adultery

[bananabrain]

an interesting point. in fact, a different word is used for when the israelites go "whoring after strange gods". but there it indicates deliberate promiscuity, not inconstancy.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[flowperson]

BB... Hi

Do you think maybe the "whoring after strange gods" concept crept into the Hebrew traditions as a result of the Babylonian diaspora ? I've wondered a lot about the long term effects of that uprooting about 600 bce.

flow....

[bananabrain]

no, flow, i don't. it's in there from the very beginning of the exodus; what is the golden calf episode if not precisely this? one might even say earlier; esau and ishmael take canaanite wives and this causes them to adopt their religious customs to some extent.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[flowperson]

Thanks BB...Yes, it is certain that women have the ability to change men to their liking...sometimes. Thanks.

flow....

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

this *is* an interesting discussion. is this the rabbi gold you're talking about, sally?

Thank you so much for your explanations BB, things are beginning to fall into place.

Yes it was Rabbi Michael Gold I was reading (thanks for the link it was an interesting read).

As an interesting sidenote (from my perspective) this issue is a perfect example of how none of us should take one verse or one comment from a scholar and think we understand it. We have to understand everything that surrounds it.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

so what is being penalised here on one hand is a married woman who moves between men

So would this, in Engish terms, mean a long term affair (ie moving regularly between 2 men) rather than a quick one nighter? Because surely men are permitted to move between women? (sorry to sound so crude but without any knowledge of Hebrew I am trying to put it into plain words I can grasp).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

suffer the stigma of mamzerut, being the result of an illicit relationship which would mean the child could only marry a convert or another mamzer.

Does this stigma still exist today? Also how does a child born to an unwed woman not fall into this category? Is it about proof of who the father is that makes the difference?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

however, the child of a relationship between a married man and a woman other than his wife is not subject to this status.

So taking Bob's explanation, would this be because if a married man had a baby with a women other than his wife they would actually be considered to be married? Would he be responsible for supporting the woman and child in Jewish law? Would the child take the name of the father?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

the next important thing to remember is the man that has had relations with a married woman is subject to *exactly the same penalty* as the woman concerned; this is not a penalty that falls on the woman alone, as the Torah clarifies in the verse rashi mentions in leviticus.

Okay here I get a little lost. If the man and woman are both married and receive the same punishment what is the man actually being punished for? He is allowed to have 'relations' outside of his marriage, so is it because he has encouraged a married woman to commit a sin? Or does it come down purely to 'she is married therefore offlimits - you crossed the line buddy)?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

firstly, the wife must agree to this;

Ah-ha, now it gets very interesting as we begin to see the fuller picture.

Is there anything to suggest why a wife may want to agree to this arrangement? For example a barren woman or one that isn't that interested in this aspect of marriage (Eastenders can be very addictive ).

If what I am reading is correct you and Mrs BB 'joined souls' into one when you got married - is that correct? If so, would this not mean that even if Mrs BB agreed to such an arrangement then her soul would also be carrying out the act? (badly worded but trying to get my head round the spiritual implications).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

secondly, if the marriage contract signed by the man specifies that it is not permitted, then he must abide by this. i believe the penalty is that he'd be compelled to grant her a divorce and pay damages, there might be lashes as well - nowadays this would be considered a matter of course were it not covered by the ban of rabbenu gershom (see below)

Now I begin to see the thread running through both of our faiths, except with Islam it is termed as polygamous marriage, not sexual relations outside of the marriage.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

there are two other important issues. one is, of course, the ability of men to marry more than one wife, as in the case of jacob. this is hedged about with many, many qualifications, e.g. the husband must be able to afford it, may not show preference to one over the other and must additionally be able to provide them both with as much sexual satisfaction as they require!

Fascinating, without wishing to insult any of my Muslim brothers and sisters, I often read in Islamic books that it was Islam that introduced this system of equality for wives - clearly not. From my perspective of course I see this as an example of how G-d does not change His message but accept that non Muslims will see it as pure plagiarism.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

moreover, multiple wives have been prohibited in ashkenazic tradition

ashkenazic meaning? Is it a sect?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

no such situation obtained in the jewish communities of the islamic world, of course, which meant that some of the yemeni jews who arrived in israel in the 1950s had more than one wife and were allowed to keep them. incidentally, they weren't allowed more than four, as this would have made muslims jealous.

So do you know if Israeli civil law still permits polygamy?

I am intrigued by the idea of adapting your faith in order not to make other religions followers jealous. As Jews do not accept Jesus (pbuh) as the Messiah or Mohammad (pbuh) as a Prophet why would it concern your faith whether gentiles were jealous? Was it simply respect for fellow man and if so, how does that sit with following G-d's laws? Maybe I am not quite grasping what G-d's laws are on this subject in the Torah?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

the penultimate issue is that of pilagshut or "concubinage". technically, this is permitted; a man may take a woman as a concubine for as long as *both of them* wish it. this entails *no religious* stigma to either man or woman (provided the woman isn't married and the man's wife doesn't object) but, as far as i know, married men aren't allowed to take concubines either

Sorry you have lost me there. A married man can have concubines if the wife agrees but married men aren't allowed to take concubines.

So is there any stigma on the concubine? What if she has a child, is the man responsible in any way for providing for them?

A new question - is there anything in Judaism that instructs society to care for widows and orphans (eg through polygamy)?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

and, of course, it falls foul of another rabbinic stricture which disapproves of what is considered promiscuous conduct.

Jolly pleased to hear that, I was starting to get some very strange images in my head.

So really there are no hard and fast rules on the subject, other than the wifes permission and married women are a no-no? It sees if you accept the 'allowed sex outside marriage' thing then you can be as promiscuous as you like (if your wife agrees) but if you hold to the 'disapproval of promiscuous conduct' then you are stuck in the house watching Eastenders with the Mrs - therefore becomes a moral decision for the man rather than a matter of law?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i think that this probably always translated into "don't get caught having it off before you get married or at any rate don't advertise the fact",

But that doesn't account for the married men issue does it? You would think after all these centuries married men would learn to keep it in their pants, it's really not that much to write home about.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

the attitude is "well, it's all well and good until someone decides to take someone else to the beth din (religious court) and then there'll be a horrible mess."

ahhh, the old 'blind eye' attitude. Okay, so given what was said previously I am now struggling to see what the beth din could or would do - unless the wife doesn't like Eastenders and isn't getting her share or the woman involved is married.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

but then again, my own pre-marital history would have been considered unconscionably lax!

Hmm, hands up who isn't going to fry for that one!! The less said the better (cough, cough).

salaam
Sally

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Thanks BB...Yes, it is certain that women have the ability to change men to their liking...sometimes. Thanks.

flow....

Oh go on, blame the girls, stone us to death and see if we care!! (actually I think we would care quite a lot). It's never said that men are simply weak willed and need to get a grip!!

salaam

[flowperson]

Salaam Sally...Yeah well...It's kind of like dancing. I like to lead but so do women sometimes. A good and beneficial relationship is the mutual recognition of where the leadership boundaries are and of BOTH people having the good sense to allow the most capable partner do the leading when the situation requires their talents.

In both of my marriages neither of my partners would allow this process to operate. It was their way or I was supposed to go bonkers...so I let it all go on until they had no alternative but to get rid of me. That hurts more but it allowed me to escape with a minimum modicum of guilt. It's not usually a matter of will but of mutual recognition of what's really going on. If the other is not willing or able to discuss it in realistic terms, then an ending always comes.

BTW, I believe you're spot on about most men not being able to get a grip and be realistic. Most of us would rather watch sports or girlies on the tube and swill bubbly elixirs.

flow....

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by flowperson

and of BOTH people having the good sense to allow the most capable partner do the leading when the situation requires their talents.

Hi Flow

Maybe this is where all of the gender discussions are coming from? Women used to accept men as the leaders in most aspects of life (other than the running of the home) but are now saying 'hang on I am just, if not more, capable than you in this field so why sholdn't I lead'. I do not personally think we have the balance right yet.

Originally Posted by flowperson

In both of my marriages neither of my partners would allow this process to operate. It was their way or I was supposed to go bonkers...so I let it all go on until they had no alternative but to get rid of me. That hurts more but it allowed me to escape with a minimum modicum of guilt. It's not usually a matter of will but of mutual recognition of what's really going on. If the other is not willing or able to discuss it in realistic terms, then an ending always comes.

I have to confess I am guilty of that. I was thinking about it yesterday, I am very anally retentive when it comes to my home - lord forbid my hubby should move something an inch out of place or put a pan back in the wrong cupboard - I must be a nightmare to live with.

However, my thought process was about men and how women often do not allow them to 'live' in their own homes. I can't cope with shoes and clothes left everywhere and if you leave the loo seat up I see red but why? A husband has just as much right to 'live' in the home as the wife but the home still remains, generally speaking, the domain of the woman. Men and women tend in general to have very different views on how a home should be decorated and furnished and invariably the woman wins out (mainly I think just to shut her up ). It all goes back to my insistance that gender roles do still exist.

Originally Posted by flowperson

BTW, I believe you're spot on about most men not being able to get a grip and be realistic. Most of us would rather watch sports or girlies on the tube and swill bubbly elixirs.

My concern over this issue is really rather deep Flow. When you look at history, both in religious context and society at large, most groups have blamed women for men's behaviour. Even now if I tell my husband I was harrassed in the street by a man his first question is always 'what were you doing' - the assumption being I must have encouraged the man to be a letcherous git. Society here still see's women in this way. In the west we still hear of judges saying in rape cases that the women asked for it (which I accept women sometimes contribute to the actions of men but men are quite capable of being scum without a woman doing anything - yet women have always been seen as the temptresses, leading men astray).

It makes my blood boil I am afraid and my answer is always the same - when will men learn to accept responsibility for their own emotions and urges? (that is very generalised as many men do in fact control themselves but I think you know what I mean).

Sally

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

It's never said that men are simply weak willed and need to get a grip!!

salaam

Perhaps it has nothing to do with will and everything to do with us all being animals. To blame men is utter falsehood. In the UK 1 in 10 children do not have the biological father named on their birth certificate. But in the case of women with multiple children the ratio of second children being from another partner rises to 1 in 8. A University of Hamburg study into this phenomenon concluded that women seek out genetic diversity in their offspring. they will choose their primary partner for security and subsequent ones for other reasons. This is not concious decision making but because fundamentally we are just simple hormone loaded animals. We seek out the best genes for the biological imperative.

tao

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Perhaps it has nothing to do with will and everything to do with us all being animals. To blame men is utter falsehood. In the UK 1 in 10 children do not have the biological father named on their birth certificate. But in the case of women with multiple children the ratio of second children being from another partner rises to 1 in 8. A University of Hamburg study into this phenomenon concluded that women seek out genetic diversity in their offspring. they will choose their primary partner for security and subsequent ones for other reasons. This is not concious decision making but because fundamentally we are just simple hormone loaded animals. We seek out the best genes for the biological imperative.

tao

Ah but that is the whole point Tao. If you go with the biological imperative argument then why are women always blamed for leading men astray? Women have been forced through the ages to control their urges (with everything from destitution to the funny farm to stoning to death) so why not so men?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Ah but that is the whole point Tao. If you go with the biological imperative argument then why are women always blamed for leading men astray? Women have been forced through the ages to control their urges (with everything from destitution to the funny farm to stoning to death) so why not so men?

Omg you really dont know??? !!!!



Its so simple!!!



We are perfect!


tao

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

We are perfect!

Now what have I told you about drinking and smoking wacky backy during the day??

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I cannot see how that can be a correct interpretion of what was happening at the time. Rabbi Gold said "Halakha defines adultery as a sexual encounter between a married woman and a man not her husband. An affair between a married man and a single woman is not considered adultery".

Here Rabbi Gold refers to a man having an 'affair', not to him practicing polygamy, so there must be a difference.

An "affair" is a sexual relationship that is kept secret; that was "whoredom", also an offense for both the male and female participants, but a different offense from "adultery". Publicly taking another woman was simply a second marriage: it did not in any way diminish his continuing responsibilities to his first wife.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Ah but that is the whole point Tao. If you go with the biological imperative argument then why are women always blamed for leading men astray? Women have been forced through the ages to control their urges (with everything from destitution to the funny farm to stoning to death) so why not so men?

This was precisely my point about the veil (not that I wish to restart that argument).

[greymare]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Perhaps it has nothing to do with will and everything to do with us all being animals. To blame men is utter falsehood. In the UK 1 in 10 children do not have the biological father named on their birth certificate. But in the case of women with multiple children the ratio of second children being from another partner rises to 1 in 8. A University of Hamburg study into this phenomenon concluded that women seek out genetic diversity in their offspring. they will choose their primary partner for security and subsequent ones for other reasons. This is not concious decision making but because fundamentally we are just simple hormone loaded animals. We seek out the best genes for the biological imperative.

tao

OR PERHAPS, WE BELIEVED THAT HE WOULD CHANGE ....... and the second child was from a reconcilitation and then the third child was just a resignation that life was as it was and that is it. (not me mind you)(someone I used to know)