JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION. Though a man left his parents
when he married (Gen. 2:24), he normally remained a
member of his father’s family. In relation to his wife, he was
“master” (ba’al; e.g., Gen. 20:3; Ex. 21:3, 22; Lev. 21:4; Deut.
24:4). He “took” her from her parents, or she was “given”
to him by her father, or by her master or mistress, if she
was a slave (Gen. 2:22; 16:3; 34:9, 21). The marriage agreement,
which, judging from neighboring cultures, was probably
set down in a written contract, was made between the husband
and either the bride’s father alone (Gen. 29; 34:16; Ex.
22:16; Deut. 22:29; Ruth 4:10) or both her parents (Gen. 21:21;
24). The marriage negotiations might result from an attraction
that had already developed between two young people (e.g.,
Samson and the Philistine girl, Judg. 14), but generally the
father must have taken the initiative since evidently he had
the right to determine who would be his daughter’s spouse
(Caleb, Josh. 15:16; Saul, I Sam. 18:17, 19, 21, 27; 25:44). If a
man seduced a virgin, he had to pay her bride-price to her
father, who could, at his own discretion, give his daughter to
this man in marriage or withhold her from him (Ex. 22:15).
However, if he forced her, he was obligated to marry her and
pay her price, and had no right ever to divorce her (Deut.
22:28–29).
Generally, prior to the consummation of the marriage a
*betrothal was entered into; under this arrangement the brideprice
(mohar) was established (Gen. 34:12; Ex. 22:16; I Sam.
18:25), accompanied by a gift (mattan; Gen. 34:12). A time limit
was set by which the payments were to be completed and the
marriage put into effect (I Sam. 18:17–19, 26:27). The engagement
was a legal transaction in the fullest sense. An engaged
man was exempt from military service (Deut. 20:7). The legal
status of a betrothed virgin was such that she was prohibited
to other men. If someone besides her fiancé had intercourse
with her, she was held guilty of adultery. If the act took place
in town, where she could have cried for help, the woman was
equally guilty; but if it happened in the country she was exonerated
by the benefit of the doubt – perhaps she did cry out
and was not heard (Deut. 22:23–27).
The essence of the *marriage ceremony seems to have
been the transfer of the bride to the house of the groom. He
would don a turban (Isa. 61:10) and proceed with his companions
to the house of the bride. There the bride, richly attired
(Isa. 61:10; Ps. 45:14–15) and veiled (Song 4:1, 3; 6:7; cf. Gen.
24:65; 29:23–25), awaited him. She was then conducted to the
house of the bridegroom (Gen. 24:67; Ps. 45:15–16). The festivities
included songs extolling the virtues of the bridal pair
(Jer. 16:9) – Psalms 45 and Song of Songs evidently represent
such compositions – and a feast of seven days (Gen. 29:22–27;
Judg. 14:10–12) or even a fortnight (Tob. 8:20). Unusual circumstances
might require that the feast be at the home of
the bride’s parents, but under normal circumstances it must
have taken place at the home of the groom. The marriage was
consummated on the first night (Gen. 29:23), and the bride’s
nuptial attire (simlah) was kept afterward as evidence of her
virginity (betulim; Deut. 22:13–21).
family
The modern definitions of *monogamy and polygamy
are not strictly applicable to the ancient world. It was normal
for the head of a household to have only one legal, fullfledged
wife (Heb. ishshah; Akk. aššatu); if she were barren,
the husband had the right to take a concubine who was often
the handmaiden of his wife (Gen. 16:1–2; 29:15–30; 30:1ff.).
However, a man might take two wives of equal standing (Gen.
26:34; 28:9; 29:15–30; 36:2–5; I Sam. 1:2). In that case the law
forbade his depriving his firstborn son of his legitimate double
portion in the interests of the son of the other wife, should she
be the favorite (Deut. 21:15–17). Royal polygamy (Deut. 17:17;
I Kings 11:1–8) was partly a reflection of foreign policy, each
new addition to the harem representing a new or renewed
treaty relationship. Heroic leaders would also be expected
to have numerous wives and to father many offspring (Judg.
8:30–31; I Sam. 25:42–43).
Living with her husband, the wife was normally close to
her husband’s father (ḥam; I Sam. 4:19, 21) and mother (ḥamot;
Ruth passim; Micah 7:6). Occasions when the groom stayed
with the bride’s parents (ḥoten, e.g., Ex. 18:1; ḥotenet, Deut.
27:23) are noted in the Bible precisely because they were not
the norm. Heroic figures such as Moses and Jacob (cf. also
Sinuhe, the hero of an Egyptian historical novel) were forced
because of unusual circumstances to spend long periods with
their in-laws.
When her father died, a woman’s brother would perform
all the duties of the ḥoten (Gen. 24:50, 55). Brothers- and sisters-in-law
were considered too closely related to marry (Lev.
18:16, 18; 20:21), except in the case of the husband’s brother (yavam),
who was expected to fulfill the Levirate responsibility.
*Adoption is clearly demonstrated in the case of Jacob’s
accepting Manasseh and Ephraim as sons (Gen. 48:5); parallels
from other ancient Near Eastern cultures have been noted. The
absorption of various clans, e.g., the *Calebites and Jerahmeelites
into the tribe of Judah, suggests that adoption may have
been more widespread in Israelite society. Divine adoption of
the king seems to be reflected in certain passages (II Sam. 7:14;
Ps. 2:7). It has been suggested, on the basis of parallel customs
from Nuzi, that Abraham had adopted Eliezer, his chief servant
(Gen. 15:2), and that Laban had also adopted Jacob before
sons of his own were born (Gen. 31:1–2). The evidence is too
scanty for firm conclusions, but one would be surprised if no
adoption whatever was practiced (cf. the metaphorical use of
adoption symbolism (Ezek. 16:1–7; Hos. 11:1–4)).
[Anson Rainey]
Post-Biblical
The subject of the family in the post-biblical period is considered
here under two aspects:
(a) family in its wider sense of individuals related by marriage
or consanguinity, and
(b) the smaller unit consisting of parents and children.
THE LARGER FAMILY UNIT. There is no doubt that the word
“family” was used in this sense, i.e., the descendants of an
eponymous ancestor, and various families are referred to in
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6 693