adultery

[Muslimwoman]

Shalom guys

I have been learning about adultery in different cultures today and was surprised to read that early Jews believed that the 7th commandment only referred to married women and it was perfectly ok for married men to have intercourse with unmarried women. Is this accurate?

If so has it ever changed and on what was this original opinion based (as I have never read 'thou shalt not commit adultery ..... if you are a married woman but if you are a married man it is fine') and also on what basis was it changed?

Does your law now allow women to get divorced if their husbands are unfaithful?

It has been an eye opening experience, although very sad. It seems in most societies throughout history only married women could commit adultery but married men could not (obviously they were just doing what men do ).

Salaam
MW

[noctuary]

I have a feeling it was 'ok' for men in general since they could hide their 'sin'. Women would probably starting showing thier 'sin' at about the 3 to 4 month mark.

[wil]

I do hope BB or Dauer pipe in to explore this.

My view on thou shall not commit adultery is that it is not limited to sex outside of marriage.

We shouldn't adulterate anything.

If one waters down wine, one 'adds another' to it, dilutes the whole and pure, waters it down.

If we don't follow our principles, we are committing adultery, diluting our faith.

So in my mind, argue all the semantics one wants, but if anyone is engaging in any behaviours that detracts from their vows to each other, it is adulterating the union.

[Muslimwoman]

It is quite fascinating when you start to look into the subject. So many different societies accepted adultery by men (in fact it wasn't seen as adultery when it came to men). From what I am reading Jesus (pbuh) was the first Prophet to express that adultery was not to be committed by either women or men. It seems to go back to the idea that a families honour rests entirely on women.

I was just very surprised to hear that the 7th commandment had been interpreted in that way (if what I read is correct). I look forward to BB or Dauers input.

[Tao_Equus]

If any women need help with adultery I would be happy to oblige Bring on equuality!!

[flowperson]

Wil...I believe you've nailed it. I'd never considered it all from the perspective you've expressed. Yes...wholeness, purity. What does that even mean any more ?

flow....

[bob x]

Having sex with a woman WAS "marriage" back then: unless the relationship was concealed (in which case it was "whoredom") or unless the woman already "belonged" to another man. No ceremony or oath-exchange was an essential part of getting "married" then; a public celebration would be common, since public acknowledgement, along with the sexual act itself, was essential to "marriage". A man who already had a wife was perfectly free to "marry" another one (as, of course, Islam still allows), but a woman could not have another man (unless her husband publicly renounced her).

[greymare]

Tao..... you need help, man>LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Wil...... I understand what yu are saying (purity) etc its an interesting comparision. I agree entirely.
MW...... do you think it was because women werent really regarded as equal back then or that men were faultless to a degree when it comes to adultery. I know history is full of "bastard children". especially when it comes to ppowerful/royal families. Of course regular people had illigitamate children but obviously not mentioned in history books. ( I should know, its a family tradition for me) LOL

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

Having sex with a woman WAS "marriage" back then:

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. If I remember correctly Liviticus states that both the adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death. This is why I asked the original question - ie what did G-d say and what did 'man' interpret that into.

Ancient Roman law permitted sex with slaves, keeping of concubines and using prostitues, none of which were considered marriage but existed in many ancient cultures.

I also believe there is a difference between Judaism and Islam regarding marriage. A marriage in Islam is a civil matter, whereas I read that in Judaism a marriage joins two souls into one. How then could they interpret the 7commandment to allow men to have affairs?

Originally Posted by greymare

MW...... do you think it was because women werent really regarded as equal back then or that men were faultless to a degree when it comes to adultery.

This is what I am trying to understand at the moment Grey, how could G-d say one thing and man make such a botch up of it? Was it purely the patriachal society that rejected the commandment of G-d or is there somethig in the Scriptures I have missed on the subject?

Originally Posted by greymare

(I should know, its a family tradition for me) LOL

I do wish you would stop talking about yourself in this way. You are a wonderful, strong, sensitive woman - go look in the mirror and then celebrate who you are.

[greymare]

oh dont get me wrong. its a family joke and its ok. Now that my eldest has married I can chastise him for breaking the tradition. LOL. see to me its not a big deal. I can totally understand others getting married etc but it just wasnt an option for me. I do believe in marriage and it should be forever. thats probably one of the reasons I never have married. Ill never rule the option out though. (ya never know.....) I know Im great. just ask me, Ill tell ya. LOL

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by greymare

I know Im great. just ask me, Ill tell ya. LOL

I don't need to ask you, I already know!!

[bananabrain]

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

MyJewishLearning.com - Ideas & Belief: Traditional Sources on Non-marit

i guess my starting point here would be slightly odd unless you understand where i'm coming from. as far as i can tell, nearly all the laws around marriage are for the benefit and protection of everybody concerned, husband, wife and children. however, the technical term here translated as "adultery", TiNAPh is not what the english term means. the hebrew term signifies literally "moving from one to the other" and, as the rashi commentary explains:

Adultery applies only [to relations] with a married woman, as it is said: "[And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a[nother] man, who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor,] [both] the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death" (Lev. 20:10); [and it says,] “[You are] the adulterous wife, who, instead of her husband, takes strangers” (Ezek. 16:32). [In both these verses, the term “adultery” is used in reference to the extramarital relations of a married woman.]

so what is being penalised here on one hand is a married woman who moves between men - and the most *important* reason why this is not allowed is because of the risk of having a baby who would 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. however, the child of a relationship between a married man and a woman other than his wife is not subject to this status.

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.

if neither man nor woman are married to anyone else, it isn't adultery - although it is possible that they might become married thereby, as bob points out, so it's hardly encouraged, despite the clear fact that premarital or "licit" non-marital sex often took (and continues to take) place! which brings us to the point which seems to interest everybody, about whether a married man can legitimately have relations with a woman other than his wife. the basic answer is *yes* (look at abraham and jacob here!) but there are certain important caveats:

firstly, the wife must agree to this; it cannot be done without her knowledge. 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)

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! and, before anyone gets any ideas, he can't have a threesome with them both (that would come under the "licit non-marital but discouraged" rubric). moreover, multiple wives have been prohibited in ashkenazic tradition since the C13th i believe by rabbenu gershom of mayence, who (i believe) held that it would make christians jealous. 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. however, nowadays, as far as i am aware, everyone abides by the ban of rabbenu gershom, including both sephardim and eidoth ha'mizrah (the "eastern communities").

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 and, of course, it falls foul of another rabbinic stricture which disapproves of what is considered promiscuous conduct. concubinage, however, is no longer used, although i'm not entirely sure why if not for the reason that there was a *social* as opposed to religious stigma attached. nachmanides (ramba"n) tried to have it reintroduced, but this failed. reading between the lines, 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", at any rate that is what still goes on even in much of the (non-ultra) orthodox community; 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."

finally, i should note that it is technically possible to engage in any number of sequential, monogamous marriages, but what a lot of hassle! i certainly know a religious bloke that is on his fourth and may yet come to five and i believe there was one talmudic sage who used to travel for a living and would get married for the duration of his short stay in a town; personally, i think a degree of informality need not be entirely discouraged as long as it does not harm your marital prospects in the long term or undermine one's commitment to lifelong marriage - but then again, my own pre-marital history would have been considere
d unconscionably lax!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[wil]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

however, the technical term here translated as "adultery", TiNAPh is not what the english term means. the hebrew term signifies literally "moving from one to the other"

Now we are getting somewhere. I appreciate the commentary on the reasoning in the past and the legalese of it all. Surely that does not apply today?

But more than that I'd like some clarification on the word used. Is it only used in marriage situations? Or does it have other significance as adulterate has? ie is the watering down the wine, diluting one's principles applicable to the original word usage?

[bananabrain]

i couldn't tell you if it's only used in marriage situations, but i'd have thought not - basically it implies not being able to make up your mind, not being able to settle on one thing, wavering, that sort of thing. not so much dilution. hebrew has a large vocabulary to describe forbidden mixtures (meat/milk, sacred/profane, tahara/tuma) and it always involves a pair of concepts as far as i am aware.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[wil]

Namaste BB,

So basically it implies not being able to make up your mind, not being able to settle on one thing, wavering, that sort of thing. not so much dilution.

Ok, back to around an expanded metaphysical bent on thou shall not commit adultery, I was saying don't dilute your principles. Are you indicating that from the original Hebrew you could see one tempting the commandment if they lost focus of their beliefs, wavered from their path?