Marriage

To discuss Jewish topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

Angel

Post #11

Post by Angel »

elle wrote:
Jrosemary wrote:Meanwhile, there's no way to practice polyandry within Jewish law. (I think polyandry is the right word for one woman with multiple husbands.) I don't have an issue with it, personally--and I don't care if the state legalizes polyandry among consenting adults. But I doubt we'll ever see a rabbi performing a polyandrous wedding ceremony! To be fair, though, I don't know of any rabbis who would perform a polygamous ceremony either.
You're right, that would be polyandry. Is there a reason for the double standard here? Is it because of the culture or because practically that type of union does not provide the benefits of polygmy you mentioned such as producing children?
A married woman who sleeps with a man other than her husband is guilty of adultery according to Jewish law. Technically it's regarded as much worse than a married man sleeping with an unmarried woman--however, practically speaking, both are severely frowned on nowadays. Everyone wants to see a happy married couple (gay or straight, in liberal synagogues) who don't cheat on each other.
Again, why the double standard? I don't see why it is worse for a married woman to sleep with an unmarried man than for a married man to sleep with an unmarried woman. Do you know what the reasoning behind this is?
I thought of a theological reason for why polyandry isn't allowed. I'm not sure if I'm completely right. Anyways, ever since the Fall, God made man 'rulers' or head over their wives (Genesis 3:16). So that created a master to servant like relationship to where the wife belongs to the husband or the husband owns her. And if you put that with the point behind Jesus' statement, that a servant can't serve two masters (Matthew 6:24), then that's why a woman can't have 2 husbands. It would cause conflict with the marital roles of the husband.

That's why I'm thinking before the Fall, that would've been okay. And I don't mean just polyandry but also polygynandry (both husband and wife have multiple spouses).

This is all assuming of course the story of Adam and Eve and the consequences from the Fall are true. This is also compatible of SOME biblical-polygamy advocates because they always use the servant can't serve two masters point when asked about why polyandry isn't allowed.

Angel

Re: Marriage

Post #12

Post by Angel »

Lioba wrote: I have a question. When Judaisme turned from polygamy to monogamy was it only for the reason of cultural adaption or exist also theological, spritual or mystical reason?. As far as I know, the Ashkenasim turned defnitly to monogamy around 1000 p.C.
Here's Saint Augustine's answer:
Contra Faustum Book 22, paragraph 47:

47. Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it

Angel

Post #13

Post by Angel »

Sorry about my last post. I reread the OP and realized that you were looking for the end of polygamy within Judaism. My source applied mainly to the Christian religion.

User avatar
koko
Scholar
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:24 pm
Location: Twin Cities
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Post #14

Post by koko »

Isaiah 4:1

seven women propose marriage to the same man - nothing in Mosaic law forbids such unions


With your kind permission, I would like to extend this to Messianic law. By the way, though raised a Christian my ancestors were Sefardic. Therefore, I can speak both as a Christian and as a Judean.




As mentioned above, Mosaic law mandated levirate marriage. Yahshuah ben Yosef (more commonly known as the Nazarene Jesus Christ) was challenged by the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33 re this law. Instead of banning it like he did with other parts of Mosaic law, he affirmed it. This means that a man may have more than 1 wife under Christian law.

The ideal biblical couple as we all know was Abraham and Sarah. Christian women are told that they are "Sarah's daughter" if they follow her example {I Peter 3:6}. And what did she do that was so special? She was the giver in their relationship. She called her husband "Master", selected mistresses and concubines for him, and continually gave. All Judeo-Christian women are commanded to do the same.

This may sound like male chauvinism on my part but it is not. I'm just quoting the Bible.


By the way, I got banned from a Christian website for saying what you just read above. Note that my words come directly from the Bible so it is not hearsay nor anything that can be construed as blasphemy.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24704
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Post #15

Post by Goat »

koko wrote: Isaiah 4:1

seven women propose marriage to the same man - nothing in Mosaic law forbids such unions


With your kind permission, I would like to extend this to Messianic law. By the way, though raised a Christian my ancestors were Sefardic. Therefore, I can speak both as a Christian and as a Judean.




As mentioned above, Mosaic law mandated levirate marriage. Yahshuah ben Yosef (more commonly known as the Nazarene Jesus Christ) was challenged by the Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33 re this law. Instead of banning it like he did with other parts of Mosaic law, he affirmed it. This means that a man may have more than 1 wife under Christian law.

The ideal biblical couple as we all know was Abraham and Sarah. Christian women are told that they are "Sarah's daughter" if they follow her example {I Peter 3:6}. And what did she do that was so special? She was the giver in their relationship. She called her husband "Master", selected mistresses and concubines for him, and continually gave. All Judeo-Christian women are commanded to do the same.

This may sound like male chauvinism on my part but it is not. I'm just quoting the Bible.


By the way, I got banned from a Christian website for saying what you just read above. Note that my words come directly from the Bible so it is not hearsay nor anything that can be construed as blasphemy.
While not biblical.. the Jewish law tolerated, but did not enact pologamy. While not made illegal, it, for the most part, was discouraged. It also follows the current 'law of the land', so in countries where pologamy is permitted, it is permitted (but discouraged) in those areas too.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
koko
Scholar
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:24 pm
Location: Twin Cities
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Post #16

Post by koko »


While not biblical.. the Jewish law tolerated, but did not enact pologamy. While not made illegal, it, for the most part, was discouraged. It also follows the current 'law of the land', so in countries where pologamy is permitted, it is permitted (but discouraged) in those areas too.

Polygyny (the practice of having more than one wife) was clearly allowed under Mosaic law (more commonly though incorrectly known as "Jewish" law*). Exodus 21:10; Lev 19:20; Deut: 21:15,17; Gen 29:16 et seq. There are multiple examples of polygynous marriages all throughout the Old Testament. And, as stated in another thread, Levirate marriage (which allows a man to have more than one wife) is mandatory in Deut 25. Therefore, it is not just "tolerated", it is the Law.





* throughout this website, we continually see references to "Jewish" law or some other biblical issue referred to in this manner - the problem with this is that it implies that the law is restricted to Judeans. This is incorrect as biblical law (whether Mosaic or Messianic) is applicable to all Israelites, not just to Jews. The upshot being that, contrary to traditional Judeo-Christian teaching, Christians are Isrealites according to New Testament teaching.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24704
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Post #17

Post by Goat »

koko wrote:

While not biblical.. the Jewish law tolerated, but did not enact pologamy. While not made illegal, it, for the most part, was discouraged. It also follows the current 'law of the land', so in countries where pologamy is permitted, it is permitted (but discouraged) in those areas too.

Polygyny (the practice of having more than one wife) was clearly allowed under Mosaic law (more commonly though incorrectly known as "Jewish" law*). Exodus 21:10; Lev 19:20; Deut: 21:15,17; Gen 29:16 et seq. There are multiple examples of polygynous marriages all throughout the Old Testament. And, as stated in another thread, Levirate marriage (which allows a man to have more than one wife) is mandatory in Deut 25. Therefore, it is not just "tolerated", it is the Law.





* throughout this website, we continually see references to "Jewish" law or some other biblical issue referred to in this manner - the problem with this is that it implies that the law is restricted to Judeans. This is incorrect as biblical law (whether Mosaic or Messianic) is applicable to all Israelites, not just to Jews. The upshot being that, contrary to traditional Judeo-Christian teaching, Christians are Isrealites according to New Testament teaching.
Actually, from a practical point of new, no, it was not mandatory. The woman had the right to say NO.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
koko
Scholar
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:24 pm
Location: Twin Cities
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Post #18

Post by koko »


Actually, from a practical point of new, no, it was not mandatory. The woman had the right to say NO.

In those days a widow without progeny or a husband would likely not be able to till the lands by herself and could possibly face ostracism from the extended family. Thus, it is likely that she would not forgo the opportunity to marry someone who could support her. But I suppose she could have said no as you said.

Post Reply