Reply Obj. 4:  As stated above (ad 1), no Jew could own a Jew as a slave absolutely:  but only in a restricted sense, as a hireling for a fixed time.  And in this way the Law permitted that through stress of poverty a man might sell his son or daughter.  This is shown by the very words of the Law, where we read:  “If any man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as bondwomen are wont to go out.”  Moreover, in this way a man might sell not only his son, but even himself, rather as a hireling than as a slave, according to Lev. 25:39, 40:  “If thy brother, constrained by poverty, sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants:  but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner.”

Reply Obj. 5:  As the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9), the paternal authority has the power only of admonition; but not that of coercion, whereby rebellious and headstrong persons can be compelled.  Hence in this case the Lord commanded the stubborn son to be punished by the rulers of the city.

Reply Obj. 6:  The Lord forbade them to marry strange women on account of the danger of seduction, lest they should be led astray into idolatry.  And specially did this prohibition apply with respect to those nations who dwelt near them, because it was more probable that they would adopt their religious practices.  When, however, the woman was willing to renounce idolatry, and become an adherent of the Law, it was lawful to take her in marriage:  as was the case with Ruth whom Booz married.  Wherefore she said to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16):  “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.”  Accordingly it was not permitted to marry a captive woman unless she first shaved her hair, and pared her nails, and put off the raiment wherein she was taken, and mourned for her father and mother, in token that she renounced idolatry for ever.

Reply Obj. 7:  As Chrysostom says (Hom. xlviii super Matth.), “because death was an unmitigated evil for the Jews, who did everything with a view to the present life, it was ordained that children should be born to the dead man through his brother:  thus affording a certain mitigation to his death.  It was not, however, ordained that any other than his brother or one next of kin should marry the wife of the deceased, because” the offspring of this union “would not be looked upon as that of the deceased:  and moreover, a stranger would not be under the obligation to support the household of the deceased, as his brother would be bound to do from motives of justice on account of his relationship.”  Hence it is evident that in marrying the wife of his dead brother, he took his dead brother’s place.

Reply Obj. 8:  The Law permitted a wife to be divorced, not as though it were just absolutely speaking, but on account of the Jews’ hardness of heart, as Our Lord declared (Matt. 19:8).  Of this, however, we must speak more fully in the treatise on Matrimony (Supp., Q. 67).