rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/10/84)
Subject: Polygamy and Judaism
I have noticed in passing remarks by Mr Martillo that
Sefardim still practice polygamy in some parts of the
world and I take it that the rest of the Jewish groups
practice monogamy. Now if we start with Genesis
2:24( *NOTE* Observant Jews please don't be offended
that I don't know how to reference the text but by the
Christian divisions ..2:24 etc.)
we note that "That is why a man leaves his father and
mother and is united with his wife and they become one."
(TEV).
This verse directly follows the creation of Eve.
I would say this is a pretty strong endorsement (in context)
of monogamy. Yet later in the Scriptures we find many of
the leaders like David and Solomon who are lavish polygamists
(Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines.)
God seems not to take official notice of this (like He did
when David seduced/"raped" Bathsheba).
What say the learned of Judaism on this topic ?
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (10/14/84)
>Subject: Polygamy and Judaism >I have noticed in passing remarks by Mr Martillo that >Sefardim still practice polygamy in some parts of the >world and I take it that the rest of the Jewish groups >practice monogamy. Sefardi Hakamim and some Ashkenazi Rabbis consider Ashkenazi practice an erroneous imitation of Christian practice. Sefardi hakamim have always been perfectly happy to marry Ashkenazim to second wives. > Now if we start with Genesis >2:24( *NOTE* Observant Jews please don't be offended >that I don't know how to reference the text but by the >Christian divisions ..2:24 etc.) >we note that "That is why a man leaves his father and >mother and is united with his wife and they become one." >(TEV). Translating from Kittel. Therefor a man will leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife and they will become one flesh. Simple meaning: a man will leave his parents, have sex with his wife and make a baby (the one flesh). It has nothing to do with monogamy, polygamy, polyandry or polygyny. >This verse directly follows the creation of Eve. >I would say this is a pretty strong endorsement (in context) >of monogamy. Yet later in the Scriptures we find many of >the leaders like David and Solomon who are lavish polygamists >(Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines.) >God seems not to take official notice of this (like He did >when David seduced/"raped" Bathsheba). This is not how Jews learn the incident. But I do not have the time. >What say the learned of Judaism on this topic ?
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/15/84)
This is a repost of this article since I rec'd
some mail telling me that the body of the article
was somehow deleted. Please forgive me if this
is a repeat for your site.
Subject: Polygamy and Judaism
I have noticed in passing remarks by Mr Martillo that
Sefardim still practice polygamy in some parts of the
world and I take it that the rest of the Jewish groups
practice monogamy. Now if we start with Genesis
2:24( *NOTE* Observant Jews please don't be offended
that I don't know how to reference the text but by the
Christian divisions ..2:24 etc.)
we note that "That is why a man leaves his father and
mother and is united with his wife and they become one."
(TEV).
This verse directly follows the creation of Eve.
I would say this is a pretty strong endorsement (in context)
of monogamy. Yet later in the Scriptures we find many of
the leaders like David and Solomon who are lavish polygamists
(Solomon had hundreds of wives and concubines.)
God seems not to take official notice of this (like He did
when David seduced/"raped" Bathsheba).
What say the learned of Judaism on this topic ?
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (10/16/84)
Ashkenazim are subject to a one-thousand year edict banning polygamy, that was promulgated by a well-known Rabbi in Europe. 1000 years is a long time, but, surprise! The 1000 years ended in the late 1970's. I made some inquiries and determined that apparently the halachic status of a 1000 year edict is that it remains in force, even after the 1000 years, until publicly terminated by people with at least the status of those who established it. (I'm not too clear about this, comments anyone?) In addition, there certainly is a tradition in Judaism of observing the secular laws of the land on such matters, so the status of the 1000-year edict comes into question only in countries that allow secular polygamy. The United States is in a peculiar condition in this regard, in that Polygamy seems to be nominally illegal, but accepted within various bounds of ostentation. Disaffected wives can initiate criminal procedings for Bigamy, and prosecutors who wish can do so also. In general, I believe that Mormons are never prosecuted for Polygamy, although Polygamy is now publicly discouraged by the leaders of that religion. I'm inclined to think that if the 1000-year edict were rescinded, and religious Jews then practiced polygamy quietly, not declaring it on their tax returns, they might get away with it. I would expect that polygamy would not work well among a society not used to it, since it seems to take some unusual mind sets in the participants to make it work. (For further info, listen to multiple wives of a Mormon on any talk show; they show up, from time to time.) However, Polygamy looks like a natural biological imperative for Orthodox Ashkenazim, so perhaps pressure for it will appear from somewhere. The tendency among this cultural subgroup is toward families with large numbers of children. There is also an excess (I think) of unmarried women. Families with multiple wives can manage large families, and provide for them, more easily, in some societal conditions. I'm not recommending any of this; I find monogamy more natural. I'm just curious about what's going to happen in the next decades in this little-examined area of (possible) social evolution. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/17/84)
I have the distinct impression that you can't read the first word of the Bible because it is in Hebrew - so having the presumptuousness to try and tell us what it says is tragi-comical.