-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Two Questions
- Thread starter Storm
- Start date
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I see. So bringing down Rome is an outdated interpretation.
Do you think that's a good thing?
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Bring to me a verse that indicates Rome specifically, and I'll look into it.
I don't think it's a bad thing.
We'll be able to observe Passover more precisely according to how it's written if we can slaughter the lamb in the temple and eat its roasted flesh at the seder...
Instead, today, we have a shankbone on the seder plate to remind us that we don't have the temple.
That's just one example.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I don't have one. It's just something I've heard enough to warrant asking about. Mostly from Christians who try to say that Christ fulfilled it, so I've always taken it with a heap of salt.
Interesting. Thank you.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
When dealing with Tanach (old testament) prophecies coming from Christians... always take them with a 50 lbs bag of salt and consult the nearest Jew... because chances are you're dealing with a mistranslation, misinterpretation, or simple fabrication.
Interesting. Thank you.
you're welcome.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Oh, I do my best. Sadly, the "nearest Jew" is usually unreachable.
I might like to debate you on the topic of animal sacrifice, though.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Another question: on the topic of divorce, raised in the Caesar's Messiah thread, what were the requirements for a man to issue that certificate "and send her away"? What were the ramifications for the woman? Was she left destitute, or did the laws protect her somehow? OK, that was more than one question.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Another poster here on the forum, Harmonious, is quite well versed in this aspect of the law. Perhaps you could send her a PM inviting her to join us in this thread.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Ah, the question about Jewish divorce. Being a Jewish divorcee, I happen to know quite a bit about this.
When a man issues the certificate, known in Hebrew as a "Get", it signifies a decree of divorce.
Whether she was left destitute or not was determined by what was the determining factor for WHY he gave her the Get.
The laws DO indeed protect her. This gets a little complicated, but I shall explain.
When a Jewish couple gets married, the man gives his wife a "Ketuba," or a marriage contract. There is a post-Biblical sum of money attached to the Ketuba, describing how much money is being brought into the marriage by the husband, and it is worth twice as much if the bride is a virgin. This money is to be set aside in the advent of death or divorce. The money is translated by the Rabbi marrying the couple and explaining the Ketuba to the couple into modern currency.
The idea is that it is supposed to be an amount of money that would support a family for a year. When I was divorced, the going rate should have put the price my husband should have paid me upon the reception of the Get was about $25,000, or so. (A LOT of how this number is determined has something to do with the NYSE price of silver and a complicated calculation that I've seen in a Torah source. I might share it later. More of it has to do with how much money the husband makes, and how many children the wife will have to support, and lots of things of this nature.)
If the wife was suspected of infidelity, she could easily forfeit the money for the Ketuba.
The concept of Jewish divorce is complicated, because the wording of the passage in Deuteronomy states that the Get would have to be given of the husband's free will. This can devolve into a number of problems. Up until the 1000s, divorce could have been easily done without the wife's consent. After a decree of a particularly important Rabbi known as Rabbeinu Gershon (he is responsible for a number of decrees that were incorporated into Jewish law, including a ban on polygamy, the current topic under discussion, and the concept of absolute privacy of mail. Because of Rabbeinu Gershon's decree on mail, the fact that we take privacy of mail for granted was started by him), a man could not divorce his wife without her consent.
As such, Jewish matters of divorce have to be decided by a Jewish ecclesiatical court.
Now it starts getting interesting.
A woman who was married cannot remarry unless her husband is dead or he gives her a Get. From time in memorium, a Jewish man was indeed permitted to marry more than one wife. This inequality in Jewish law was supposed to be settled by one of the decrees of Rabbeinu Gershon, but it doesn't always work.
Let us assume that a divorce is deemed necessary by a Jewish court. The man must give the wife a Get of his own free will. There are occasions when a husband is cruel and recalcitrant, and refuses to give her a Get. This causes problems.
Pressure may be exerted on him to make him desire to give her a Get, but it cannot be under duress. Hence, if locals who take pity on the wife decide to beat him until he changes his mind, it is duress, and the giving of the Get would be invalid. (Such things have been considered, with guys who are just that evil.)
In days gone by, when Jewish communities were autonomous and the local non-Jews couldn't be bothered by what happened amongst the Jews, a Jewish court (and no one else) had permission to beat him into submission. Such a thing can't happen in the Western World. (Pity.)
But you see, a secular court cannot force a Jewish husband to give his wife a Get, or this is considered duress.
Steps have been taken by the Jewish community to help fix this problem, as some guys find new and creative ways to be cruel to wives in abusive marriages, knowing that they have the power to hurt their wives.
One solution used is excommunication. (This was a lot more useful in European ghettos, when the only place for Jews to go was amongst other Jews, as the non-Jews weren't interested in dealing with Jews.) A recalcitrant Jewish husband who refused to comply with the decree of a Jewish court would not be permitted to pray with a Jewish quorum, or be permitted to do business with Jews, or all kinds of things of this nature. The Jewish man's cruelty would hopefully be worn down with all of these measures against him, and he would do the right thing, and give his wife a Get.
In countries like America (and other free countries in the Western World), we have freedom of religion. This also means we have freedom FROM religion. As such, a new avenue was created to give pain to these poor women who can't be divorced without this Get. Excommunication works well amongst Jews in a Jewish community who can't belong anywhere else. But in America (for example), who says that a Jew needs to stay Jewish? So he wouldn't be welcome into the Jewish community, or permitted to marry another Jewish wife without issuing his wife a Get. But if he got a secular divorce, who is to say that he couldn't marry a non-Jewish woman?
New problems called for new solutions to be found. New York State has something that the Jews call "the Get law." There is a law that says that if a couple divorces, and there are any impediments to the remarriage of one party, the other party can't be remarried, either. In other words, if a Jewish couple files for a secular divorce, but the husband hasn't given his wife a Get, he can't marry anyone else in New York State until the religious divorce is finalized.
This is well and good. But there are 50 states, and plenty of them operate without this type of law.
The Rabbis worked hard to fix these difficulties.
As of late, the closest that we have to a working solution is a prenuptial agreement wrtitten by Rabbi Mordechai Willig, one of the Roshei (heads of) Yeshiva of Yeshiva University. It has two parts to it, one to be signed by two Kosher witnesses (like all Jewish religious legal documents) and one to be signed by a notary public (like all American legal documents). It states that if a husband and wife cease to live as a husband and wife, the clock is started such that for every day that the husband fails to give his wife a Get, he has to pay her a significant sum of money per day (somewhere between $100 and $200 dollars a day is usual, but if he has finances that could easily support this, a larger amount is mentioned) until he gives her the Get.
The American courts cannot force a man to give his wife a Get. But they CAN force him to give her this money.
This prenup worked for me, as my husband decided to be cruel. There were quite a few problems with my marriage, but they don't bear mentioning. But he would have withheld the Get from me with no purpose but to cause pain (he even said as much) without being forced by the prenup to give me $150 dollars a day until he gave me the Get. And he did.
There is a LOT to discuss on the matter, but I think this is good to start with.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Could the husband just say he suspected her, or are there other qualifications that must be met?
Actually, this was going to be my next question: what is the theological justiication for abandoning polygamy?
Actually, you pretty much answered all of my questions, except for the two above. Thank you!
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
This refers to the trial of the Suspected Adultress that is mentioned in Numbers.
However, the trial was not set up on a whim. There had to be witnesses that the wife under suspicion was in fact closeted in a locked room or was alone in a house or apartment with the man she was suspected of being with. The jealous husband has to warn her not to be found with this guy again, in front of witnesses. And then witnesses have to report that they were found together again, alone. It wasn't quite so simple, but it was easy enough to be done.
If a woman was taken to this trial, she had two options: she could simply decide not to go through with the trial, and thereby forfeiting the Ketuba, or she could go ahead with the trial, vindicating her faithfulness (or unfortunate lack thereof). If she was indeed found innocent, God showered her with blessings, including more children and children with better health and prospects.
Part of it was simply that polygamy drew scorn of non-Jews upon Jews. As such, it was a profanation of God's name. It was never a command for a Jewish man to be married to more than one wife, so it was more along the lines of giving up a luxury to "look better" in the eyes of the surrounding non-Jews.
It bears noting that Jews who lived in Muslim countries did not abide by the decree that was mainly followed by Jews in Christian countries, as polygamy was part of the cultural milieu of the Muslim countries. However, in 1948, the Sephardic Jews (Mediterranean Jews, who were more or less from Muslim countries) decided to accept the decree that Rabbeinu Gershon made for the Ashkenaz Jews (European Jews, who were more or less from Christian countries).
It wasn't so much of a "God decreed this, so we will do this" thing as much as it was a "this practice, while technically permitted isn't commanded, so we can do without it and make Judaism look better in the eyes of our non-Jewish neighbors" thing.
Glad I could help!Actually, you pretty much answered all of my questions, except for the two above. Thank you!
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
I told ya she knows her stuff.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Thank you kindly.
