Правило 87 Василия Великого

And so the first, and, moreover, in matters of this kind, very important, that we have to offer, is a custom observed among us, which has the force of law, because these decrees were handed down to us from holy men. The custom is this: if anyone, being possessed by the passion of uncleanness, falls into disorderly copulation with two sisters; then this is not considered marriage, and such are not accepted into the church assembly until after separation from each other. Therefore, even if nothing else could be said, this custom would be enough to prevent evil. But since the one who wrote the letter attempted, with a false argument, to introduce so much evil into the way of life, then we also need to use reasoning to help us, although in very clear subjects everyone has a prejudice stronger than reasoning. For it is written, he says, in the book of Leviticus: “Thou shalt not take a wife together with her sister, to make her a rival, to expose her nakedness in her presence, while she is alive” (Lev. 18:18). From here he clearly says that it is permissible to take her after death. To this, first of all, I say that the law, if it says anything, speaks to those who are under the law (Rom. 3:19). For otherwise we would be subject to circumcision, and the Sabbath, and exclusion from certain foods. For should we, when we find something conducive to our voluptuousness, submit ourselves to the yoke of the work of the law, and when one of the precepts of the law appears grave, resort to the freedom that is in Christ? We were asked: is there permission in Scripture to take a wife after her sister? We said, no: what is both safe for us and true: but by means of a plausible conclusion, to establish an opinion about what is silent would mean laying down a law, and not citing the words of the law. For in this way, the one who wants to be bold would be allowed, even during the life of his wife, to take her sister. For the same false thinking can be adapted to this case. It is written, he will say: do not take into account a jealous rival, therefore the law did not prohibit taking someone who does not have jealousy. Therefore, the defender of passion says that sisters have a non-jealous disposition. And so, when there is no reason why the cohabitation of both is prohibited, then what prevents you from taking your sister? This is not written, we say: but even that is not defined. The thought, derived through the conclusion, makes both of them permissible. It would be necessary to go back a little, to the previous sayings of the law, and thereby free ourselves from the difficulty. For it is noted that the lawgiver does not embrace all types of sins, but in particular rejects the sins of the Egyptians, from where Israel came, and the Canaanites, to whom he migrated. For this is how it reads: Do not do the deeds of the land of Egypt, in which you dwelt, and do not do the deeds of the land of Canaan, where I am leading you, and do not walk in their statutes (Lev. 18:3). It is likely that this kind of sin was not allowed in the lives of the pagans at that time: and therefore the legislator had no need to protect from it, but a custom not preceded by teaching was enough to reject this vileness. But why, having prohibited more, did he remain silent about less? Because to many of the carnal people, in relation to cohabitation with their sisters of living wives, the example of the patriarch seemed harmful. What should we do? the written verb, or the silent word? For in these laws it is not written that father and son should not enter into a single concubine: but in the prophet this is subject to the greatest condemnation. He says that even father and son go to the same woman to dishonor my holy name (Amos 2:7): and how many other types of unclean passions has the demonic school invented, about which the divine scripture is silent? Not wanting to violate its sacred importance by the names of abominations, it meant uncleanness by general names, as the Apostle Paul says: fornication and all uncleanness and covetousness should not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints (Eph. 5:3): under the name of uncleanness he includes the actions of husbands and wives unworthy of the name. Thus, silence does not give permission to sensualists. I will say that the legislator did not keep silent about this type of lawlessness: but he very strongly forbade it. For the words: no one should approach any relative according to the flesh in order to reveal nakedness (Lev. 18:6), contain this type of kinship. For for a husband, what could be closer than his own wife, or more than his own flesh? For they are no longer two, but the flesh is one. Thus, through the wife, her sister passes into the kinship of her husband. For just as he cannot take his wife’s mother, nor her daughter, because he cannot take his mother, nor her daughter, so he cannot take his wife’s sister, because he cannot take his sister. And conversely, it is not permissible for a wife to cohabit with her husband’s relatives: because the rights of kinship are common to both. I testify to everyone who asks for advice about marriage, that the form of this world is passing away, and time is ceased, and even those who have have wives will be as if they have not (1 Cor. 7:29,31). If anyone presents me with this saying as an objection, be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28): then I will laugh at him who does not distinguish between the times of the law. A second marriage is a cure against fornication, and not a farewell to voluptuousness. It is said: it is better to get married than to become inflamed (1 Cor. 7:9). But even when they encroach, let them not commit lawlessness. And those who, desecrating the soul with the passion of dishonor, do not even look at nature, which from ancient times distinguished the names of kinship, what name of kinship will they call those born from such two marriages? Are they brothers or cousins? for, due to confusion, both names will be appropriate for them. Do not, man, make the children’s aunts their stepmother, and do not arm the one who, instead of the deceased mother, should caress them with insatiable jealousy. For the jealousy of stepmothers is the only thing that extends hatred beyond the grave: or, more importantly, other former enemies are reconciled with the dead, but stepmothers begin to hate from death. The main thing from the above is the following: if anyone desires marriage according to the law, then the whole universe is open to him: if his desire is governed by passion, much more let marriage be forbidden to him, so that he learns to observe his vessel in holiness and honor, and not in the passion of lust (1 Thess. 4:4,5). The measure of the message holds me back more than the words of the aspiring one. I wish that either my admonition turns out to be stronger than passion, or that this lawlessness does not settle in our region, but remains in those places where they dared to do it. (Ap. 19; Trul. 26, 54; Neokes. 2; Basil the Great. 23, 68, 76, 78; Timothy Alex. 11). The present rule is compiled from one letter of Basil the Great (about 373) to Diodorus, Bishop of Taras. Someone, according to Balsamon, asked this bishop if, after the death of his wife, he could marry his sister (τήν εκείνης άδελφήν), and this bishop answered in writing (έγγράφως) that he could, for there was no canonical obstacle 112. Meanwhile, Basil the Great issued a decisive prohibition of such marriages, and at that time someone informed him that Diodorus had written on this issue. On this occasion, Basil the Great wrote his letter to Diodorus. In the preface to this letter, Saint Basil pretends that he does not believe that Diodorus wrote it, and not someone else. Here Vasily proves in detail that it should be absolutely forbidden for a widower to marry the sister of his deceased wife. That such a prohibition is based on divine law, we saw in the interpretation of the 19th Apostolic Canon; and that a person who enters into such a marriage will be deprived of Holy Communion until death, Rule 2 of the Neo-Caesarean Council tells us. Saint Basil proves the illegality of a real marriage, first of all, by the custom established in the church (έθος), then by quotations from the Holy Scriptures and, finally, by the incorrect family relationships that such a marriage would cause. Regarding custom, Basil the Great says that the first and most important thing (ό μέγιστον) in such matters is to keep in mind custom, for custom has the force of law (νόμου δύναμιν). Custom has always had the same meaning in the church as the law, if only it had a justified basis by the church and if it was sanctified by prescription. The rules for judging the importance and legal force of a custom were the regulations of the Greco-Roman legislation in the church, of which Zonara mentions several in his interpretation 113 . According to common law, according to Basil the Great, a marriage with two sisters is called unlawful intercourse (άθεσμον κοινωνίαν) and was never considered a marriage; anyone who married one sister, and then, after her death, with another, was deprived of the right to even enter the church until he separated from the one with whom he was living illegally, and on this basis, Vasily continues, it is clear to everyone how great an evil such a marriage is, even if there were no other evidence. And since, to justify his permission, Diodorus also referred to some places of the Holy Scripture, then Basil the Great turns to the Holy Scripture and subtly analyzes the corresponding passages from it. Diodorus referred to the words of the book of Leviticus (Lev. 18:18) that a person should not marry someone who is jealous of his sister, nor enter into communication with her during her life, and from here he concluded that after the death of his wife, he can marry her sister. Basil the Great responds to this first of all with the words of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 3:19), that the law, if it says anything, speaks to those under the law, for if this were not so, then we should be circumcised, celebrate the Sabbath and abstain from certain foods, and this would mean that from the Old Testament we want to accept only what we like, and the rest that we do not like, we will discard and replace Christ's law. They asked me, says Saint Basil, whether the Holy Scripture allows one to marry the sister of one’s first wife, and I answered that it does not allow, and this is the absolute truth; and from what is “silent”, he draws a conclusion, i.e. says: if the law prohibits marrying the sister of his still living wife, so as not to arouse jealousy, then it follows that this can be done when she dies, because even then there is no place for jealousy - doesn’t it mean taking on the role of a legislator, introducing your own laws, while ignoring the meaning of the existing law? For if we allow a husband to marry her sister after the death of his first wife, due to the fact that there is no place for jealousy, then we can allow him to do this during his wife’s life, once we learn that these sisters are not jealous by nature. It may be argued that this is not said in the Holy Scriptures, but the Holy Scriptures also do not say that after the death of a wife, a husband can marry her sister. To this Saint Basil adds that it will be even clearer if we pay attention to the circumstances under which Moses established this. The legislator did not intend to reveal all kinds of sin, but only the sins of the Egyptians, with whom the Jewish people had previously lived, and the sins of the Canaanites, with whom the same people subsequently came into contact; in all likelihood, the legislator forbade this sin because some wanted to follow the example of the patriarch Jacob, who cohabited with two sisters at the same time - Leah and Rachel. In the law, says Basil the Great, much is “silent”, but still prohibited; for example, the law does not say anything that father and son should not copulate with the same concubine, but the prophet forbade this as an illegal act (Amos 2:7). The “school of demons” taught people many sins and unclean passions, and yet the Holy Scripture did not want to list them, but designated them with one common name of uncleanness, so as not to pollute one’s own purity with vile words, as the Apostle Paul speaks about this (Eph. 5:3). And if, according to this, the Holy Scriptures are “silent” about various sins, then this still does not give anyone the right to commit shameful acts. However, this sin is not “silent” in the Holy Scriptures, says Basil the Great, for if the legislator says that no one should approach any relative in the flesh in order to reveal “shame” (Lev. 18:6), then this type of sin is also prohibited. If husband and wife are one body, as the Holy Scripture says, then everyone must admit that the husband is very close in kinship to his wife’s sister; and just as no one can, due to carnal relationship, marry the mother of his dead wife or her daughter from her second husband, nor his own mother or daughter, so no one can marry the sister of his dead wife, for he cannot marry his own sister. To the words of the Holy Scripture cited by defenders of this kind of marriage: be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28), Basil the Great responds that such people (defenders) seem ridiculous to him, because they do not distinguish the time when this was said from the present time. These words were spoken to the first couple at a time when there were too few people on earth, and therefore it was completely natural that the children of Adam should marry each other; However, according to these words, should siblings still marry? In the same way, Saint Basil rejects another position of his opponents, that a second marriage is permitted. A second marriage is permitted only to avoid fornication, and not to satisfy lust. If ap. Paul even allows a second marriage (1 Cor. 7:9), but through this he does not allow one to fall into lawlessness, and lawlessness is the marriage that they were now trying to justify. Following the analysis of references to the Holy Scriptures, with which Diodorus tried to justify the permission of the mentioned marriage with the sister of his deceased wife, Basil the Great draws attention to family relationships, which should be completely confused in such a marriage. If a man who married the sister of his deceased wife has children from both his first and second wife, then what kind of relationship will these children have? They will be siblings and cousins ​​among themselves (άδελφούς καί άνεψιούς): they will be full brothers (sisters), because they come from the same father, and cousins, because they are born from two sisters. Isn't this unnatural? Saint Basil also dwells on the situation of children from a first marriage, who have their own aunt as a stepmother, and gives the excellent advice given above in the rule: “Do not, man, make the children’s aunts their stepmother,” etc. (see above) 114. Regarding this rule, or the message of Basil the Great, Balsamon says: “The message of the Great Father to Diodorus, although filled with all wisdom and true eloquence and the strings of the All-Holy Spirit resounding in it, is not applicable in practice in these days (XII century): it legitimizes that no one should take two sisters into communion in marriage, which, by the grace of God, now does not at all occur to a Christian person. (? ανθρώπου χριστιανού)... But keep this divine message constantly in mind, for although what is defined in it is not applied in practice, but the inferences, judgments and comparisons contained in it, and especially what is compiled and contrasted on the basis of the Old Testament and the Great Apostle. Paul, very useful for other purposes" 115. For example: Περί ων έγγραφος ού κείται νόμος, ποραφυλάττειν δετ τό έθος καί τήν συνήθειαν... Ή παλαιά συνήθεια αντί νόμου φυλάττεταί..., ‘Η μακρά ?? συνήθεία δοκιμασθέντα καί έν πολλοίς ένιαυτοίς φυλαχθέντα, ούκ ήττον τών έγγράφων κρατοΰσιν. f. Synth., Ι, 39 [Wed. in op. author of “Right. tsrkveno right”, p. 52, § 14, note. 12, also in Russian. lane]. In the Latin text of Beveregius (Σ, sive Pandectae, II, Annot. p. 225]: De quibus scripta lex non extat, in his morem et consuetadinem custodire oportet. Antiqua consuetudo pro lege custoditur... Diuturna consuetudo pro lege obtinet, in quibus lex scripta deficit. On this issue, see the interpretation of Zonara in Af. Synth., IV, 264–268, and Beveregius mentions. place. You might be interested in: