Taboo Torah: Promiscuity Problems

Zohar Hadash, Bereshit 11a-11b
“You shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy (Lev. 11:44). This teaches that one should sanctify oneself during intercourse. What is the relevance of sanctification here? Rabbi Judah ben Jacob said: It means that one should not act licentiously or obscenely, or with whorish intentions like animals, for this is how animals act.

Iggeret Hakodesh

Neither sexual organs nor sexual intercourse are obscene, for how could God create something that contains an obscenity? God created man and woman, and all their organs and functions, with nothing obscene in them. We believe that God created nothing containing either ugliness or obscenity.

Iggeret Hakodesh

When you and your wife are engaged in sexual union do not behave lightheartedly and regard this act as vain, idle, improper. Therefore, first introduce her into the mood with gentle words that excite her emotion, appease her mind and delight her with joy. Thus you unite your mind and intention with hers. Say to her words which in part arouse in her passion, closeness, love, will, and erotic desire, and in part evoke in her reverence for God, piety and modesty...Never impose yourself upon her nor force her. For any sexual union without an abundance of passion, love and will, is without the Divine Presence. Do not quarrel with her nor act violently whenever coitus is involved. The Talmud says, "A lion ravishes and then eats and has no shame. So acts the brute: He hits and then cohabits and has no shame." Rather, court and attract her to you first with gracious and seductive, as well as refined and gentle words, so that both your intentions be for the sake of God...Do not hurry in arousing passion. Prolong till she is ready and in a passionate mood. Approach her lovingly and passionately, so that she reaches her orgasm first.

46. Conjugal Duties: The prohibition against diminishing a wife’s benefits

Rabbi Jack Abramowitz

He may not diminish her food, her clothing or her marital relations (Exodus 21:10)

This verse was written in reference to the Jewish maidservant, whom you will recall was intended to be betrothed. The Torah tells us that, after marrying her, her husband may not marry an additional wife if doing so will decrease the amount of food, clothing or sexual contact that the woman has come to expect. From context, this law is not specific to the Hebrew maidservant, since the previous verse tells us, “she shall be treated like all other girls.” (Rashi there cites the Mechilta specifically referring to this mitzvah.)

The Talmud in Kesubos discusses exactly what the expected parameters of food clothing and sexual relations should be, varying with a husband’s financial level and how physically grueling his profession. (His financial means affect the food she receives, while his profession affects the frequency with which she can expect physical intimacy.)

We see from this mitzvah that a woman has rights in her marriage. These three (food, clothing and physical intimacy) are Biblically mandated that a husband fulfill to the best of his ability. Rabbinically, he has other obligations, such as to pay the value of her kesubah (marriage contract) in the event of his death or divorce, to take care of her medical needs, and to see to her burial if she predeceases him.

This mitzvah applies in all times and all places, but only to men. It is discussed in the Talmud in the fourth and fifth chapters of Kesubos. In the Shulchan Aruch, it is found in Orach Chaim 240. It is #262 of the 365 negative mitzvos in the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvos and #42 of the 194 negative mitzvos that can be fulfilled today in the Chofetz Chaim’s Sefer HaMitzvos HaKatzar.

61. Age of Consent: The obligation for the court to fine the seducer

Rabbi Jack Abramowitz

A man who seduces a maiden who is not betrothed… (Exodus 22:15-16)

The courts are likewise required to judge the case of the seducer. The parameters provided by the Torah are specifically for an unbetrothed virgin. (Please remember that betrothal is more than what we call engagement; a betrothed woman would be considered married even though she has not yet moved in with her husband.) In this case, the seducer is required to marry the girl and provide her with the usual dowry. If the girl or her father objects to the union, the seducer must pay a fine of fifty silver shekels. (Why the father? Because the girl in this case is a minor. An adult woman would make her own choices and live with the consequences.)

While both the girl and her father have the right to refuse the marriage, the fine only goes to the father. If there is no father, the fine is forfeit. This is because the act was consensual. Granted, it didn’t have the father’s consent (which would be necessary to marry a minor), but the girl forfeited her claim to the fine by consenting to the act. (In the case of rape, the girl is entitled to the fine because it lacked her consent. See Talmud Kesubos 40a and Mitzvah #557.)

In addition to the standard fine of fifty silver shekels, the Talmud in Keubos (39a) clarifies that he also pays damages and for her embarrassment; these are variable amounts, based upon the individual circumstances of the case. Unlike the case of the rapist, the seducer may refuse the marriage and pay the fine.

This mitzvah applies to the ordained courts, since only they can impose fines under Torah law. It is discussed in the third and fourth chapters of the Talmudic tractate of Kesubos and is codified in the Shulchan Aruch in Even Ha’Ezer 177. The obligation to judge the case of a seducer is #220 of the 248 positive mitzvos in the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvos.

266. Don’t Call Her That: The prohibition against a kohein marrying a “zonah”

Rabbi Jack Abramowitz

A woman who is a “zonah”… (Leviticus 21:7)

A kohein is not allowed to marry a “zonah,” though many people misunderstand what a zonah really is. Like “mamzer,” the word is used as an insult in a manner separate from its actual, halachic sense. People often use the word zonah to mean a woman of loose morals, a prostitute or a tramp. Really, a zonah is a woman who has had intercourse with one of the forbidden sexual relationships and the term has no bearing on whether or not she is promiscuous. A woman who has had relations many times with multiple partners, all of whom would have been fit for her to marry, is not a zonah. A woman who had a single incestuous liaison (for example) is considered a zonah because she had relations with a person she cannot marry under Jewish law. So the term is meant to reflect a technical situation and does not deserve the stigma of the colloquial epithet. (See Talmud Yevamos 61b for further clarification of the definition of a zonah.)

Only relations with an inherently-forbidden man disqualify a woman from marrying a kohein. A woman who had relations during her niddah period (with a man who is of a generally-permitted nature) or a woman who had relations with an animal (which is not a man at all) may still marry a kohein. (Make no mistake – these are serious matters! Do not infer that they are permitted or overlooked; we are only addressing what disqualifies a woman from marrying a kohein according to the parameters of this particular mitzvah.)

This mitzvah is not a reflection on the woman any more than a kohein’s inability to attend a funeral is a reflection on the deceased. The basis of this mitzvah is the kohein’s enhanced level of sanctity, which prohibits him from doing certain things that other Jews might do. Just as a kohein cannot attend a funeral except for his closest relatives, he may not marry as broad a spectrum of potential mates as non-kohanim.

This mitzvah applies to male kohanim in all times and places. It is discussed in the Talmud in the tractate of Yevamos (56a-b, 59a-61b) and codified in the Shulchan Aruch in Even Ha’ezer 6. It is #158 of the 365 negative mitzvos in the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvos and #138 of the 194 negative mitzvos that can be observed today in the Chofetz Chaim’s Sefer HaMitzvos HaKatzar.

570. Premarital: The prohibition against having sex outside of marriage

Rabbi Jack Abramowitz

There shall not be a promiscuous woman…and there shall not be a promiscuous man… (Deuteronomy 23:18)

A person who hands his daughter over to another man for the purpose of marriage performs a meritorious act. If he hands her over not for the purpose of marriage, he degrades her and brings the nation down spiritually. We discussed cases of seduction (Mitzvah #61) and rape (Mitzvah #557), which are crimes and for which fines must be paid. If a sexual act is completely consensual between an unmarried man and woman, it is not a crime and there is no fine, but it is still not permitted because of this mitzvah.

The Ramban (Nachmanides) understands this mitzvah differently. He says that relations between unmarried people are not inherently prohibited by the Torah, only relations between two people who would not be permitted to marry under Jewish law. Therefore, he says that this verse prohibits promiscuity because a promiscuous person does not tend to examine whether a potential partner is someone fit for them to marry. (For example, a prostitute is not likely to ask her client if he’s a kohein.) This position is supported by the Talmudic definition of z’nus (promiscuity) as relations between two people who are unfit to wed (Yevamos 61a).

Of course, even according to the position of the Ramban, this is not to permit premarital relations in practical application. It would only say that such a liaison is not the subject of this mitzvah. There are many additional factors that would still prohibit such a relationship in the actual.

The basis of this mitzvah is to combat immorality. Unbridled relations, even between partners who are not inherently prohibited, can lead to all sorts of problems. One example is that of questionable paternities. Nobody wants to end up on a daytime TV show where the host says, “You are not the father” but there are bigger issues than that. Not knowing who a child’s father is can impact not only rightful inheritance, it can make a major difference in not accidentally marrying one’s aunt or half-sister.

This mitzvah applies in all times and places. It is discussed in the Talmud in the tractates of Kiddushin (80b) and Yevamos (37b). It is codified in the Shulchan Aruch in Even Ha’Ezer 177. This mitzvah is #355 of the 365 negative mitzvos in the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvos and #133 of the 194 negative mitzvos that can be observed today as listed in the Sefer HaMitzvos HaKatzar of the Chofetz Chaim.

In ancient Judaism

The concubine may not have commanded the exact amount of respect as the wife. In the Levitical rules on sexual relations, the Hebrew word that is commonly translated as "wife" is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". However, on at least one other occasion the term is used to refer to a woman who is not a wife – specifically, the handmaiden of Jacob's wife. In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse between a man and a wife of a different man was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved. Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, wives often gave their maids to their husbands if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, and Rachel and Bilhah. The children of the concubine often had equal rights with those of the wife; for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine.Later biblical figures such as Gideon, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings say that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

The account of the unnamed Levite in Judges 19–20 shows that the taking of concubines was not the exclusive preserve of Kings or patriarchs in Israel during the time of the Judges, and that the rape of a concubine was completely unacceptable to the Israelite nation and led to a civil war. In the story, the Levite appears to be an ordinary member of the tribe dedicated to the worship of God, who was undoubtedly dishonored both by the unfaithfulness of his concubine and her abandonment of him. However, after four months, he decides to make her fall in love with him again at her father’s house; he brought a servant and two asses to show off what glory he has. Her father seeks to keep him there until one day he refuses to remain and leaves. He is offered hospitality at Gibeah. the way in which his host's daughter is offered to the townsmen and the circumstances of his concubine's death at their hands describe a lawless time where visitors are both welcomed and threatened in equal measure.The Levite and his (male) host seek to protect themselves by offering their womenfolk, both the host’s virgin daughter and his companion’s concubine, to their aggressors for sex, in exchange for their own safety. In the morning, the Levite tries to wake her up, but then realizes that she is dead. He dismembers her body and distributes her (body parts) throughout the nation of Israel to remind them of the blessing that God gave them of liberating them from the likewise sexually vicious and sadistic land of Egypt, and to inform them of the horribleness of the land of Gibeah. The sadistic rape of the concubine is considered outrageous by the Israelite tribesmen, who then wreak total retribution on the men of Gibeah and the surrounding tribe of Benjamin when they support the Gibeans, killing them without mercy and burning all their towns. The inhabitants of (the town of) Jabesh Gilead are then slaughtered as a punishment for not joining the eleven tribes in their war against the Benjamites, and their four hundred unmarried daughters given in forced marriage to the six hundred Benjamite survivors. Finally, the two hundred Benjamite survivors who still have no wives are granted a mass marriage by abduction by the other tribes.

In modern Judaism

According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a pilegesh and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrew:ketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal ("kiddushin"), which was not the case with the former. According to R. Judah, however, the pilegesh should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.

Certain Jewish thinkers, such as Maimonides, believed that concubines are strictly reserved for kings, and thus that a commoner may not have a concubine; indeed, such thinkers argued that commoners may not engage in any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage.

Maimonides was not the first Jewish thinker to criticise concubinage; for example, it is severely condemned in Leviticus Rabbah. Other Jewish thinkers, such as Nahmanides, Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, and Jacob Emden, strongly object to the idea that concubines should be forbidden.

Any offspring created as a result of a union between a pilegesh and a man were on equal legal footing with children of the man and his wife. The only exception was the unique relationship between Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and Isaac and Ishmael.

According to Rabbi Mnachem Risikoff, the institution of pilegesh is an alternative to formal marriage which does not have the same requirements for a Get upon the dissolution of the relationship.

Next Up;

Abomination and the differences between שיקוץ and תֹּועֵבָה