there they have many. There can be no doubt that this
characteristic of European life conduces much to the well-being and the
peace of families, as well as to the moral and intellectual improvement
of individuals. In these two great advantages and means of happiness the
Jewesses of Europe participate. They are not illiterate slaves like
their sisters in the east, neither do they divide their husbands’
affections with many. Here the Jews, like the Christians, have only one
wife. It becomes, therefore, a most interesting subject of inquiry to
know to what the European Jewesses are indebted for this superiority of
respect and happiness. Is it to their own religion, or to the religion
of Christians, that is, is it to Judaism or Christianity? We might
answer at once, that Judaism has certainly not produced this salutary
difference, for then it would have produced the same effect in Mahometan
countries, but we prefer referring to the oral law itself. We have
already shown that modern Judaism degrades women to the level of slaves
and _Amharatzin_: we shall now prove that _the Jewesses are not indebted
to it for the abolition of polygamy_. When Napoleon assembled the famous
Parisian Sanhedrin, he proposed this question to the Jewish deputies,
“_Is it lawful for Jews to marry more than one wife?_” To which they
returned the following answer:—“It is not lawful for Jews to marry more
than one wife: in all European countries they conform to the general
practice of marrying only one. Moses does not command expressly to take
several; but he does not forbid it. He seems even to adopt that custom
as generally prevailing, since he settles the rights of inheritance
between children of different wives. Although this practice still
prevails in the East, yet their ancient doctors have enjoined them to
restrain from taking more than one wife, except when the man is enabled
by his fortune to maintain several. The case has been different in the
West; the wish of adopting the customs of the inhabitants of this part
of the world has induced the Jews to renounce polygamy. But as several
individuals still indulged in that practice, a synod was convened at
Worms in the eleventh century, composed of one hundred rabbies, with
Guerson (Gershom) at their head. This assembly pronounced an anathema
against every Israelite who should, in future, take more than one wife.
Although this prohibition was not to last for ever, the influence of
European manners has universally prevailed.” (Transactions of the
Sanhedrin, p. 150.) A more evasive, false, and inconsistent answer has
rarely been given to a plain straightforward question. First they say
decidedly, that it is not lawful for Jews to marry more than one wife:
then they spend a page in contradicting themselves, and at last
acknowledge that the abolition of polygamy was first owing to the
anathema of a rabbi, and that it is now to be attributed to the
influence of European manners. But what are European manners? What
religion do Europeans profess? Plainly the religion of Jesus of
Nazareth, so that here the Jewish deputies acknowledge that if Jewish
wives have not got three or four or more rivals shut up with them in the
same house, they owe this benefit to Christianity. But we must not rest
satisfied with this answer of the Parisian deputies; we must ask the
oral law itself, whether it is lawful for Jews to marry more than one
wife, and must hear the oral law’s reply. It answers thus:—
נושא אדם כמה נשים אפילו מאה בין בבת אחת בין בזו אחר זו ואין אשתו יכולה
לעכב , והוא שיהיה יכול ליתן שאר כסות ועונה כראוי לכל אחת ואחת ׃
“A man may marry many wives, even a hundred, either at once, or one
after the other, and his wife cannot prevent it, provided that he is
able to give to each suitable food, clothing, and marriage-duty.” (Iad
Hachasakah Hilchoth Ishuth., c. xiv. 3.) This is rather different
doctrine from that of the Parisian Sanhedrin. Here it is plain that the
oral law allows a man to have more than one wife, and does not stint him
at all as to the number. The Arbah Turim teaches precisely the same
doctrine, except that it advises a man not to marry more than four:—
נושא אדם כמה נשים דאמר רבא נושא אדם כמה נשים , והוא דאפשר למיקם
בסיפוקוהי , ומכל מקום נתנו חכמים עצה טובה שלא ישא אדם יותר מד׳ נשים ׃
“A man may marry many wives, for Rabba says it is lawful to do so, if he
can provide for them. Nevertheless, the wise men have given good advice,
that a man should not many more than four wives.” (Even Haezer, 1.) So
far then as Judaism is concerned, polygamy is lawful; and a Jew that
would even restrict himself according to the advice of the rabbies,
might still have four wives. It is not his religion that teaches him to
be content with one: and therefore, we must, farther, inquire how it is
that the Jews, who consider polygamy lawful, do not indulge in it. The
Parisian deputies have already informed us that it still prevails in the
East, and that it prevailed in Europe until the eleventh century, when
R. Gershom anathematized it. In the place just cited we find a similar
statement:—
במקום שנהגו שלא לישא אלא אשה אחת אינו רשאי לישא אשה אחרת על אשתו , ר׳
גרשון החרים על הנושא על אשתו אבל ביבמה לא החרים וכן בארוסה , ולא פשטה
תקנתו בכל הארצות , ולא החרים אלא עד סוף האלף החמישי ׃
“In a place where the custom is to marry only one wife, it is not
permitted to marry more than one woman. R. Gershom anathematized any one
that should many a second, whilst his wife was alive; but this anathema
does not extend to the case of the widow of a brother, who has died
without children, nor to the case of a woman who is only betrothed. This
ordinance, however, does not obtain in all lands, and the anathema was
only to last until the end of the fifth thousand years.” Hence it
appears that before R. Gershom, polygamy was lawful and practised by the
Jews in Europe, but that he forbade it except in particular cases; and
further, that R. Gershom’s prohibition was only temporary, it was to
have full force until the end of the fifth thousand years, that is,
until the year 1240 of the Christian era. This period is how long past,
for the Jews reckon this year 5597, and Gershom’s anathema has therefore
lost its force; consequently, the only obstacle, which their religion
opposed to polygamy has been removed, and, so far as conscience is
concerned, every professor of Judaism must feel himself at liberty to
marry as many wives as he likes. He knows that R. Gershom’s anathema has
expired, and if he goes to the codes of Jewish law, he finds that it is
left doubtful. For instance, the note on the passage just cited says—
ומכל מקום בכל מדינות אלו התקנה והמנהג במקומו עומד ואין נושאין שתי נשים
וכופין בחרמות ומנדין מי שעובר ונושא ב׳ נשים לגרש אחת מהן ויש אומרים
דבזמן הזה אין לכוף מי שעבר חרם דר׳ גרשון מאחר שכבר נשלם אלף החמישי ,
ואין נוהגין כן ׃
“Nevertheless, in all these countries the ordinance and the custom
remain in force, and it is not lawful to marry two wives; and he that
transgresses and does so is to be compelled by anathema and
excommunication to divorce one of them. But some say that in the present
time he that transgresses the anathema of R. Gershom is not to be
compelled, for the five thousand years have been completed long since;
but the custom is not according to this.” Here then are two opinions.
The most strict of the two is, that polygamy is now not lawful, and that
he who marries two wives must divorce one of them: but even this cannot
be very satisfactory to the woman whom he first married, for it does not
define which of the two is to be divorced. It only requires that one of
them should be divorced, and leaves it to the man himself to divorce
which he pleases. The other opinion is, that polygamy is now lawful, and
that he is not to be compelled to divorce either. Hence it appears that
it is not Judaism which protects the rights and the happiness of Jewish
women, or the peace and comfort of Jewish families. The influence and
the laws of Christianity forbid polygamy. To Christianity, then, Jewish
females are indebted, not only for the station which they hold in
society, but for the peace which they enjoy in their homes. Wherever
Christianity has no power, there the Jews may take as many wives as they
please: and if ever Judaism should obtain supreme power, Jewesses must
expect to be again degraded into the category of slaves and
_Amharatzin_, and to have their domestic peace annihilated by the
introduction of new wives and families. It may be replied, that this
objection applies with equal force to the written law, for that Moses
himself allows polygamy. But to this we answer, that Moses only
_tolerated_ polygamy, but that he shows clearly that it was not the
purpose of God, that men should have more wives than one. He found an
evil custom existing amongst a people debased by Egyptian slavery, and
like a wise reformer, he did not commence his improvements by destroying
all that existed, but endeavoured to restrain the evil, to show that it
was contrary to God’s original institution, and to point out the
consequences. He did not immediately pronounce it unlawful, for that
would have been attended with serious inconveniences, but by the
direction of God gave laws to protect the wives and children. In the
beginning of Genesis—he showed that God’s will was, that a man should
have only one wife, for that he did not create several women, but only
one. He gives the words of God, saying, “It is not good that the man
should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him” עזר כנגדו where
“help” is in the singular number, to show that man was not to have more
than one help meet for him. And again, those words, “Therefore shall a
man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife,”
not unto his wives, but to his wife; where it is also to be observed,
that God is laying down a law, not for Adam only, but for coming
generations. By exhibiting the original institution of marriage in
Paradise, whilst man was yet innocent, and stating the original law and
purpose of God, Moses plainly showed, that God’s will was, that a man
should have only one wife. He then goes on to show, that the first who
departed from this original institution was Lamech, one of the wicked
descendants of wicked Cain. “And Lamech took unto him two wives,” (Gen.
iv. 19,) whom he held up as a warning, recording of him only that he had
two wives, and that he was a murderer. With this he contrasts the
conduct of Noah and his sons, who had only one wife each. In the history
of the patriarchs he shows the evil consequences of polygamy. He shows
that it was not the will of Abraham to take a second wife, but that
Sarah in her eagerness to have children misled him, and that discord and
domestic trouble soon followed. And by all the troubles which the sons
of Ishmael have since inflicted upon the children of Isaac, God has, in
his providence, confirmed the moral to be drawn from the Mosaic
narrative. Moses then points out the happiness of Isaac, who had only
one wife; and the troubles of Jacob, who, not by his own choice, but by
the wickedness of Laban and the folly of Laban’s daughters, had more
than one; and last of all, Moses gave in himself an example of the
conduct which he wished Israel to pursue by having only one wife
himself. A careful examination, therefore, of the law of Moses will show
that he only tolerated polygamy as an existing evil, but that he
intended to discourage it, by exhibiting the original institution of
marriage, and the many evils that result from a departure from God’s
purpose. When, therefore, we show that the oral law permits men to have
more wives than one, and that consequently it is accountable for all the
evil thence resulting, we cannot be charged with reproaching the law of
Moses. The oral law says expressly, that a man may marry many wives,
even a hundred. The law of Moses nowhere says any thing of the kind. It
only legislates in case that such a thing should happen. The oral law
plainly advises a man not to take more than four wives. The law of Moses
holds up the evil of having more than one. If men would carefully read
the law of Moses, they would see that the original intention was, that a
man should have only one wife. But if a man follow the oral law, he will
be encouraged to take as many as he can support. It is evident,
therefore, that if the Jews in Europe do not practise polygamy, their
conduct is not to be ascribed to the influence of Judaism, but of
Christianity.
It is, further, evident that this Christian practice of having only one
wife, cannot be objected to as an unauthorized alteration of the law of
Moses. If R. Gershom was allowed to forbid polygamy, and the Jews
considered themselves bound to obey him, they cannot reasonably object
to the Christian laws on the same subject. Christianity has only
effected by its influence what R. Gershom endeavoured to accomplish by
anathema. The only difference is, that Christianity was first, and that
R. Gershom learnt the evil of polygamy from Christians. If it was lawful
for a rabbi, it was still more lawful for the Messiah to restore the
original constitution of marriage as established in Paradise, and to
deliver Jewish wives and families from all that confusion and discord
which results from polygamy. But it is particularly deserving of notice
that R. Gershom, by forbidding the Jews to have more wives than one,
made a great and decided change in the oral law. That which the oral law
allows, R. Gershom forbids. We grant, indeed, that by thus changing the
oral law, he approximated to the mind and intention of Moses: but he
altered the oral law, and thereby shows us that he himself did not
believe that the oral law was to last for ever, or that it is of eternal
obligation. If he had considered it unchangeable, he would not have
dared to make the change; but by making so important a change as this,
to forbid what it allows, he plainly shows it as his opinion, that where
there is a grave reason, the oral law may be changed or abolished; and
all the Jews who acquiesce in his ordinance, and think it is unlawful to
marry more wives than one; consent to the change. But if it be lawful to
change in one thing, it must also be lawful to change in another, so
that the rabbinical Jews have no reason whatever for reproaching their
brethren who renounce the oral law totally. Such persons are only acting
upon a principle practically acknowledged by all the Jews of Europe. It
may be said that R. Gershom’s change was only temporary, and that the
present acquiescence of European Jews is only a sort of homage to
Christian principles. This is certainly true, and this reply leads us to
consider the dreary prospect presented to Jewish females, if ever modern
Judaism should obtain power. The influence of Christian principle would
then cease,—polygamy would again be lawful, and the matrons of Israel,
who now appear as the participators in the family government and the
guides of their households, would again be degraded into one of a herd
of female slaves. They might have a hundred competitors and rivals in
their husbands’ affections, and even if the husband should follow the
advice of the rabbies, and take only four wives, they would at least
have three. Now, we ask every matron in Israel whether she would wish
such a change, or whether she would prefer the present state of things,
where a man can have only one wife? If she prefers the present state,
then she prefers the Christian principle, and acknowledges that
Christianity is better than Judaism. If she does not wish for the
restoration of polygamy, then she confesses that the doctrines of
Judaism are injurious, and that she does not desire the triumph of her
own religion. Then why should she profess a religion which she
acknowledges to be prejudicial to her welfare—or why should she reject a
religion which protects her peace and comfort? There can be no question,
that Christianity has prevented amongst the Jews that practice of having
many wives; it has, therefore, been a blessing to Jewish families for
centuries; why, then, should they despise or oppose a religion which has
been, and still is, a blessing? And we propose this question, not only
to Jewish wives, but to Jewish husbands. Is it not a fact, that God’s
original institution was that a man should have only one wife—does not
Moses show that the first polygamist was a descendant of wicked Cain,
and, that family discord and unhappiness is the consequence of having
more wives than one? Does not reason, and the state of Mahometan
countries, show that where there are many wives, woman is degraded, and
the education of children necessarily neglected? Is not the moral, the
intellectual, and scientific progress of mankind greatly superior in
Christian countries, where men have only one wife? Is not, then, the
practice of having only one wife a blessing? Has it not been a blessing
to Jewish husbands, wives, and children? Are not, then, the Jews deeply
indebted to Christianity for that measure of peace and moral improvement
which they have derived from this practice? And would not an adherence
to their own oral law in the same degree have proved a disadvantage, if
not a curse? How, then, can they oppose a religion which has been to
them a blessing?—or how can they adhere to a religion which contains
principles subversive of their domestic peace, and destructive to the
well-being, and the moral and intellectual improvement of one-half the
human race? The rabbies say, that the oral law is eternal in its
obligation: if so, then polygamy is to be eternal in its continuance,
and then men are never to return to that state of perfection which they
enjoyed in Paradise. Who is there that does not see that the race of men
was most happy when sin was unknown, and most perfect in intellect when
he could hold converse with the Deity and dwell in the garden of God?
But if Judaism be true, men are never again to enjoy that state, for
then polygamy was unknown. Adam had only one wife; and until sin entered
into the world, and ripened even into murder, no man had two wives.
Judaism is, therefore, opposed to the pure and perfect state of things
that existed in Paradise, and favourable to that confusion introduced by
the murderous Lamech, the son of murderous Cain—and Christianity
resembles, in its principles of marriage, the happy state ordained by
God in Paradise. Here, then, we have another and a practical proof that
the oral law is not of God. Its authors totally misunderstood the mind
and purpose of Moses, the servant of God, and misinterpreted his
temporary toleration of an existing evil into a positive permission and
sanction for continuing it. We have also another proof of the divine
origin of Christianity.
No. XLVIII.
DIVORCE.
When God delivered the commandments at Sinai, he placed those which
related to himself first, to teach us that our first duty is to love and
serve him: and immediately after these he gave the command “Honour thy
father and thy mother,” to show us that, next to himself, we are bound
to reverence, to love, and to obey those to whom we owe our existence.
This order of things was not an arbitrary choice, but founded in that
natural constitution of creation which God ordained as most conducive to
the intellectual and moral well-being as well as to the happiness of his
creatures. He does not command us to love and serve Him, and Him only,
merely because He has the light on the one hand, and it is our bounden
duty on the other; but because a conformity to his will is an
approximation both to wisdom and happiness. Neither does he tell us to
honour father and mother, because we owe them all such reverence, as
from them we have derived our being, and to them are indebted for all
the care and affection with which they have tended and watched over our
infancy; but because He has himself constituted the relation of parent
and child, and ordained parental affection and filial duty as the means
of promoting our welfare in time and in eternity. Any religion,
therefore, whose tendency is to render obedience to that command
impossible, must not only be contrary to the will of God, but to the
happiness of man; and this is one of the many reasons for which we think
that Judaism must be false. The religion of the oral law has a direct
tendency to diminish a son’s respect for his mother. We do not mean to
say that in this or any other Christian country Jewish sons despise
their mothers. The co-existence of Christianity necessarily counteracts
the development of rabbinical principles. We intend only to exhibit the
natural and necessary consequences, if there were no counteracting
force. The contempt which the oral law pours upon women in general, and
the encouragement which it gives to polygamy have necessarily the effect
of lessening their respect both in the eyes of their husbands and their
sons, and this tendency is still more increased by the _rabbinic
doctrine of divorce_, which we now propose to consider. The law of Moses
permits divorce under certain circumstances. It says, “When a man hath
taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no
favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness, רות דבר, in
her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her
hand, and send her out of his house,” &c. (Deut. xxiv. 1.) But this
permission, founded on grave and important considerations, the rabbies
have perverted into an unlimited licence to divorce on the most trifling
pretext.
בית שמאי אומרים לא יגרש אדם את אשתו אלא אם כן מצא בה ערות דבר דדרשי ליה
לקרא כפשטיה אם לא תמצא חן בעינו לפי שמצא בה ערות דבר , ובית הלל סברי
אפילו הקדיחה תכשילו דדרשי לקרא הכי כי מצא בה ערות דבר או ערוה או דבר אחר
שפשעה כנגדו , ור׳ עקיבא סבר אפילו מצא אחרת נאה הימנה דדריש ליה לקרא הכי
והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו פי׳ חן של נוי או שמצא ערות דבר והלכה כבית הלל
שאם פשעה כנגדו יכול לגרשה ׃
“The school of Shamai says, A man is not to divorce his wife unless he
shall find some uncleanness in her, for they interpret the verse
according to its simple meaning, if she find no favour in his eyes on
account of his finding some uncleanness in her. The school of Hillel
thinks, that if a woman let the broth burn it is sufficient for they
interpret the words, ‘a matter of uncleanness,’ to mean, Either
uncleanness, or any other matter in which she has offended him. But R.
Akiva thinks, that a man may divorce his wife, if he only find another
handsomer than she is, for he interprets the verse thus, ‘If she find no
favour in his eyes,’ where he explains favour to refer to the favour of
beauty, or if he find a matter of uncleanness. But the legal decision is
according to the school of Hillel, that is, if a wife sin against her
husband, he may divorce her.” (Arbah Turim, Hilchoth Gittin., 1.) This
monstrous passage is in itself sufficient to shake the authority of the
oral law, for in the first place we find three grave authorities,
Shamai, Hillel, and Akiva, all differing as to the sense of a most
important passage, bearing upon a subject that most nearly affects the
happiness and well-being of human society. One of the gravest questions
that can be propounded is, When is a man justified in divorcing his
wife? If there be an oral law at all, it ought certainly to answer this
question clearly, unequivocally, and satisfactorily. The existence of
disputation shows that these three rabbies had no authoritative
tradition on the subject, but were merely giving their own private
opinions: and that therefore the assertion, that an oral law exists, is
a mere fiction invented to impose upon the credulous, but insufficient
to beget faith in any man or woman that will make use of the reason
given by God. The old fable, that God caused a voice to be heard from
heaven, saying, when the rabbies differ, “That
אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים ׃