• 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

I HAD TO HEAVILY EDIT THIS POST BECAUSE I WAS ASTOUNDINGLY WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING. IF YOU SAW THE ORIGINAL YOU'RE NOT CRAZY. I WAS TEMPORARILY THOUGH.

Ok now I’m curious. ;)
 
I still want to know what the "marriage is a covenant" crowd thinks this says about a marriage. This woman is "bought" not even knowing if she'll be a wife let alone whose. And not having sex with her is one of the things that frees her, along with starving her and leaving her naked. I just feel like the whole covenant thing keeps falling down in the face of scripture.
 
I still want to know what the "marriage is a covenant" crowd thinks this says about a marriage. This woman is "bought" not even knowing if she'll be a wife let alone whose. And not having sex with her is one of the things that frees her, along with starving her and leaving her naked. I just feel like the whole covenant thing keeps falling down in the face of scripture.

In the case of a bondmaid the covenant is formed on her behalf by her “owner” whom may also be the husband. In the case of a “free” woman the covenant is formed by her father. Just to be clear my stand is that both intent (covenant) and sex are required to form the “marriage”
 
You're switching in a position that no one is making. No one, and I mean no one, in this conversation is disputing that a husband should provide for his family and that one who doesn't is, as the Bible says, worse than an infidel and not of the true faith
Part of a chain of thought and something that is brought up on similar post on this subject and indirectly referenced on this post and I wanted to bring it to the for front before it was brought up again in an earnest attempt to manipulate the tone of the thread. Not directed at you bubba.
The Laws for Divorce are clearly laid out by Christ Himself and He does not include the loophole being discussed here. Exodus 21 is interesting and says jaw dropping things (to our modern, western minds) about God's views on men and wome
And my stance that Yeshua did not alter or add to the laws given in Torah. That nothing changed that wasn't prophesied to change in the Messianic era by the prophets such as the changing from a Levitical Preisthood and the laws concerning them and returning to the Melchizedek Preisthood that Abraham that was once Abraham's blessing and now Yeshua is Highpreist of. That Exodus 21 is a valid teaching an any precieved loophole in Yeshua teachings about divorce and remarriage are misinterpretations of the Teachings of the spiritual Adultery and remarriage in Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekeil that Yeshua was explaining which was reaffirmed in James. So that's clear and I'm not going to budge, your not going to budge.

I still want to know what the "marriage is a covenant" crowd thinks this says about a marriage. This woman is "bought" not even knowing if she'll be a wife let alone whose.
As a person who beleives that marriage is a covenant I'll give mine. Your assuming that she couldn't say no and that because she was a bond servant she had to marry him. By doing so your adding to what's there. This Scripture is about him and his obligations. But let's roll with it. I'm purchased with the blood of Yeshua. Didn't ask to be, he did it before I was born before, I knew who He was. I'm owned. But not until I repented my sins, declared that Yeshua rose from the dead, begged for salvation, received His spirit mercy and Grace was I under covenant.
 
and returning to the Melchizedek Preisthood .
So there was a change?
. Your assuming that she couldn't say no and that because she was a bond servant she had to marry him. By doing so your adding to what's there.
By assuming that she could say no you're adding to what's there. The passage would apply either way. And to make this verse apply to all marriages you not only have to add things that aren't there but take away things that are.
 
So there was a change?
In the Prohecies about messiah it says ABC will happen and xyz will result. I've never denied that just argued against a blank dissolution of the Law or Yeshua changing things that prophecy didnt say would change. I could have sworn I've stated this on the forum before aroundvyhe same time I explained you can't full fill laws only prophecy and that when Yeshua died on the cross that didn't do away with the law. I'll look that up and see if I did.

So there was a change?

By assuming that she could say no you're adding to what's there. The passage would apply either way. And to make this verse apply to all marriages you not only have to add things that aren't there but take away things that are.
Fair enough. On the first part. Show me in scripture the second. Matter of fact I'll start a thread on Divorce and we can go verse by verse as they appear. First thing that gets tossed out the window is that Torah allows divorce for any reason at all. That's man's Tradition to justify getting rid of wife's they don't want any more.
 
Ty. It may take a day or 2. I have a Hebrew literacy test Wednesday im studing for and been taking my breaks here but I need to hit the books.
 
Last edited:
it was now restricted by a clear financial obligation imposed on the husband to compensate his wife if he exercised his right to engage in unilateral divorce absent judicially declared fault on her part.

This is a common feature of dowry and in fact brings up an important precedent for the Hebrew practice of marriage. You'll notice the OT talks about dowry, but never proscribes or regulates it save one instance. There was some prexisting custom from whence it came. So too do we see pre-existing customs at work in the pre-Moses patriarchs. The best documentation I've found for these is in the ancient Mesopotamian laws (Abram came from Ur, a city in souther Mesopotamia of the semitic Caldean peoples).

The infamous Code of Hammurabi is therefor instructive, not just in that it documents the cultural practices from which Abram came, but it is also contemporary to him (give or take a few hundred years; dating on Abraham is subject to some disagreement and I could be off). Not only do I believe this code (or the culture it came from) to be that which drove Abrams actions on marriage, but it is closer in time to the Mosaic law than the Talmud. So also did the cultures of Mesopotamia weld great influence over the practice of the Hebrews as they were a great power and various dynasties ruled over Israel at various times.

Relevant marriage laws from the code...

127. If any one "point the finger" (slander) at a sister of a god or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked. (by cutting the skin, or perhaps hair.)

128. If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.

129. If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.

130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.

131. If a man bring a charge against one's wife, but she is not surprised with another man, she must take an oath and then may return to her house.

132. If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her husband.

133. If a man is taken prisoner in war, and there is a sustenance in his house, but his wife leave house and court, and go to another house: because this wife did not keep her court, and went to another house, she shall be judicially condemned and thrown into the water.

134. If any one be captured in war and there is not sustenance in his house, if then his wife go to another house this woman shall be held blameless.

135. If a man be taken prisoner in war and there be no sustenance in his house and his wife go to another house and bear children; and if later her husband return and come to his home: then this wife shall return to her husband, but the children follow their father.

136. If any one leave his house, run away, and then his wife go to another house, if then he return, and wishes to take his wife back: because he fled from his home and ran away, the wife of this runaway shall not return to her husband.

137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.

138. If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father's house, and let her go.

139. If there was no purchase price he shall give her one mina of gold as a gift of release.

140. If he be a freed man he shall give her one-third of a mina of gold.

141. If a man's wife, who lives in his house, wishes to leave it, plunges into debt, tries to ruin her house, neglects her husband, and is judicially convicted: if her husband offer her release, she may go on her way, and he gives her nothing as a gift of release. If her husband does not wish to release her, and if he take another wife, she shall remain as servant in her husband's house.

142. If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: "You are not congenial to me," the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and go back to her father's house.

143. If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water.

144. If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife.

145. If a man take a wife, and she bear him no children, and he intend to take another wife: if he take this second wife, and bring her into the house, this second wife shall not be allowed equality with his wife.

146. If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.

147. If she have not borne him children, then her mistress may sell her for money.

148. If a man take a wife, and she be seized by disease, if he then desire to take a second wife he shall not put away his wife, who has been attacked by disease, but he shall keep her in the house which he has built and support her so long as she lives.

149. If this woman does not wish to remain in her husband's house, then he shall compensate her for the dowry that she brought with her from her father's house, and she may go.

150. If a man give his wife a field, garden, and house and a deed therefor, if then after the death of her husband the sons raise no claim, then the mother may bequeath all to one of her sons whom she prefers, and need leave nothing to his brothers.

151. If a woman who lived in a man's house made an agreement with her husband, that no creditor can arrest her, and has given a document therefor: if that man, before he married that woman, had a debt, the creditor can not hold the woman for it. But if the woman, before she entered the man's house, had contracted a debt, her creditor can not arrest her husband therefor.

152. If after the woman had entered the man's house, both contracted a debt, both must pay the merchant.

153. If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her husband and the other man's wife) murdered, both of them shall be impaled.

154. If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).

155. If a man betroth a girl to his son, and his son have intercourse with her, but he (the father) afterward defile her, and be surprised, then he shall be bound and cast into the water (drowned).

156. If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her, and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and compensate her for all that she brought out of her father's house. She may marry the man of her heart.

157. If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.

158. If any one be surprised after his father with his chief wife, who has borne children, he shall be driven out of his father's house.

159. If any one, who has brought chattels into his father-in-law's house, and has paid the purchase-money, looks for another wife, and says to his father-in-law: "I do not want your daughter," the girl's father may keep all that he had brought.

160. If a man bring chattels into the house of his father-in-law, and pay the "purchase price" (for his wife): if then the father of the girl say: "I will not give you my daughter," he shall give him back all that he brought with him.

161. If a man bring chattels into his father-in-law's house and pay the "purchase price," if then his friend slander him, and his father-in-law say to the young husband: "You shall not marry my daughter," the he shall give back to him undiminished all that he had brought with him; but his wife shall not be married to the friend.

162. If a man marry a woman, and she bear sons to him; if then this woman die, then shall her father have no claim on her dowry; this belongs to her sons.

163. If a man marry a woman and she bear him no sons; if then this woman die, if the "purchase price" which he had paid into the house of his father-in-law is repaid to him, her husband shall have no claim upon the dowry of this woman; it belongs to her father's house.

164. If his father-in-law do not pay back to him the amount of the "purchase price" he may subtract the amount of the "Purchase price" from the dowry, and then pay the remainder to her father's house.

165. If a man give to one of his sons whom he prefers a field, garden, and house, and a deed therefor: if later the father die, and the brothers divide the estate, then they shall first give him the present of his father, and he shall accept it; and the rest of the paternal property shall they divide.

166. If a man take wives for his son, but take no wife for his minor son, and if then he die: if the sons divide the estate, they shall set aside besides his portion the money for the "purchase price" for the minor brother who had taken no wife as yet, and secure a wife for him.

167. If a man marry a wife and she bear him children: if this wife die and he then take another wife and she bear him children: if then the father die, the sons must not partition the estate according to the mothers, they shall divide the dowries of their mothers only in this way; the paternal estate they shall divide equally with one another.

168. If a man wish to put his son out of his house, and declare before the judge: "I want to put my son out," then the judge shall examine into his reasons. If the son be guilty of no great fault, for which he can be rightfully put out, the father shall not put him out.

169. If he be guilty of a grave fault, which should rightfully deprive him of the filial relationship, the father shall forgive him the first time; but if he be guilty of a grave fault a second time the father may deprive his son of all filial relation.

170. If his wife bear sons to a man, or his maid-servant have borne sons, and the father while still living says to the children whom his maid-servant has borne: "My sons," and he count them with the sons of his wife; if then the father die, then the sons of the wife and of the maid-servant shall divide the paternal property in common. The son of the wife is to partition and choose.

171. If, however, the father while still living did not say to the sons of the maid-servant: "My sons," and then the father dies, then the sons of the maid-servant shall not share with the sons of the wife, but the freedom of the maid and her sons shall be granted. The sons of the wife shall have no right to enslave the sons of the maid; the wife shall take her dowry (from her father), and the gift that her husband gave her and deeded to her (separate from dowry, or the purchase-money paid her father), and live in the home of her husband: so long as she lives she shall use it, it shall not be sold for money. Whatever she leaves shall belong to her children.

172. If her husband made her no gift, she shall be compensated for her gift, and she shall receive a portion from the estate of her husband, equal to that of one child. If her sons oppress her, to force her out of the house, the judge shall examine into the matter, and if the sons are at fault the woman shall not leave her husband's house. If the woman desire to leave the house, she must leave to her sons the gift which her husband gave her, but she may take the dowry of her father's house. Then she may marry the man of her heart.

173. If this woman bear sons to her second husband, in the place to which she went, and then die, her earlier and later sons shall divide the dowry between them.

174. If she bear no sons to her second husband, the sons of her first husband shall have the dowry.

175. If a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry the daughter of a free man, and children are born, the master of the slave shall have no right to enslave the children of the free.

176. If, however, a State slave or the slave of a freed man marry a man's daughter, and after he marries her she bring a dowry from a father's house, if then they both enjoy it and found a household, and accumulate means, if then the slave die, then she who was free born may take her dowry, and all that her husband and she had earned; she shall divide them into two parts, one-half the master for the slave shall take, and the other half shall the free-born woman take for her children. If the free-born woman had no gift she shall take all that her husband and she had earned and divide it into two parts; and the master of the slave shall take one-half and she shall take the other for her children.

177. If a widow, whose children are not grown, wishes to enter another house (remarry), she shall not enter it without the knowledge of the judge. If she enter another house the judge shall examine the state of the house of her first husband. Then the house of her first husband shall be entrusted to the second husband and the woman herself as managers. And a record must be made thereof. She shall keep the house in order, bring up the children, and not sell the house-hold utensils. He who buys the utensils of the children of a widow shall lose his money, and the goods shall return to their owners.

178. If a "devoted woman" or a prostitute to whom her father has given a dowry and a deed therefor, but if in this deed it is not stated that she may bequeath it as she pleases, and has not explicitly stated that she has the right of disposal; if then her father die, then her brothers shall hold her field and garden, and give her corn, oil, and milk according to her portion, and satisfy her. If her brothers do not give her corn, oil, and milk according to her share, then her field and garden shall support her. She shall have the usufruct of field and garden and all that her father gave her so long as she lives, but she can not sell or assign it to others. Her position of inheritance belongs to her brothers.

179. If a "sister of a god," or a prostitute, receive a gift from her father, and a deed in which it has been explicitly stated that she may dispose of it as she pleases, and give her complete disposition thereof: if then her father die, then she may leave her property to whomsoever she pleases. Her brothers can raise no claim thereto.

180. If a father give a present to his daughter--either marriageable or a prostitute unmarriageable)--and then die, then she is to receive a portion as a child from the paternal estate, and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.

181. If a father devote a temple-maid or temple-virgin to God and give her no present: if then the father die, she shall receive the third of a child's portion from the inheritance of her father's house, and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.

182. If a father devote his daughter as a wife of Mardi of Babylon (as in 181), and give her no present, nor a deed; if then her father die, then shall she receive one-third of her portion as a child of her father's house from her brothers, but Marduk may leave her estate to whomsoever she wishes.

183. If a man give his daughter by a concubine a dowry, and a husband, and a deed; if then her father die, she shall receive no portion from the paternal estate.

184. If a man do not give a dowry to his daughter by a concubine, and no husband; if then her father die, her brother shall give her a dowry according to her father's wealth and secure a husband for her.

185. If a man adopt a child and to his name as son, and rear him, this grown son can not be demanded back again.

186. If a man adopt a son, and if after he has taken him he injure his foster father and mother, then this adopted son shall return to his father's house.

187. The son of a paramour in the palace service, or of a prostitute, can not be demanded back.

188. If an artizan has undertaken to rear a child and teaches him his craft, he can not be demanded back.

189. If he has not taught him his craft, this adopted son may return to his father's house.

190. If a man does not maintain a child that he has adopted as a son and reared with his other children, then his adopted son may return to his father's house.

191. If a man, who had adopted a son and reared him, founded a household, and had children, wish to put this adopted son out, then this son shall not simply go his way. His adoptive father shall give him of his wealth one-third of a child's portion, and then he may go. He shall not give him of the field, garden, and house.

192. If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut off.

193. If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desire his father's house, and desert his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his father's house, then shall his eye be put out.

194. If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.

195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.

If you read on you can see in #196 the influence on the OT in Exodus 21:23–25.
 
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Rockfox. That is an amazing list of family laws and their existence in Chronology and their influence in Jewish culture is unmistakeable IMO.
 
It seems to me that there is clear evidence from the Code of Hammurabi (2200 BC ish) to the Scriptural account at Sinai (1500 BC ish) to the Mishna (200 BCish thru 200 ADish) and Talmudic (min 70/135 ADish -500 AD) records that a man was culturally responsible to provide for his wives especially and that there is no break in these expectations. The Talmud in this case is clearly recording existing culture, not creating it.
 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

The Talmud in this case is clearly recording existing culture, not creating it.

I would say the Talmud was influenced by the surrounding culture. How could it not be. But there was a lot of time and many many cultural influences between the OT and the Talmud. It was probably influenced as much if not more by the Babylonian exile (or by the previous Assyrian rule) as by the original Hebrew understanding. Considering even before the exile they forgot the law and chased after foreign gods, there is likely very little original understanding in the Talmud.

a man was culturally responsible to provide for his wives especially

We see this also in 1 Timothy 5:8.

The thing about the Code of Hammurabi is that it is balanced. Harsh yes. But just in that it carries protection for both sides. It requires the husband to provide for this wife, not neglect her, and if he did she could go with her dowry. But she couldn't take half his stuff, his children, and his income for the next 20 years. And so too is there severe punishment for a wife who financially, or otherwise, ruins her house. Contrast that with today: a husband providing is construed to mean proliferate spending to keep up with the Joneses and the concept that a wife can divorce if the husband doesn't provide is used to justify women who don't want their ruinous spending controlled. So today there are no protections for the husband and the protection for the wife is turned into yet another excuse to fleece the husband. 4000 years and we can't manage to do better than the earliest of laws.

Another note of reference. Mesopotamian law developed over time and later versions, esp. under the Assyrian's, added the explicit provision of a marital contract which the CofH did not (unless I missed it). This it also shares with the Talmud.
 
Last edited:
All interesting, but as @rockfox points out, clearly demonstrates a Talmud affected by the cultures around and, changing standards based on rabbinic attempts to alter or even the playing field. As I've clearly stated, and supported by what @Verifyveritas76 posted, be very wary of any interpretation of Scripture filtered through the Talmudic lens. You nor the framers may intend confusion or falsehood, but it is bound to happen, one small step at a time until you find yourself well off the path of Scripture.
 
Back
Top