all Men had who did not like their Wives which was to sue out a Divorce Here Maimonides calls upon his Readers to admire the wise Ordination of God which appears in his Judgments as well as in his Works For because this Man took away his Wives Reputation therefore God ordered him to be rendered vile by being whipt and because he basely contrived to save her Dowry of fifty Shekels he ordered him to be amerced as much more and because he indulged his Lust and sought nothing but his Pleasure therefore he was bound to keep her as long as she lived More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XLIX Verse 20 Ver. 20. But if this thing be true and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel If the Witnesses which appeared for her could not prove the falsity of their Testimony who appeared against her Ver. 21. Then shall they bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house Where she was to be punished as a Disgrace to her Parents who had taken no better care to preserve her Chastity while she lived Verse 21 with them And the Men of her City shall stone her with stones that she die This was the punishment of such Adulteresses except only of a Priest's Daughter who if she was guilty of this Crime was burnt alive XXI Lev. 19. And it plainly shows he speaks here of a Woman corrupted between the time of her Espousals and her Husbands compleating the Marriage Otherwise he could not have had this Capital Action against her none being put to death for simple Fornication And this Maimonides saith in Seder Zeraim that from Moses to his time it was never doubted the Woman he here speaks of was one that proved false to her Husband after she was contracted to him Because she hath wrought folly in Israel A great wickedness as the word folly signifies in Scripture and as the Vulgar translates it To play the whore in her father's house Where she remained after her Espousals as in a safe place till her Husband brought her home to his own House So shalt thou put evil away from among you See XIX 19. Ver. 22. If a man be found lying with a woman married Verse 22 to an husband then they shall both of them die c. It is not said what death either here or XX Lev. 10. But the Jews say they were to be strangled Which is an Opinion so settled among them that Buxtorf saith he never saw any Hebrew Book which assigned any other Punishment for Adultery but this Stoning indeed was the Punishment of her that after her Espousals play'd the Whore as was noted before between that time and her Marriage but after the Marriage was compleated if she were guilty of this Crime this was the only Punishment according to their Tradition See upon XX Lev. 10. and Buxtorf de Sponsal Divortiis p. 32 33. and Grotius in VIII John V. Verse 23 Ver. 23. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed to an husband But not yet known by him For there was generally some space between the Espousals and the bringing her home to her Husband's House And the time allowed was more or less according to her Age. See Selden Lib. II. Vxor Hebr. Cap. VIII And a man find her in the City and lie with her If he lay with her any where else the Crime was the same but it was not so easie to corrupt her in her Father's House or among her Friends where she remained till the completion of the Marriage as it was to do it abroad in the City or in the Field Verse 24 Ver. 24. Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that City That is to the Court of Judgment which sat there as I noted upon XVI 18. And ye shall stone them with stones that they die After they had been Sentenced to this Death by the Court. The damsel because she cried not out Which was a demonstration she was not forced but lay with him by Consent Being in the City Where the Neighbours might have heard her cry and the Force if there had been any prevented The man because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife For so she was by such a Contract as made her only his This is supposed to be the Case of the Woman taken in Adultery mentioned VIII John 5. See my Notes upon XX Lev. 10. So thou shalt put away evil from among you See v. 21 22. Ver. 25. And if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field Where no Body was near as in the City Verse 25 And the man force her and lie with her It was presumed by the Circumstances of the Place that she did not Consent but was under a Force as she also affirmed and he could not prove the contrary Then the man only that lay with her shall die Because he only was guilty of a Crime as it follows in the next words Ver. 26. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing Verse 26 there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death To make her liable to suffer death for it was her misfortune as we speak not her fault that she was ravished For as when a man riseth against his neighbour and slayeth him He not being able to defend himself Even so is this matter It is here observed by many particularly by Grotius and de Dieu that Chastity is equal unto Life Ver. 27. For he found her in the field Far distant Verse 27 from all Company And the betrothed damsel cried For help as she affirmed and as it was presumed because if she had consented some other place might have been found more convenient for their purpose than the Field And there was none to save her None appeared to rescue her as she desired Ver. 28. If a man find a virgin In the Field before-mentioned Verse 28 Which is not betrothed To a Husband And lay hold of her and lie with her and they be found There be Witnesses of it or they themselves confess it This Case is different from that in XXII Exod. 16 17. in many respects For that Law speaks of one that was drawn in to consent to the Man's lying with her by inticing words which is expresly there mentioned and fair Promises perhaps of Marriage but here Moses speaks of one that laid hold of her i. e. deflowred her by force and violence In this Case the Man was bound to marry her if she and her Father pleased for both their Consents were required though the Man that deflowred her could not refuse but in the former Case the Man himself might choose whether he would marry or no which he could not refuse in this and besides was bound to pay fifty Shekels as a Mulct upon him for the Crime as follows in the next Verse See Selden L. I. Vxor Hebr. Cap. XVI Verse 29 Ver. 29. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsels father fifty shekels of silver Here
to have married her But all this is judged by the famous Abarbinel upon 2 Sam. XIII to be very absurd and neither believes that David would have committed such a Fact as to lie with a Woman in her Gentilism nor if he had that this Child would have been lookt upon as a Gentile since he afterward married her Mother And therefore he takes those words of Tamar v. 13. Speak to the King and he will not withhold me from thee to be a meer put off as we speak to get rid of his Company which Amnon understood very well who knowing he could not have her to Wife proceeded to force her Ver. 14. And it shall be if thou have no delight in Verse 14 her then thou shalt let her go whither she will If at the Months end or before his Mind was changed and he did not like to take her for his Wife then he might neither meddle with her any more as the Hebrew Doctors understand it nor keep her any longer as a Slave nor sell her or make merchandise of her as the Text here expresly orders but give her liberty to go whither she her self thought good This he lost say the Jews by his short pleasure he took at first For other Captives whom a Man had made himself Master of by the Law of War he might imploy in his Work as Slaves or make Money of them but one whom he had lain with he was either to marry or set her a liberty This they ground upon the last words of this Verse which I shall show may have another interpretation And therefore I shall not insist upon their sense which depends upon the same words who think Moses speaks of his not likeing her after she was become his Wife her Humour Manners and Conversation being disagreeable to him in which case he was to give her a Bill of Divorce as he might do another Wife but not keep her as a Slave Because thou hast humbled her It must be acknowledged that this is an usual Phrase for having had Carnal Knowledge of a Woman as the Scripture modestly elsewhere speaks in the like case It signifies so in the very next Chapter of this Book XXII Deut. 29. XIX Judg. 24. XX. 2. and many other places where it is used for Violence offered to a Woman which was the greatest Affliction to her as the Hebrew word properly signifies From which I see no reason why we should depart in this place for it was sufficient Affliction and Humiliation to a Captive Woman as Carpsovius observes in his Annotations upon Schickard's Book which I have so often named that after she had been brought into a Souldiers House and kept there a Month having her Head shaved Garments changed c. in hope of Marriage she was rejected at last when it should have been consummated And thus Abarbinel here understands the word humbled not of his lying with her but of all the forementioned Conditions which were imposed upon her as a preparation for his Bed and of her disappointment after she had submitted to be baptized And indeed the Hebrew word denotes any sort of Affliction See I Exod. 11. LXXXVIII Psal 8. LXXXIX 23. XC 15. XCIV 5 c. Verse 15 Ver. 15. If a Man have two Wives one beloved and another hated That is less loved as the word hated sometimes signifies XXIX Gen. 31. VI Matth. 24. R. Solomon thinks that this Case follows the other because it might so happen that if a Man suffered himself to be carried with too violent a passion towards such a Woman as is before-mentioned it might turn into hatred when he found her not to be agreeable to him And they have born him Children both the beloved and the hated Towards which it was likely he would be affected very differently as he was to his Wives And if the first-born Son be hers that was hated As it fell out in the Case of Leah and Rachel Ver. 16. Then it shall be when he makes his Sons to Verse 16 inherit that which he hath that he may not make the Son of the beloved first-born c. He speaks of Sons for Daughters were not to have a double Portion And he speaks of Sons as the Jews will have it born before the death of their Father to whom he divided his Inheritance For a posthumous Son had not a double Portion as the Gemara upon Bathra saith See Selden de Successionibus Cap. VII p. 29. Ver. 17. But he shall acknowledge the Son of the hated Verse 17 for the first-born Which had his first love and was to enjoy the effects of it By giving him a double portion of all that he hath Of all that he was in possession of when he died but not of that which was his in Reversion after his death as Mr. Selden shows the Opinion of the Jewish Lawyers is Lib. de Success Cap. VI. p. 24. For he is the beginning of his strength See XLIX Gen. 1. The right of the first-born is his By a very ancient Custom antecedent to the Law which made the first-born the Head of the Family and gave him as much more as any of his Brethren of the Estate belonging to it that he might be able to maintain and support the Dignity of it XXV Gen. 31. But if there was no Son and the Inheritance was to be divided among Daughters the eldest Daughter had not a double share of the Estate as Mr. Selden shows in the same Book Cap. VIII Verse 18 Ver. 18. If a Man have a stubborn and rebellious Son By a stubborn Son the Jews understand one that will not do as he is bidden and by a rebellious one that doth what he is forbidden And they imagine this Law is annexed to the foregoing about the marriage of a Souldier to a Captive Woman because the Issue of such Marriages commonly proved refractory or at least gave their Parents great trouble So Schickard observes out of Tanchuma And they confirm it by an Example out of Scripture viz. the two Children of David Absolom and Tamar who were both born of a Captive Woman made a Proselyte the former of which conspired the Death of his Father and the other being ravished by Amnon was the occasion of the Death of some of her Brethren Mischpat Hammelech Cap. V. Theorem XVII Which will not obey the voice of his Father or the voice of his Mother Behaved himself not only undutifully but crosly to them and with such contempt of their Authority as argued he had not only lost all filial Affection and Reverence to them but would if he could undo them And that when they have chastned him will not hearken unto them Is never the better for Admonitions Reprehensions and Corrections which they were bound to give him Verse 19 Ver. 19. Then shall his Father and his Mother lay hold of him It is absurd to say as the Hebrew Doctors do in their qualifications of this Law that his Parents were with
sufficient if they were such as they called Elders of the Street or common Men. See Lib. I Vxor Hebr. Cap. XV. and Lib. II. de Synedr Cap. VII N. III. And say my husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother She was to put in a Bill of Complaint against him in these words Verse 8 Ver. 8. Then the Elders of his City shall call him and speake to him c. He being summoned to appear before them together with the Woman who they say was to be fasting and two Witnesses at the least she opened the whole matter And then the question being askt Whether it were three Months since her Husband's death which were to be allowed to see whether she proved with Child or no and whether this Man was next of kin And a satisfactory answer being returned the Judges laid the Law before them and admonished them seriously to consider on each side their Age or any Disparity or Incommodity that might be in their Marriage and accordingly to resolve And then they ask't the Man in express words Whether he would marry her and raise up Seed to his Brother If he stood to his first Resolution as it here follows and said I like not to take her then the Woman read the words foregoing v. 7. My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel c. and then proceeded to do as follows v. 9. See Selden in the Book fore-named Cap. XIV Ver. 9. Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the Verse 9 presence of the Elders and loose his shoe from off his foot From his right foot as the Hebrew Doctors say which was done I suppose as a Mark of Infamy for his want of Natural Affection which made him unworthy to be reckoned among Free-men but rather deserve to be thrust down into the Condition of Slaves who were wont to go barefoot And spit in his face In contempt of him who had despised her The Hebrew Doctors indeed expound this only of her spitting upon the Earth directly before his face so that the Spittle might be seen by the Judges And they give this a reason why the King was not subject to this Law of marrying his Brother's Wife and they might add the High-Priest XXI Lev. 13 14. because it would have been below his dignity to have had his Shoe pulled off if he had not liked the Woman or to have had her spit before him as Bartenora's words are Which would have been a better reason if they had said It had been very unbecoming for her to have spit in the King's Face See Selden Lib. I. Vxor Hebr. Cap. X. and Hackspan Lib. I. Miscellan Cap. VII N. VIII where he observes the King was bound to all the DCXIII Precepts but only this of marrying his Brother's Wife And shall answer To his peremptory refusal of her And say so shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house She was immediately to read these words of the Law And then the Judges gave her a Writing signifying his renunciation of her in the manner now related that so it might be free for any other Man to marry her See the form of it in Selden Lib. I. Vxor Hebr. Cap. XIV where he hath observed certain Niceties about the kind of the Shoe that was to be pulled off but gives no account why this Ceremony was used Verse 10 Ver. 10. And his name shall be called in Israel the house of him that hath his shoe loosed As soon as she had loosed his Shoe both the Judges and all the By-standers round about cried aloud three times The Shoe is pulled off the Shoe is pulled off the Shoe is pulled off and thereupon his Family had this Name as a disgrace for not doing the Duty of a Brother Some will have this pulling off the Shoe to have been only a mark that he parted with his right to her but these words show that it was in the nature of a Brand upon him and his Posterity And so Josephus saith Lib. IV. Archaeolog Cap. VIII that he went out of the Court with a Mark of Ignominy Which doth not relate meerly to her spitting in his face for Maimonides saith expresly in his More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XLIX that this Action viz. of pulling off the Shoe as well as the other was a foul and ignominious thing in those days intended to move Men to perform the Duty of a Husband's Brother that they might avoid such Reproach J. Wagenseil hath given us the exact form of the Shoe which was used on such occasions in his Annotations upon Sota p. 664. and see 1212. where he commends Leo Modena his account of this whole Business Which differs not at all from that which I have given only I observe that he saith when the Woman taketh off the Shoe fom the Man's foot she lifts it up on high and throweth it against the ground which I take to be a Note of Indignation and Contempt And he saith also it was anciently accounted a more laudable thing to take her than to release her and imputes it to the Corruption of Men's Manners and the Hardness of their Hearts that now they look only after worldly ends either of Riches or Beauty which makes very few in these days especially among the Dutch and Italian Jews to marry their Brother's Widow See his History of the Rites and Customs of the Jews Part IV. Chap. VII Ver. 11. When men strive together one with another Verse 11 Fall out as we speak and fight either with their Fists or Sticks or other Weapons And the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him Who had wounded him and was likely I suppose to be too hard for him And putteth forth her hand and taketh him by the secrets As a sure means to make him let go his hold of her Husband that he might preserve himself Ver. 12. Then thou shalt cut off her hand This Verse 12 was to be done by the Sentence of the Court as a punishment for her Impudence and for the hurt which perhaps the Man might have received hereby in those Parts whereby Mankind is propagated Thine eye shall not pity her The word her not being in the Hebrew Text several of the Jews and Grotius seems to approve their Opinion interpret this Law quite otherwise As if the Woman might both take hold of his Secrets for the delivery of her Husband and also cut off the other Man's hand and they should not pity him who suffered thus nor punish the Woman who might do any thing of this nature to preserve one so dear to her as her Husband But this is a very forced Interpretation Maimonides is a little more reasonable in his Exposition of these words which he will have to signifie that they