borne before the couple, grain or money was thrown about, and music preceded the

procession, in which all who met it were, as a religious duty, expected to join. The

Parable of the Ten Virgins, who, with their lamps, were in expectancy of the bridegroom

(Matt 25:1), is founded on Jewish custom. For, according to Rabbinical authority, such

lamps carried on the top of staves were frequently used, while ten is the number always

mentioned in connection with public solemnities.45 The marriage festivities generally

lasted a week, but the bridal days extended over a full month.46

Having entered thus fully on the subject of marriage, a few further particulars may be of

interest. The bars to marriage mentioned in the Bible are sufficiently known. To these

the Rabbis added others, which have been arranged under two heads--as farther

extending the laws of kindred (to their secondary degrees), and as intended to guard

morality. The former were extended over the whole line of forbidden kindred, where that

line was direct, and to one link farther where the line became indirect--as, for example, to

the wife of a maternal uncle, or to the step- mother of a wife. In the category of guards to

morality we include such prohibitions as that a divorced woman might not marry her

seducer, nor a man the woman to whom he had brought her letter of divorce, or in whose

case he had borne testimony; or of marriage with those not in their right senses, or in a

state of drunkenness; or of the marriage of minors, or under fraud, etc. A widower had to

wait over three festivals, a widow three months, before re -marrying, or if she was with

child or gave suck, for two years. A woman might not be married a third time; no

marriage could take place within thirty days of the death of a near relative, nor yet on the

Sabbath, nor on a feast-day, etc. Of the marriage to a deceased husband's brother (or the

next of kin), in case of childlessness, it is unnecessary here to speak, since although the

Mishnah devotes a whole tractate to it (Yebamoth), and it was evidently customary at

the time of Christ (Mark 12:19, etc.), the practice was considered as connected with the

territorial possession of Palestine, and ceased with the destruction of the Jewish

commonwealth (Bechar. i. 7). A priest was to inquire into the legal descent of his wife

(up to four degrees if the daughter of a priest, otherwise up to five degrees), except

where the bride's father was a priest in actual service, or a member of the Sanhedrim. The

high-priest's bride was to be a maid not older than six months beyond her puberty.

The fatal ease with which divorce could be obtained, and its frequency, appear from the

question addressed to Christ by the Pharisees: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his

wife for every cause?" (Matt 19:3), and still more from the astonishment with which the

disciples had listened to the reply of the Saviour (v 10). That answer was much wider in

its range than our Lord's initial teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:32). To the

latter no Jew could have had any objection, even though its morality would have

seemed elevated beyond their highest standard, represented in this case by the school

of Shammai, while that of Hillel, and still more Rabbi Akiba, presented the lowest

opposite extreme. But in reply to the Pharisees, our Lord placed the whole question on

grounds which even the strictest Shammaite would have refused to adopt. For the

farthest limit to which he would have gone would have been to restrict the cause of

divorce to "a matter of uncleanness" (Deu 24:1), by which he would probably have

understood not only a breach of the marriage vow, but of the laws and customs of the

land. In fact, we know that it included every kind of impropriety, such as going about

with loose hair, spinning in the street, familiarly talking with men, ill-treating her

husband's parents in his presence, brawling, that is, "speaking to her husband so lo udly

that the neighbours could hear her in the adjoining house" (Chethub. vii. 6), a general

bad reputation, or the discovery of fraud before marriage. On the other hand, the wife

could insist on being divorced if her husband were a leper, or affected with polypus, or

engaged in a disagreeable or dirty trade, such as that of a tanner or coppersmith. One of

the cases in which divorce was obligatory was, if either party had become heretical, or

ceased to profess Judaism. But even so, there were at least checks to the danger of

general lawlessness, such as the obligation of paying to a wife her portion, and a

number of minute ordinances about formal letters of divorce, without which no divorce

was legal,47 and which had to be couched in explicit terms, handed to the woman herself,

and that in presence of two witnesses, etc.