The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-01-31

Authorities. corroboratcs these inferenccs. BY
this the woman obtained an independent stand
ing before the court. That formal recognition
OF the wife as plaintiff against her husband.
led TO the enactment Of n law that the court had
| tho power TO compel the husband to consent
to q divorce II the complaint OF his wife was
substantiated. In cases where the Jewish courts
had not the power to coerco the fractions nus
band into. obedience, they we're allowed to APP
peal TO the dominant secular authorities In
behalf of the woman. But In no wise could q
writ OF divorce be sanctioned by the Jewish
courts II II was issued by the Roman court d.
rectly and according 10 laws Of the Gentiies;
such q writ was null and void. The Roman law
at the time of Hcrod allowed women to divorce
their husbands. and It was under It's provisions
that the women of Herod's family gave d.
vorces to their husbands. This departure from
the Jewish law. which undoubtedly found
imitators among the common people. was con-
demned bv Jesus in the following words: "1fa
woman shall put away her husband. and DO
married unto another. she committeth adul-
tery" MARX. T., 12I. His diotum Is the more
clearly understood when II IL remembered that
ia order to satisfy the letter OF the Mosaic law.
the rabbls had recourse to the legal fction that
q writ of divorce must be made out by the hus-
band. even II tho latter is compelled TO DO 1t at
the suit of his wife.
a. ~" ~ ~ htFN" - 1880 $50
annulllng rash and improvident VOWS made by
his wife Mum. Xxx. 8. o.: and tho rabbis or
dalned that when n woman by q vow deprived
herself OF any right or privilege, and her hus-
band failed to absolve her. abe was entitled TO q
divorce, for such tacit aquicscence In her vows
proved him to be nsglectful of her welfare. or
Indifferent to It. Among the cases cited In the
MIshna are vows that she will not eat certain
kinds OF fruits that may be wholesome for her.
- A.. ~ I'LL - 49, - h@.a. -.
. house Of mourning or rejoicing. According
to the opinion of one rabbi, even II she vowed
that she would not borrow any vessels
from her neighbors. for this might give her
q bad reputation" her husband must annul
the vows; otherwise she Is entitled to sue for .
divorce. Rabbi Simon ben Gamalicl decided
that when n husband prohibits his wife by q
vow from doing any kind of work, she Is en-
titled to q divorce, for thereby he condemns her
TO idleness, which might lead IN mental ALBERTA
ton. Such decisions had the effect Of making
Jewish husbands extremely attentive to their
wives. and watchful OF their welfare. They
gavo the jewish wife full freedom in her
house. so that she could refuse Ambulance
into II Of her mother-in-law or any per-
ron she disliked: tho demonstrated of
the husband in such cases was considered .
tyrannical act. for which the woman was enti-
tied. to q divorce. According TO Maimonides.
the Ambulance OF undesirable visitors into the
house. was an infringement upon the personal
liberty Of the mistress.
Under legislation so tender In its regard for
women the tyranny Of . husband over his
wife seems TO have been out OF the question: yet
It appears that the III treatment OF their wives
by Jews was not wholly prevented: there were
even cases Of wife beating, calling for special
rabbinlcal legislation. The Koran (Sura ~
plainly allows wife beating; 90 also did the Ro-
man law aud the statute laws Of modern peoples
founded upon tho Roman law. But the rabbis
legislated to tho contrary. "A man VINO
beats his wife commits a sim says Rabbi
~Isserles. III he persists In his conduct,
the court may castigate him. and ex-
communicate him. and place him under
oath that lie should not do II again. II he re-
fuses to obey the order Of tho court. they will
compel him to divorce his wife At once. because
II is not proper for q Jew to abuse his wife,: IL is
q heathenish custom. This 10 the law where he
is At fault But II she curses him and insults
his parents, some are of opinion that he may
chastise her; and others say that he must not
beat her at all. II IL 10 not known which Of the
two began the quarrel. the husband 10 not per-
mitted to testify that his wife was the aggressor.
for all women are presumed to DO Innocent"
When 4 man came TO the rabbi declaring his
intention TO divorce his wife, Il was the duty Of
the rabbi to endeavor TO dissuade him. The re-
establishment Of peace between husband and
wife was praised by the rabbits As an act Of the
highest merit for the sake of which even a
letter OF the law" - e., q direct command Of
the law OF Moses, could DO suspended. The Mo-
sale law Mum. xxx.. 81 made . vow sacred and
invtolab!e. but by tho mild construction put
upon IL by the rabbis It's rigor was much
ameliorated. II q man made q vow and
afterward declared IN the presence OF three
competcnt men that he would not have
made IL had he thought OF certain consequences
II might involve, the three could absolve him.
II. for instance, he had vowed to divorce his
wife, and anne to the rabbi TO execute hi. de-
sign. It was the duty OF the rabbi to lay before
him all tho consequences imaginable which the
divorce would bring for him. for his wife, and
for his children. in order to dissuade him from
his Intention. IL by such moral suasion he
should induce the man to say he had never
thought of all these things In making the VOW.
the rabbi was Obliged ut once to absolve him
from his vow and bid him return to his
wife. But when . divorce was obtained with
all the required formalities, II was null and void
II the man and his wife remained under one
roof over night The rsmarriase of . divorced
wife was extolled ~ an act OF supreme merit,
but II the divorced woman was married to an.
other who afterward died or divorced her, she
could never again become the wife of her frst
husband. Tho law of Moses (Dsuter. xiv,
81 Is explicit on this point, although It does not
specify the punishment of tho transgressor.
The rAbbis decreed accordingly that IL q man
married his divorced wife after she had been
lawfully married to another man, the pair
should DO forced to separate By all means,
but the issue OF their second marriage would
be legitimate, for their guilt was not to be
visited upon their children. Philo Judeus. on
the other hand. declares them guilty OF adul-
tory. Jesus Mat. xix, 0; Luke. xvi. ls), and
Paul Il. Cor. vii. 10, III prohibited . divorced
woman from marrying another man at all; II
she did not return to her husband. she was re-
auired to remain single. By q curious peryer-
sion Mohammed Ignored tho sense OF morality
which prompted this legislation. and allowed
such marriages. even II the woman had been
married to another man In the mean time
Koran. Sura o..
Ezra and Nehemiah enforced the prohibition
Of mixed marriages by prohibiting Jews from