Muslimwoman said:
So would this, in Engish terms, mean a long term affair (ie moving regularly between 2 men) rather than a quick one nighter?
er, short-term or long-term, it's moving regularly between 2 men bit that's problematic.
Does this stigma still exist today? Also how does a child born to an unwed woman not fall into this category? Is it about proof of who the father is that makes the difference?
mamzerut does exist today, but it is extraordinarily rare because of the stringency with which the religious authorities treat marriage. put it this way - i've never heard of one or met one and i know a *lot* of people. as for the "child of an unwed woman" - no religious stigma is attached to such a child; the only question is if the mother would have been in theory permitted to marry the father at the time the sex took place.
So taking Bob's explanation, would this be because if a married man had a baby with a women other than his wife they would actually be considered to be married? Would he be responsible for supporting the woman and child in Jewish law? Would the child take the name of the father?
no, because of the ban of rabbenu gershom, but no stigma would attach to the child, although the man's wife would be entitled to throw the book (and more) at him, as well as the mother hitting him for child support, as you correctly surmised. the child would also take the name and tribal affiliation of the father (cohen, levi or regular israelite).
Okay here I get a little lost. If the man and woman are both married and receive the same punishment what is the man actually being punished for?
well, each has technically stolen a "service" (as it were) that is the sole entitlement of the adulterer's legal spouse. being slightly flippant, it's like using their wireless broadband signal without telling them!
He is allowed to have 'relations' outside of his marriage, so is it because he has encouraged a married woman to commit a sin? Or does it come down purely to 'she is married therefore offlimits - you crossed the line buddy)?
that's it - and, moreover, he's not allowed the "relations" outside his marriage, as per rabbenu gershom and the conditions of his marriage contract.
Is there anything to suggest why a wife may want to agree to this arrangement?
er... not that i've ever heard of, albeit i believe there was this guy a few years back whose wife gave him permission for just this and it all went a bit horribly wrong. i believe his name was abraham.
If what I am reading is correct you and Mrs BB 'joined souls' into one when you got married - is that correct? If so, would this not mean that even if Mrs BB agreed to such an arrangement then her soul would also be carrying out the act? (badly worded but trying to get my head round the spiritual implications).
not that i've ever heard, albeit the text in the Torah does speak of "bearing my child on your knees", so perhaps it's possible to construct a case for this. it certainly *is* said to function in the case of
yibum, "levirate" marriage, where the child is considered to belong to the dead brother.
Fascinating, without wishing to insult any of my Muslim brothers and sisters, I often read in Islamic books that it was Islam that introduced this system of equality for wives - clearly not.
if you ask our islamist "friends" like abdullah, they'll probably tell you that it was part of the "original islam" that abraham practiced, that's probably where this claim comes from.
ashkenazic meaning? Is it a sect?
Ashkenazi Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So do you know if Israeli civil law still permits polygamy?
only for muslims as far as i know.
I am intrigued by the idea of adapting your faith in order not to make other religions followers jealous. As Jews do not accept Jesus (pbuh) as the Messiah or Mohammad (pbuh) as a Prophet why would it concern your faith whether gentiles were jealous?
we're supposed to act in a way that "sanctifies the Divine Name". this is a complicated concept, but it basically translates as "acting in such a way as to reflect well upon judaism" - if people see us acting admirably, they will have more respect for G!D who Commanded us to act so. this principle is supposed to be enshrined in everything we do - INCLUDING MIDDLE-EASTERN POLITICS, fyi. next time you get into a debate with someone jewish about israel, ask him whether he thinks the way the settlers act is a "kiddush haShem" or not. but i digress...
Sorry you have lost me there. A married man can have concubines if the wife agrees but married men aren't allowed to take concubines.
er, i meant practically, nowadays, because concubines used to be slaves. i'm not sure exactly how nachmanides proposed to get around that particular one.
So is there any stigma on the concubine? What if she has a child, is the man responsible in any way for providing for them?
no stigma on either of them as far as i know and the man would be responsible for providing for the child certainly, as for the concubine this is reaching the limits of my knowledge!
A new question - is there anything in Judaism that instructs society to care for widows and orphans (eg through polygamy)?
abso-feckin-lutely. in fact widows and orphans are specifically mentioned all the time when the Torah wants to talk about people who wouldn't otherwise be cared for - they are paradigmatic cases of those for whom society is mandated to care.
So really there are no hard and fast rules on the subject, other than the wife's permission and married women are a no-no?
and that thing you do with your hand, very bad. hur hur hur, i don't know if anyone's seen that sketch from "goodness gracious me", but it was all about how different (or not) religions are, according to this bloke's dad:
judaism: no pork; and that thing you do with your hand, very bad.
hinduism: no beef; and that thing you do with your hand, very bad.
sikhism: man - turban. turban - man; and that thing you do with your hand, very bad.
you get the general idea.
It sees if you accept the 'allowed sex outside marriage' thing then you can be as promiscuous as you like
except it's not approved of as "whoredom" (
zenut in hebrew, it's a similar term in arabic).
but if you hold to the 'disapproval of promiscuous conduct' then you are stuck in the house watching Eastenders with the Mrs - therefore becomes a moral decision for the man rather than a matter of law?
of course you should not even have a television in your house, nor if you do should you watch those lower-class gentiles with their pub and their market stalls. instead, use the time to study Torah. deary me.
But that doesn't account for the married men issue does it? You would think after all these centuries married men would learn to keep it in their pants, it's really not that much to write home about.
given the sort of financial penalties men are supposed to be subject to for this, you'd think we'd have learnt by now, wouldn't you?
Okay, so given what was said previously I am now struggling to see what the beth din could or would do - unless the wife doesn't like Eastenders and isn't getting her share or the woman involved is married.
probably nothing unless someone brought it up as part of a divorce case, or if one of the people involved has some kind of communal post, like rabbi, teacher, scribe, butcher or something and would bring the community into disrepute by his conduct.
it all works very well, in theory, however life is rather messier in practice. ideally, you should be able to organise your affairs without recourse to court proceedings.
b'shalom
bananabrain
(actually I think we would care quite a lot). It's never said that men are simply weak willed and need to get a grip!! 
