The term in Hebrew is
pilegesh, the equivalent of Greek
pallakis(παλλακίς) and Latin
pellex. Among the Assyrians the concubine (
esirtu) gained the rank of wife only after the veiling ceremony conducted by her spouse, if he so chose to elevate her (Assyrian Code A, 41). The legal formalities, if any, are not described in the Bible. A concubine did not always reside in her husband's home (Judg. 8:31), but such was not the general rule (Judg. 19–20). Her spouse was called the son-inlaw (
ḥatan) of her father, who was the father-in-law (
ḥoten). Therefore, the concubinage relationship could partake of many aspects of regular marriage. Two famous concubines are mentioned in the Bible. Rizpah the daughter of Aiah the concubine of Saul (II Sam. 3:7) whose moving display of maternal love so moved David that he had her children buried in the family sepulcher (21:8–14) and the concubine of Gibeah whose rape and murder brought about the death of 25,000 members of the tribe of Benjamin and the ban against members of the other tribes intermarrying with them (Judg. 19–21).
Royal concubines were standard among the kings of Israel and Judah, just as in any ancient Near Eastern kingdom (Song 6:8–9). They were clearly distinguished from the wives (II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:13; IIChron. 11:21). To lie with a monarch's concubine was tantamount to usurpation of the throne (II Sam. 3:7; 16:21–22). For this reason Abner took Rizpah (II Sam. 3:7). The same concept stands behind Ahitophel'sadvice to Absalom, to "go into his father's concubines" (16:21), and Adonijah's request for Abishag the Shunamite was clearly associated with this custom (I Kings 2:21–24). The harem was usually in the charge of a eunuch (Esth. 2:14; cf. II Kings 9:32). The role of the concubine as the mother of venerable ethnic groups is not overlooked in the genealogies. Their descendants are usually classed as secondary or subsidiary tribes (Gen. 22:24; 36:12), especially the Abrahamic groups (Gen. 25:6; I Chron. 1:32). Within Israel, some of the clans were also the offspring of concubines (I Chron. 2:46; 7:14). In one instance, the term concubine is applied to a handmaiden (
shifḥah and
aʾmah) who had borne children to her mistress' husband (Gen. 35:22). Such a relationship was usually established because the legal wife was barren (Gen. 16). Ancient marriage arrangements often stipulated that if the wife was barren, she must provide a handmaiden for her husband Naming the handmaiden given to the bride by her father in such cases was evidently related to this practice (Gen. 29:24, 29). If the wife later bore children of her own, they took precedence in the inheritance over those of the handmaiden Gen. 21:12, although the latter did receive a share. Israelite law provided safeguards for the rights of Hebrew girls sold as handmaidens who were to be wed to their purchaser or to his son (Ex. 21:7–11). If the handmaiden bore children for her mistress and then sought to place herself on an equal footing, she normally could not be sold, although she could be reduced to the status of a slave again Gen. 21:12–14, where the slave-concubine and her child are both expelled.
A concubine is firstly defined by Jewish laws as a woman dedicating herself to a particular man, with whom she cohabits without*kiddushin (see *Marriage ) or *ketubbah .
"What is the difference between wives and concubines?
Wives have
ketubbah and
kiddushin, concubines have neither" (Sanh. 21a; Maim. Yad, Melakhim 4:4; Leḥem Mishneh and Radbaz, ad loc.).
Not all the scholars adopt this reading, however, and Rashi, for instance, comments: "wives with
kiddushin and
ketubbah, concubines with
kiddushin but without
ketubbah" (Comm. to Gen. 25:6; see also Comm. Hagra, EH 26, n. 7). This latter reading is apparently that of the Jerusalem Talmud too (TJ, Ket. 5:2, 29d and Hagra,
ibid.; but see
Mareh ha-Panim thereto). The majority of the *posekim accept the former reading as the correct one (Radbaz to Yad, Melakhim 4:4;
Kesef Mishneh and
Leḥem Mishneh, as against the
Maggid Mishneh, to Yad, Ishut, 1;4; Radbaz, Resp., vol. 4, no. 225; vol. 7, no. 33; Naḥmanides, commentary to Gen. 19:8; 25:6; Ralbag to Judg. 19:1; Rashba, Resp., vol. 4, no. 314). Hence a concubine is to be distinguished both, on the one hand from a married woman, i.e., by
ḥuppah ("marriage ceremony"),
kiddushin, and
ketubbah, and on the other from a
woman who does not dedicate herself to one particular man exclusively, but who prostitutes herself; i.e., the harlot (
Hassagot Rabad to Ishut 1:4 and see also Rema to EH 26:1).
I hold what you are saying to apply here.
Inasmuch as a concubine does not acquire the personal status of a wife (
eshet ish: Tur EH 26; Sh. Ar., EH 26:1),
she has no ketubbah; therefore, in accordance with the rule providing that the "terms and conditions of the ketubbah [tena'ei ketubbah] follow the [prescribed] ketubbah" (Ket. 54b; Rashi
ibid. S.V.
tena'ei ketubbah) she does not acquire any of the wife's pecuniary rights – especially she is not entitled to maintenance –
as all those rights stem from the ketubbah. Nor does living with a man as his concubine create a kinship as an impediment to marriage between herself and any of the man's relatives, or between the man and her relatives, as would be the case if she would be considered to be his wife (Rosh, Resp. no. 32:1;
Oẓar ha-Posekim, EH 26, n. 3). For the same reason there is no need in principle for her to obtain a
get (see *Divorce ) in order to be permitted to marry any other man (
Oẓar ha-Posekim, loc. cit.;
Sefer ha-Tashbeẓ 3:47). However in the opinion of some of the
posekim, for the sake of appearances, in view of the parties having lived together, the matter should be approached stringently and the woman should not be permitted to marry another man without obtaining a prior "
get out of stringency" (
get me ḥumrah) from the man with whom she has lived; but whenever the latter's refusal to grant her the
get is likely to entail the risk of her becoming an *agunah , she may certainly be permitted to marry without getting such
get (
Oẓar ha-Posekim, EH 26, n. 3). Moreover, the status of the mother does not impair the personal status of children born of the union, nor their rights of inheritance according to law (Rashba, Resp. vol. 4, no. 314).
When it came time to divide, the father’s estate was apportioned into equal shares. Assigning specific shares to each heir was likely done by casting lots.
Deut 21:17 suggests that typically the eldest son received two shares and other sons one each. A father could, by virtue of a testament, designate a younger son as the “firstborn” and reassign the right to a double share to him. He could not do so, however, if he was married to multiple women and had previously chosen to “hate” (probably meaning “demote”) the mother of the biologically oldest son. In this case, the oldest retained the status of firstborn (
Deut 21:15-17).
Quite bold of you to assume I’m as feminist as you seem to be.
oooook… that sounds like the knowledge didn’t stick very well. I’d expect it would be relatively easy. But that’s fine if you don’t want to talk about your beliefs. 
