Adultery and Jewish Law: From a Woman's Perspective
Most of this morning, I have been having a discussion regarding the meaning of certain words as used in the Torah and the Talmud. Such dialogue prompted me to analyze the definition of adultery according to Jewish law, especially from a woman's perspective.
According to the Jewish law, only when the woman involved is married, is adultery committed. If the male alone is married, and he has sex with a single female, this does not constitute adultery according to Jewish law. The Ten Commandments include a prohibition against adultery, defined in the book of Leviticus, along with the stipulation that both "the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. (Leviticus. (20:10)
This 'loophole' has been known to serve as a justficiation for some men to have extra-marital affairs, and still claim that they are not committing adultery according to Jewish law. (halacha)
But why is this the case, and what prevents women from standing up and asserting that this type of double standard does not make much sense from the point of view of fairness, which is supposed to be the threshold of Jewish law?
To me, it is only fair that women, like men be well versed in the Talmud and Jewish law. If this is indeed the core of our heritage, why should we not be conversant in it and be able to engage in discourse as well?
But this entire discussion, which seems to define adultery according to the marital status of the woman, does not ask another question, which, may bear some significance on the issue: what if the woman, who was married did not engage in a ceremony according to that set forth in the Torah? Is she considered to be legally married? If she strays, will her acts constitute adultery? What about those of her husband? Will the punishment be death for both the man and the woman?
What made this issue so interesting to me was one that was discussed in an issue of Jewsweek wherein it was concluded that if a woman, before marriage, took a ritual bath (a mikva), before intercourse, her act would not be considered a violation of the Torah. Here is the article (click under the you are my concuibine) :
http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Article%5El2007&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat
The article I quote above deals with a very different situation, but nevertheless one which made this issue significant for me to think about today.
Why should we, as women, accept a standard different from that which is imposed upon men? Is it not fair to give the woman the same status as the man, i.e., why would it not be considered adultery if a woman had intercourse with a man who was not married?
The article I quote above deals with a very different situation, but nevertheless one which made this issue significant for me.
Thank you for your minds.
According to the Jewish law, only when the woman involved is married, is adultery committed. If the male alone is married, and he has sex with a single female, this does not constitute adultery according to Jewish law. The Ten Commandments include a prohibition against adultery, defined in the book of Leviticus, along with the stipulation that both "the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. (Leviticus. (20:10)
This 'loophole' has been known to serve as a justficiation for some men to have extra-marital affairs, and still claim that they are not committing adultery according to Jewish law. (halacha)
But why is this the case, and what prevents women from standing up and asserting that this type of double standard does not make much sense from the point of view of fairness, which is supposed to be the threshold of Jewish law?
To me, it is only fair that women, like men be well versed in the Talmud and Jewish law. If this is indeed the core of our heritage, why should we not be conversant in it and be able to engage in discourse as well?
But this entire discussion, which seems to define adultery according to the marital status of the woman, does not ask another question, which, may bear some significance on the issue: what if the woman, who was married did not engage in a ceremony according to that set forth in the Torah? Is she considered to be legally married? If she strays, will her acts constitute adultery? What about those of her husband? Will the punishment be death for both the man and the woman?
What made this issue so interesting to me was one that was discussed in an issue of Jewsweek wherein it was concluded that if a woman, before marriage, took a ritual bath (a mikva), before intercourse, her act would not be considered a violation of the Torah. Here is the article (click under the you are my concuibine) :
http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Article%5El2007&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat
The article I quote above deals with a very different situation, but nevertheless one which made this issue significant for me to think about today.
Why should we, as women, accept a standard different from that which is imposed upon men? Is it not fair to give the woman the same status as the man, i.e., why would it not be considered adultery if a woman had intercourse with a man who was not married?
The article I quote above deals with a very different situation, but nevertheless one which made this issue significant for me.
Thank you for your minds.
45 Comments:
Good questing, I'd like to stress that I'm not a scholar but I think I can answer that.
Having intercourse is one the manners is which a man can legally wed a woman, after the intercourse they are in fact married.
If the man has intercourse with a married woman, then clearly he cannot wed her and therefore he is liable to the death. Penalty as it is literally adultery for both, whereas if she isn't but he is married, then it's as if he gets a second wife which was quite common in the era of the Talmud and perhaps even later, there’s no adultery taking place as the women is free and the men has a right to marry another women.
It may be interesting to know that this method of getting married was frowned upon, a proper chuppah was usually celebrated.
Oh, you're right! This is very interesting to me. But you've run into a snag: traditional Jewish law/interpretation is separate from what the Torah actually says.
Let's look at some examples:
Lev. 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Now although it specifies if a man is sleeping with a married woman, it does hold him equally accountable. This may be where the misunderstanding originated.
Ex. 20:14 & Deut. 5:18 "You shall not commit adultery." is pure simplicity itself. It doesn't read "Women shall not commit adultery." No! It says "You" or, as we might say it in the south "Ya'll". ;o)
The concept of woman-only adultery may also come from the example of Jeremiah "The Weeping Prophet" whose wife is a prostitute and is constantly unfaithful to him. However, it should be pointed out that if the situation were reversed, it would still be considered adultery.
Now, the Christian faith takes it one step further and Jesus makes it very clear to everyone that not only is it adultery (whether you're male or female) but it is also adultery even if someone contemplates it, so Christians are expected to be clean of mind, too. (Matt. 5:27-28)
P.S. Pragmatician is correct about how men were expected to marry the woman they slept with, but it's a common misconception that polygyny was sanctioned. Rather, it was allowed. For instance, kings (the "role models") were not allowed to have many wives (even though they often did). See Deut. 17:17 where it says "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold." Of course this doesn't restrict him to one wife.
But Mal. 2:14 is more specific when it mentions that God makes man and wife "one". It doesn't say he makes them "three" or "five" or "300". Although this verse decries divorce specifically, it is also often used to make a point against multiple wives. I don't think your scriptures ever said multiple wives were wrong, however. But I think they discourage them.
Christian scriptures make it clear that polygyny is wrong. Interestingly, polyandry was never allowed in either culture (more's the pity).
according to the torah men are allowed to sleep with a million women as long as they arent married and jewish
Y.Y., where in the Torah?
adultery=sin
sin fundamentally is a distrust of god and his provisions. so if we don't believe that god has an inherent stake in our lives, and what we do with it, then we're going to make all kinds of choices. if god has provided a mate, and we believe we could have done a better job picking the mate out, then the natural result is adultery. the issue is one of the heart, not one of "guys think with their penises" or "women want love and security"... all that is well and true, but if the heart is not right, no laws or rules can matter. there is *always* a loophole in any law devised by the mind of man. someone is always smarter than the guy who made the rule. why do you think microsoft has so many security patches? :-)
matthew 15:8-9 apply to all those who think rules will enable people to worship god and to do what's right.
parshas mishpatim
im acheret yikach luh
Interesting answers as always:
YY, you say that according to halacha, a man can sleep with as many women as he wants, and if they are not married, he has not committed adultery, but the same is not true for a woman:
Here is my question:
(1) do you think this presents a double standard, and
(2) why do you believe this was commanded as such?
Prag,
But what if the woman was not according to strict Jewish law? Can it be said that the woman, then, is not legally wed, and therefore, she is not committing adultry, since she is single? For example, what if a Jewess had a reformed ceremony?
gods law is law as he sees it double standard cannot apply
Of course it's a double standard since the 'Law' was written by a man or men. correct me if I'm wrong, but it was not written by women.
There is a double standard because it was a bunch of men who wrote the "laws". And because these men lived in the stone age, the laws reflect the times in which they were written.
holy cow. after reading the article (the link doesn't work, btw; but you can read the article just using www.jewsweek.com) and this post, i realize what Jesus was talking about when he complained about the jewish teachers of the law.
as to the question of whether this practice is moral or not ... would you consider someone who abstained from "kosher sex" as more self-controlled or moral? is someone who liberally makes use of the "kosher sex" provision less moral or less in control of their lust?
doesn't common sense tell you the person who abstains entirely is closer to the law of God? and why is that? is it not because the first man's actions (and probably his heart) are closer to the perfect standard of God--one man and one woman?
I am of the Christain faith and I don't believe that men have more rights than women. If a man is married and he sleeps with a unmarried woman, he has committed adultry. When he marries, he has pledged to be faithful to his wife and that means that she is the only one he will sleep with.
the torah was written by god thousands of years before he created the world
go learn your facts before commenting ignorant people
Actually, the most religious Jews take the position set forth by YY: that the Torah was written by God, in the word form, and the oral part was given to Moses at Sinai.
Now there is a divergence regarding the interpretation of it, and how that has blossomed over the years. Sages, who were the major interpreters of these documents, were in fact men, to the best of my knowledge. Rashi, one of the great interpreters of the Talmud was a man. There is some issue, however, regarding whether he, who had only daughters, taught them the Talmud, which was not common practice during his time.
All of this is with the provisio, that I am not a Torah scholar, nor am I considered an Orthodox Jew, so this is my perspective.
lucy
are you a god who are you to set the rules?
Although YY is the very soul of charm, and his arguments are both interesting and compelling, I have to politely disagree with his learned comments.
I would say ditto to TS and add that it might be rather hard for the Torah to be written before the world was created, since writing implements would've been in short supply.
god doesnt need a pen to write nor paper to write on
whats wrong with you people
i have to correct myself
i stated earlier that the torah was "written" many years before the creation.
The torah was "created" many years before this world was created
Saur,
Yes, YY is a charming soul, and it is the case that I truly adore him (as a fellow tribesman, of course), and sometimes I am protective of him too.
forgot to add...
Although YY and I do not always see eye to eye, I do adore him, and feel protective of him too.
This whole idea is silly. In order to have legal sex according to those rules, the woman would have to keep taharat hamishpacha (the "family holiness" or "family purity" laws that include going to the mikvah), so we're only talking about orthodox Jewish women. A mikvah visit is NOT as simple as dipping yourself in water at the end of your period. There's a whole series of rules and checking which a non-religious woman would most likely be unwilling to do.
Besides, Jewish law isn't an ala carte affair. Any woman who keeps T"H is also going to be shomer negia, which means she's not going to have physical contact with any man who is not her husband (with a marriage contract).
Multiple wives is also not allowed under modern Judaic law.
So why is this even being discussed? It can never happen without breaking religious law.
Barbarafromcalifornia,
To answer your question "why do you believe this was commanded as such?" Ummm... it was never COMMANDED that men have multiple wives. It was permitted once upon a time and is no longer allowed.
YY, so this is a Jewish traditional belief that is outside of the scriptures?
ahuva
the laws of niddah does not apply to nonjews
saur
can you explain your question?
TIA
....and to make it as short and concise as possible....amen.
Don't think anything was written before the creation that we have any access to. Don't need it. GOD has it all, we are visitors.
The IDEA of the laws were probably what was important, but, we humans always scurry around trying to find "more" than we need or loopholes out'a work. If we lust more than we love the great I AM, then, we are wrong. Sometimes we do just that.
The fact that Jewish law so closly parrellels Muslim law on the matter is interesting....where if found in an adulterous affair, the woman can be dragged to a dry well and dumped in.
The most bizarre part of that isn't the law, but rather that it is viable and practiced even today. (OK, well, I guess that isn't too strange sounding, since they were talking about killing a man for converting to Christianity.)
And, for the record, even though I am a man, I sure as the dickens don't believe in the idea that men are the superior set. Dang! That kind of thinking is what makes me (and others everywhere) wonder if there's any truth to any bible anywhere.
There are many 'if' scenarios possible, each case must be individually seen, with the circumstances surrounding the event etc.. But I think that there's no question of legal adultery if the woman is not Jewish.
I think the answer to your question is very simple. Because Jewish law is upheld by MEN just as Christian law is. Even though i am a supporter of religion, i also believe that many things have been misinterpreted by us humans but more specifically MEN over the centuries. It's still a man's world out there and our religions are just more proof of that. Thanks for stimulating my mind.
Prag, the way i interpret your last comment is that if a Jewish married man has sex with a non-Jewish woman, he isn't committing adultery? That can't be right! Or are you saying that if he has sex with a non-Jew it's definitley adultery? Oh, my head hurts!
Evangelina,
This is indeed how this provision is interpreted...That if a man has sex with a non-married woman, who is not Jewish, he is not committing adultery.
So if she is not married but Jewish he is? Oh, what a mess!
wrong barbara
jewish and single or even married but non jewish isnt adultery
YY, What I'm saying is, where are you getting this? Not from the Torah, right? ... so what source?
saur kraut,
y.y. gave his source: parshas mishpatim (Exodus 21:1 - 24:18)
see
http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/mishpatim.html
y.y., NONE of the laws except the Noahide Laws apply to non-Jews. The article talked about women using the mikvah in order to have "legal" sex, so it appeared to be only discussing sexual activity among Jews.
I think the original post is trying to say that "See-- Jewish women have to be faithful but Jewish men don't. Look at how sexist the religion is." when this is really a "How many angels can dance a jig on the head of a pin?" kind of question.
Whether you label it "adultery" or not, modern married Jewish men are not sanctioned to sleep around with women other than their wives. You can’t really discuss Jewish laws in isolation. It’s part of a whole package.
The whole "Judaism is anti-women" notion only pops up when people either deliberately misread the texts or are missing key facts because of lack of knowledge. There are many religious Jewish women in the world. We are not idiots.
What I am saying is this: there are some (not all) religious men who use this reading to justify their sleeping around with a non-married woman. Henceforce, they conclude that they are not committing adultery and violating this prohibition.
What is interesting is that this reading does not apply if the woman is a Jew and she has intercourse with a single man, whether Jewish or not.
I think as ahava points out, there must be some common sense and respect between partners. Actually, probably Jews, statistically, are less rather than more likely to commit adultery. There are only 14 million of us left worldwide!!
Evangleia- I know it's very complicated and the truth is to understand it within its proper context one needs to learn extensively about the Jewish religion as Judaism is NOT a misogynic NOR anti other religions, religion,
As a matter of fact Non Jews do not have to convert to go to heaven, Judaism fully believes any good person can go to heaven.
It’s just well very very complicated.
Prag brings up an excellent point.
Our religion, like the brain, is indeed very complex, and to make sense of, or understand it, by reference to one isolated example is not fair, even in my opinion, which, many Jewish scholars would conclude lacks education. That being said, I am still entitled to express my own opinions based on my readings, but the issue must be kept in proper context.
Ahuva, thank you. The Jewish religion was not one of the religions that I studied extensively. I appreciate the reference. But, am I understanding correctly: this is tradition and man-made laws based on, or incidental to, your scriptures? Or is this supposed to be divinely inspired?
Nevermind, I just looked it up and see that "Mishpatim is the portion that immediately follows the revelation of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai." I fail to see how this justifies males committing adultery, however. What am I missing?
Saur Kraut, Judaic law is full of fine points, technicalities, and words that can be twisted or misinterpreted. I think that's one of the reasons we prize education so highly. The Torah can be particularly difficult because it was written to apply in biblical times (when men were permitted to take multiple wives) as well as today.
I am not a scholar, but I think the problem is comming from the definition of "adultery." If, in biblical times, men could take multiple wives and a marriage could be created by sleeping with an unmarried woman and men, then a simple reading of the text is fine. It wasn't "adultery" as long as the woman was free and the man had a right to marry another woman. Things are different today. A man might use this as an excuse to sleep around on his wife, but no rabbi would say that this is a real justification for that kind of behavior!
saur
a man can sleep with a million women according to jewish law as long as the woman isnt jewish AND married
if she is jewish and single or even married but non jewish it does not constitute adultery
the source in in parshas achrei where it says "you shall not lie with your friends wife" by the term "friend" the torah means the woman has to be jewish and the term "wife" the torah means that she has to be married as well for it to be considered adultery.
YY,
The fact that you keep repeating this over and over, and posting it about in the space about music, makes me think that for you, this interpretion is held out like some badge of courage that can be utilized to justify inappropriate conduct towards one's spouse.
Judaism, although a complex relgion, is a moral one as well!
Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to discuss this. I find it interesting. I have to say I'm still not seeing any true justification based on the Torah alone. Instead, I see man/men's interpretations, skewed perhaps to the way they'd like to think.
Of course I'm delighted there aren't polygynous relationships any more, because I think it would certainly be an added stress to all involved, among other problems. But I'm all for a religion that promotes polyandry! ;o)
I think semual is not familiar with today's traditional orthodoxy. At least I hope that post was the result of lack of current and correct information. Most traditional orthodox girls attend day school. Many then go on to seminary. I assure you it does not take take more than twelve years to teach female children "the basics that they are obliged by." We don't have women rabbis, but that is not because no woman has mastered the laws.
Asylum,
Thakn you for all your intelligent and informative comments here. You have taught me something for today!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home