• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Commentary on Jewish Marriage

ZecAustin said:
I admire your ambition and dogged determination but you are never going to be able to get Exodus 21 to tell an honest woman she can leave her husband for nonprovidence. A dishonesr woman doesn't care anyway so there really is no need to exhaust yourself over this.
Click to expand...

Exodus 21:11 doesnt't say anything about a woman being honest or dishonest, but it does speak volumes for the husband.

I know this is talking about a master marrying another woman, but if God provides for the mistreatment of a slave, how much more so for a free woman in other things?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cap said:
but if God provides for the mistreatment of a slave, how much more so for a free woman in other things?
Click to expand...
I would say, "much less." He was offering the weak and defenseless extra protection. God would never treat a person of a perceived lesser status be treated in an inferior manner and He would never treat a "free woman" better than the slave. This whole concept is the complete reverse of His character. And I repeat, considering what wives represent and what they demonstrate with the behavior towards their husbands is it any wonder that they're called to an incredibly high standard of action?
 
ZecAustin said:
I would say, "much less." He was offering the weak and defenseless extra protection. God would never treat a person of a perceived lesser status be treated in an inferior manner and He would never treat a "free woman" better than the slave. This whole concept is the complete reverse of His character. And I repeat, considering what wives represent and what they demonstrate with the behavior towards their husbands is it any wonder that they're called to an incredibly high standard of action?
Click to expand...

That was my point.
 
ZecAustin said:
Alright, you've got a couple of problems. The first is that an Israelite, remember that "Jew" wasn't a thing when the Law was given, can most certainly be a slave to an Israelite an even a permanent slave if he decides to stay and his master pierces his ear against the door post. And don't forget that the Law was given assuming that there would be no foreigners in the land. They would all be Israelite. The biggest problem though is your jump from having the passage referring to slave girls to talking about regular wives. That's just not there. You have to cut sentences in half basically. That's just too far of a stretch. Keep in mind as well that a case could be made that this slave girl that has been purchased may not even be one he has slept with. The language would apply to a regular slave girl in my understanding. It just really feels like you're trying to work backwards from a desired result.
On an unrelated note, if the slavegirl is a wife what does that do for the whole "covenant marriage" idea? She was bought not even knowing if she would be a wife and if so who to. That's a pretty sketchy covenant. I digress though.
So it seems that the question at hand is whether we can find a subject jump in Exodus 21 from talking about a slave girl to a "regular" wife so we can show that said "regular" wife can leave her husband if he reduces her portion in order to take a new wife AND THEN after all are we going to find a way to take the second wife out of it so we can show that any wife can leave a husband for non-povidence even if he never gave her a greater portion that he then reduced?
You see the challenge ahead of you right? Even if you get the slave girl out of it you still have the whole passage tied to a plural marriage ane a reduction of current portion. A sultan's wife could qualify and the wife of an abusive drunkard who never worked a day in his life wouldn't. I admire your ambition and dogged determination but you are never going to be able to get Exodus 21 to tell an honest woman she can leave her husband for nonprovidence. A dishonesr woman doesn't care anyway so there really is no need to exhaust yourself over this.
Click to expand...

You have somehow overlooked three very important items

  1. Hebrew bondsmen and bondswomen were not to be treated the same as Heathen bondsmen and bondswomen. Leviticus 25
  2. The bondmaids in question in Exodus 21 are definitely Hebrew.
  3. The bondmaids in Exodus 21 are all considered betrothed to either the master or his son where a heathen bondmaid in Lev. 25 would not have such a distinction or the protections associated.
Your characterization of the women as slaves in this passage is a gross mischaracterization of their status due to an equally gross ignorance of both Scripture and their culture
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Cap
I have just tidied up this thread to stop a crap throwing contest from starting. If either @Verifyveritas76 or anyone else uses that sort of rhetoric again, I won't be nice and edit out the nasty rhetoric but will delete the entire post on sight regardless of good content. I'm going to take a hard line on this because we've already had enough heated argument on this topic, and last time I let it go too far before stepping in. The mature men here need to set an example.
 
Last edited:
Today's Torah portion, Mishpatim, covers Exodus 21-24. Knowing that this discussion has been going on and knowing that the topic likely will come up in our group with possible pushback, I've read and pondered this morning as well as reviewed this thread. So, here are my thoughts interjected into the text copied from MySword, my mobile Bible app. My comments are in italics.

7 And if a man H376 sell H4376 his daughter H1323 to be a maidservant H519, in contect, concubine is the logical translation she shall not go out H3318 as the menservants H5650 do H3318.

All parties involved are Hebrew or Israelite as evidenced from v.1, therefore, her treatment through this passage is different than a foreignor. Why was she sold? Who knows. Debt, etc. The fact is, she is humbled by not being or retaining freeborn status.

8 If she please H7451 H5869 not her master H113, who hath betrothed H3259 her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed H6299: to sell H4376 her unto a strange H5237 nation H5971 he shall have no power H4910, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully H898 with her.

Note, she is betrothed. He 'owns her' as a concubine though at this point may or may not have had relations with her. In this process, the 'adon'/master finds something displeasing... attitude, personality conflict, etc, and decides she may not be a good fit. He may not sell her (recoup his investment or debt collected) to a non-Israelite. She must be kept in and protected by the larger family.

9 And if he have betrothed H3259 her unto his son H1121, he shall deal H6213 with her after the manner H4941 of daughters H1323.

Maybe in the original purchase, she was purchased with intent for the son, but similar displeasure is found. He is to treat her in the same manner he would treat his own daughter. She can be sold as she was originally purchased, but must remain 'in the larger family' for her protection. Further, he must sell to one who would care for her the way the seller would expect his own daughter to be cared for.

10 If he take H3947 him another H312; her food H7607, her raiment H3682, and her duty of marriage H5772, shall he not diminish H1639.

Another what? The subject is concubine. There is no subject change here as some try to interject based on the inserted English word. The duties listed here demonstrate that she has full concubine status, however the next verse demonstrates that she is not in a covenant that prevents her from being released. The adon/master can let her get go free considering her debt paid if he so chooses or if he is not fulfilling his part. Key, from other places in scripture, and implied from v8 is that the master humbled her (acted in a faithless manner).

11 And if he do H6213 not these three H7969 unto her, then shall she go out H3318 free H2600 without money H3701.

Conclusion: the entire passage is about and restricted to the treatment of a Hebrew maidservant. It does not alter or effect a wife's right to divorce or provision. Those are covered elsewhere.

I think this is pretty close to where @ZecAustin is.
 
Ancient Paths said:
Today's Torah portion, Mishpatim, covers Exodus 21-24. Knowing that this discussion has been going on and knowing that the topic likely will come up in our group with possible pushback, I've read and pondered this morning as well as reviewed this thread. So, here are my thoughts interjected into the text copied from MySword, my mobile Bible app. My comments are in italics.

7 And if a man H376 sell H4376 his daughter H1323 to be a maidservant H519, in contect, concubine is the logical translation she shall not go out H3318 as the menservants H5650 do H3318.

All parties involved are Hebrew or Israelite as evidenced from v.1, therefore, her treatment through this passage is different than a foreignor. Why was she sold? Who knows. Debt, etc. The fact is, she is humbled by not being or retaining freeborn status.

8 If she please H7451 H5869 not her master H113, who hath betrothed H3259 her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed H6299: to sell H4376 her unto a strange H5237 nation H5971 he shall have no power H4910, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully H898 with her.

Note, she is betrothed. He 'owns her' as a concubine though at this point may or may not have had relations with her. In this process, the 'adon'/master finds something displeasing... attitude, personality conflict, etc, and decides she may not be a good fit. He may not sell her (recoup his investment or debt collected) to a non-Israelite. She must be kept in and protected by the larger family.

9 And if he have betrothed H3259 her unto his son H1121, he shall deal H6213 with her after the manner H4941 of daughters H1323.

Maybe in the original purchase, she was purchased with intent for the son, but similar displeasure is found. He is to treat her in the same manner he would treat his own daughter. She can be sold as she was originally purchased, but must remain 'in the larger family' for her protection. Further, he must sell to one who would care for her the way the seller would expect his own daughter to be cared for.

10 If he take H3947 him another H312; her food H7607, her raiment H3682, and her duty of marriage H5772, shall he not diminish H1639.

Another what? The subject is concubine. There is no subject change here as some try to interject based on the inserted English word. The duties listed here demonstrate that she has full concubine status, however the next verse demonstrates that she is not in a covenant that prevents her from being released. The adon/master can let her get go free considering her debt paid if he so chooses or if he is not fulfilling his part. Key, from other places in scripture, and implied from v8 is that the master humbled her (acted in a faithless manner).

11 And if he do H6213 not these three H7969 unto her, then shall she go out H3318 free H2600 without money H3701.

Conclusion: the entire passage is about and restricted to the treatment of a Hebrew maidservant. It does not alter or effect a wife's right to divorce or provision. Those are covered elsewhere.

I think this is pretty close to where @ZecAustin is.
Click to expand...
Setting the actual debate aside for a minute, that was superbly presented. Thank you.
 
ZecAustin said:
What did I miss? Do I have an excuse to be good and upset? Have I regained some moral high ground? Were any good points made? Was I winning? I have so many unanswered questions. I only took a day off and I missed so much!
Click to expand...

Lol
 
Ancient Paths said:
Today's Torah portion, Mishpatim, covers Exodus 21-24. Knowing that this discussion has been going on and knowing that the topic likely will come up in our group with possible pushback, I've read and pondered this morning as well as reviewed this thread. So, here are my thoughts interjected into the text copied from MySword, my mobile Bible app. My comments are in italics.

7 And if a man H376 sell H4376 his daughter H1323 to be a maidservant H519, in contect, concubine is the logical translation she shall not go out H3318 as the menservants H5650 do H3318.

All parties involved are Hebrew or Israelite as evidenced from v.1, therefore, her treatment through this passage is different than a foreignor. Why was she sold? Who knows. Debt, etc. The fact is, she is humbled by not being or retaining freeborn status.

8 If she please H7451 H5869 not her master H113, who hath betrothed H3259 her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed H6299: to sell H4376 her unto a strange H5237 nation H5971 he shall have no power H4910, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully H898 with her.

Note, she is betrothed. He 'owns her' as a concubine though at this point may or may not have had relations with her. In this process, the 'adon'/master finds something displeasing... attitude, personality conflict, etc, and decides she may not be a good fit. He may not sell her (recoup his investment or debt collected) to a non-Israelite. She must be kept in and protected by the larger family.

9 And if he have betrothed H3259 her unto his son H1121, he shall deal H6213 with her after the manner H4941 of daughters H1323.

Maybe in the original purchase, she was purchased with intent for the son, but similar displeasure is found. He is to treat her in the same manner he would treat his own daughter. She can be sold as she was originally purchased, but must remain 'in the larger family' for her protection. Further, he must sell to one who would care for her the way the seller would expect his own daughter to be cared for.

10 If he take H3947 him another H312; her food H7607, her raiment H3682, and her duty of marriage H5772, shall he not diminish H1639.

Another what? The subject is concubine. There is no subject change here as some try to interject based on the inserted English word. The duties listed here demonstrate that she has full concubine status, however the next verse demonstrates that she is not in a covenant that prevents her from being released. The adon/master can let her get go free considering her debt paid if he so chooses or if he is not fulfilling his part. Key, from other places in scripture, and implied from v8 is that the master humbled her (acted in a faithless manner).

11 And if he do H6213 not these three H7969 unto her, then shall she go out H3318 free H2600 without money H3701.

Conclusion: the entire passage is about and restricted to the treatment of a Hebrew maidservant. It does not alter or effect a wife's right to divorce or provision. Those are covered elsewhere.

I think this is pretty close to where @ZecAustin is.
Click to expand...

This is what I was asking here thank you. I tend to agree with you on this.
 
Was going thru some of my notes and screenshots and ran across this. Unfortunately, I don’t remember where I found it and I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back through everything Ive read on the subject to find it. One of these days if I run across it again I’ll footnote this.

Sorry, tried to upload it several times and couldn’t due to file size. I’ll just type it in and if anyone wants I can forward them the screenshot.

. . . . . bah plus marriage formalities. But the older tradition seems definite, that a ketubah’less marriage represents concubinage. That tradition must be as old as the ketubah itself and its origin is probably Babylonian, for Hammurabi (2200 B. C. E. ) rules in his code, “If a man take a wife and do not arrange with her the proper contracts, that woman is not a legal wife.”
The early ketubah, then, had its function of legalizing a marriage. It was not only present at every wedding, but it was legally necessary with every marriage of the first order. In this respect it superseded even a combination of the later ketubah and the later shetar kiddushin, for both of these even in combination are not, according to later law, essential to the legitimacy of a marriage.
And, with this conclusion, we feel compelled to read into the first mishna of kiddushin this very old tradition, that “A woman is acquired by three means, , , , by money and by a writ and by intercourse.

(Don’t take the last part too seriously, as it appears that the next lines seem to indicate that another person considered it to be read “either by money or by a writ or by intercourse.” My screenshot didnt get all of that so . . . ?)
 
Mishna Kiddushin

A woman is acquired in three ways, and she acquires herself in two ways. She is acquired through money, through a document, or through sexual intercourse. Through money: Beit Shammai say, "With a dinar [a specific unit of money] or with the equivalent value of a dinar." And Beit Hillel say, "With a perutah or with the equivalent value of a perutah." How much is a perutah? One eighth of an Italian issar [a specific unit of money equal to one twenty-fourth of a dinar]. And she acquires herself through a bill of divorce or through the death of the husband. A yevamah [a widow whose brother-in-law performed levirate marriage with her] is acquired through sexual intercourse, and acquires herself through chalitzah [the ceremony performed by the widow of a childless man as an alternative way to release herself from the obligation to wait for levirate marriage] or through the death of the yavam [one upon whom has fallen the obligation to perform levirate marriage].

A Hebrew slave is acquired through money or through a document, and acquires himself through years [of service], through the Jubilee Year, or through prorated monetary [payment]. A Hebrew maidservant has an advantage over him, in that she acquires herself through [physical] signs [of puberty]. [A slave] who [has his ear] pierced is acquired through [the] piercing, and acquires himself through the Jubilee Year or with the death of the master.

A man may betroth by himself and through an agent, and a woman may become betrothed by herself and through an agent. A man may have his daughter betrothed when she is a na'arah [a pubescent girl distinguished from a prepubescent girl and a post-pubescent young women in a number of halakhic situations], by himself and through an agent. [With regard to] one who says to a woman, "Be betrothed to me with this date, be betrothed to me with this [one];" if in one of them there is [at least] the value of a perutah, she is betrothed, and if not, she is not betrothed. [If he says,] "With this one, and with this one, and with this one," if there is [at least] the value of a perutah in all of them [combined], she is betrothed; and if not, she is not betrothed. If she was eating them one by one [as he gave them to her], she is not betrothed unless there is the value of [at least] a perutah in one of them.

[If one says to a woman,] "Be betrothed to me with this cup of wine," and it is found to be of honey; "Of honey," and it is found to be of wine; "With this dinar [a specific unit of money] of silver," and it is found to be of gold; "Of gold," and it is found to be of silver; "On condition that I am rich," and he is found to be poor; "Poor," and he is found to be rich." [In all these cases] she is not betrothed. Rabbi Shimon says, "If he deceived her to [her] advantage, [she] is betrothed."

If one says to a woman, "Be betrothed to me] on condition that I am a kohen," and he is found to be a Levite; "A Levite," and he is found to be a kohen; "A netin [a Gibeonite]," and he is found to be a mamzer [the offspring of certain prohibited relationships who may not marry into the general Jewish population]; "A mamzer," and he is found to be a netin; "A village-dweller," and he is found to be a city-dweller; "A city-dweller," and he is found to be a village-dweller; "On condition that my house is near the bathhouse," and it is found to be far; "Far [from the bathhouse]," and it is found to be near; "On condition that I have an older daughter or maidservant," and he does not have; "On condition that I do not have [an older daughter or maidservant]," and he does have; "On condition that I do not have sons," and he has; "On condition that I do have [sons]," and he does not have. And in all [of these cases], even though she says, "It was in my heart to be betrothed to him even so," she is not betrothed. And the same is true [in cases where] she deceives him.

With regard to] one who betroths a woman on condition that she is not subject to any vows, and there were found to be vows to which she is subject, she is not betrothed. If he married her without conditions, and there were found to be vows to which she was subject, she leaves without a ketubah [monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband]. [If one betroths a woman] on condition that she has no blemishes, and blemishes were found on her, she is not betrothed. If he married her without conditions, and blemishes were found on her, she leaves without a ketubah. All blemishes that disqualify kohanim disqualify women [in marriage].
 
So in the commentary immediately preceeding this post, #9 is very important, but 11 is possibly even more important because it seems to correct all of us as to what the three things are that constitutes grounds for her freedom.

It states that if
  1. The master doesnt marry her
  2. The son doesnt marry her
  3. She was not redeemed
That she is free to go, provided she’s reached puberty (other places Ive seen it at 12 years old plus one day)

I can see where this could be the correct interpretation of “if he do not these three”, but if so, that means that the grounds for her freedom is based upon nonperformance of whatever marital duties are. In this case, because he hasn’t performed his marital duties, she’s free to go.

This however leaves me with additional questions.

  1. Is her freedom restricted to him breaking only this one clause of the betrothal? If so, what is the reasoning behind that
  2. Is her freedom restricted if he hasn’t broken all three? It doesnt seem to be the case if she’s free for only the one listed (marital duties)
  3. Are the three clauses of equal value and import? Is this one more important than the others (marital duties)
 
Ancient Paths said:
Conclusion: the entire passage is about and restricted to the treatment of a Hebrew maidservant. It does not alter or effect a wife's right to divorce or provision. Those are covered elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I agree that the passage is about a Hebrew maidservant. I do not agree that it is restricted to a concubine only. This restriction (absent a written statement within the passage) is based upon an inferred assumption that wives do not have these same rights.
  1. Is there anywhere that says that wives do not have these same rights, or
  2. Is there anywhere that says only concubines have these particular rights?
You mention that a wife’s right to divorce or provision is covered elsewhere. Is there a chapter and verse or something extra Biblical? I’m open either way.
 
Regarding post 57, a thought occurred to me. A man who had betrothed a woman/girl who continued to live in her fathers house until the Marital duties occurred was (according to some) supposed to provide her maintenance (food and clothing) because of her betrothal until her wedding day, even though she was living in her fathers house.

Kethuboth 53b

R. Joseph learnt: [Daughters must be maintained] until they become [wives]. The question was raised: Does this19 mean becoming [wives] at marriage or becoming [wives] at betrothal? — The question must stand unanswered.20

Another reading:27 He28 replied: I have not actually heard it, but it may logically be concluded that she is entitled [to maintenance]; for [her intended husband], not being sure of her, would not throw his money away for nothing. The other29 retorted: If you have not actually heard this it may logically be concluded that she is not entitled to maintenance; because [her future husband], having betrothed her, would not allow her to be degraded

If a girl was betrothed as a bond maid, and living in her future husbands house, he was still obligated to provide her maintenance until her wedding day, and he was obligated to provide a wedding day (or a day of consumation of some sort). The fact that it was a betrothal indicated that marriage was the intent of the agreement.

In the BT a father was responsible for maintenance for his sons til 6 yrs old out of obligation and should provide maintenance til they are of age out of love, but he was responsible for his daughter’s maintenance til betrothal/wedding. In light of this, a father who could provide neither maintenance nor dowry for his daughter to wed still had a legal viable means of securing her future as a wife through the Exodus 21 structure. He wasn’t abandoning her or selling her into slavery or prostitution, he was simply allowing her future husband to provide her maintenance and training until she was old enough to be a wife under Jewish law. The catch was that she had to be provided for as a wife until she could be consummated as a wife, and she had to become a wife (albeit a ketubah-less wife)

As such, Exodus 21 is written in a way to guarantee that she is guaranteed the minimum level of care of every other wife in Israel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top