Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newman Luke (talk | contribs) at 12:15, 15 February 2010 (→Special rules for priests: since high priests are a subset of all priests, the rules specific to them should be mentioned after those for all priests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Forbidden relationships in Judaism are those intimate relationships which are forbidden per the various prohibitions in the Torah, as interpreted by the Talmud of Rabbinic Judaism, or by Karaite Judaism, together with a number of other subsequent injunctions.

In the Bible

The Torah criticises and forbids intermarriage with a Canaanite. It was also possible to be too closely related, and the Holiness Code lists relationships which it regards as incestuous, and forbidden;. these prohibit most kinship relations involving just one degree of affinity or of consanguinity

Israelite priests were subject to additional restrictions; the Holiness Code of Leviticus forbids them from marriage to a divorcee, or to a prostitute (Hebrew: zonah). The masoretic text mentions the term dishonoured (Hebrew:halala; literally profaned) as part of this prohibition, but it is uncertain whether this is merely part of the reference to prostitutes, as suggested by the septuagint's rendering, or whether it refers to a distinct class of person. As for the Israelite high priest, the Holiness Code demands that he must only marry a virgin of his own people, spelling out that this forbids marriage to a widow, in addition to those people which an ordinary priest may not marry.

Adulterous women were subject to the death penalty, by the biblical laws against adultery, as were their male accomplices. According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, if a pregnant woman was suspected of adultery, she was to be subjected to the Ordeal of Bitter Water, a form of Trial by Ordeal.

Bestiality and sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman are forbade by the Torah; as with the Hittites, death is the penalty for bestiality. The Holiness Code also bans an act which the masoretic text refers to by the phrase the bedding of a woman; rabbis argue that this prohibition, against men having sex with men, arises because it is a defiance of gender anatomy, and results in a vain emission of semen.

In later Judaism

In addition to the intimate relationships forbade by the Torah, both Karaite and Rabbinic Judaism forbid a number of other relationships.

Some of the relationships forbade by the bible are regarded as such a serious sin in Jewish law that that one should be willing to die, rather than commit them; these relationships - incest and menstruating women - are often referred to as arayot (Hebrew: עריות), since the Torah describes with the euphemistic phrase gillui arayot, meaning uncover the nakedness of. The Talmud argues that biblical commandments are not so important that one need commit self-sacrifice, in order to obey them, except for the prohibitions against idolatry, murder, and arayot.

Exogamy

In Judaism, interfaith marriage was historically looked upon with very strong disfavour by Jewish leaders, and it remains an enormously controversial issue. Although most of the Talmudic writers concede that the Deuteronomic law referred only to marriage to Canaanites, they themselves still forbade marriage with the other nationalities. The situation is slightly complicated by the fact that the Talmudic writers viewed Christianity as being at the gate of Judaism, and hence marriages between Christians and Jews were not seen by them as prohibited; in 1236 Moses of Coucy tried to break up such marriages, but in 1844, the Rabbinical Conference of Brunswick permitted Jews to marry any adherent of a monotheistic religion, as long as any children of the marriage would be able to be brought up as Jewish.

Classical Jewish writers, and those of the middle ages, regarded converts as Jews, in relation to these rules; marriage between a Jew and a convert to Judaism was not regarded as intermarriage. Hence, all the Biblical passages which appear to support intermarriages, such as that of Joseph to Asenath, and that of Ruth, were regarded by the classical rabbis as having occurred only after the foreign spouse had converted to Judaism. A similar attitude is expressed by modern Conservative Judaism, which does not sanction intermarriage, but encourages acceptance of the non-Jewish spouse within the family, hoping that such acceptance will lead to the spouse's conversion to Judaism. The Talmudic writers, however, still forbade intermarriage with Canaạnites even if they had converted to Judaism.

The more popular forms of modern Judaism - Reform, Progressive (known in the USA as Reconstructionist), and Liberal - do not generally regard the opinions of the classical rabbis as having any force, and so many rabbis from these denominations are willing to officiate at interfaith marriages; they do, though, still try to persuade intermarried couples to raise their children as Jews. As with many religious denominations, however, there are a few dissenting voices; in 1870 some Reform Jews published the opinion that intermarriage is prohibited. All branches of Orthodox Judaism refuse to accept any validity or legitimacy of intermarriages, and try to avoid assisting them to take place.

In the early 19th century exogamy was comparatively rare - less than a tenth of a percent (0.1%) of the Jews of Algeria, for example, practiced exogamy - but since the early 20th century, rates of Jewish intermarriage have increased drastically. In the United States of America between 1996 and 2001, nearly half (47%) of marriages involving Jews were intermarriages with non-Jewish partners, a similar proportion (44%) was the case for early 20th century New South Wales. The possibility that this might lead to the gradual dying out of Judaism, much like the historic fate of Arianism, is regarded by most Jewish leaders, regardless of denomination, as precipitating a crisis; some religious conservatives now even speak metaphorically of intermarriage as a silent holocaust.

Consanguinuity and Incest

In the 4th century BC, the Soferim (scribes) declared that there were relationships within which marriage constituted incest, in addition to those mentioned by the bible. These additional relationships were termed seconds (Hebrew: sheniyyot), and included the wives of a man's:

• father's half-brother on their mother's side
• mother's half-brother on their father's side
• grandfather
• grandson

The classical rabbis prohibited marriage between a man and any of these seconds of his, on the basis that doing so would act as a safeguard against infringing the biblical incest rules.

There was however some debate as to which relationships, other than the four listed above, counted as seconds. Some proposed the general principle that it would be acceptable to marry anyone only related to a "second" by a further marriage; for example, a wife of a father-in-law (apart from the mother-in-law), or the stepson's daughter-in-law. However, Israel Lipschitz interpreted this as forbidding even marriage to a wife's former husband's wife. The early Karaites went even further, arguing that a married couple were to be considered legally as a single person, and therefore that a man was even prohibited from marrying the relatives of any subsequent husband of a divorced wife.

What is clear, is that no opinion in the talmud forbids marriage to a cousin or a sister's daughter (a class of neice), and it even commends marriage to the latter - the closer relation of the two. The implied support for marriage between cousins appears to have historically been taken to heart; in 19th century England, the proportion of Jewish marriages occurring between cousins was 3.5 times higher than for the marriages of other religions; in 19th century Lorraine the proportion was twice as high as that for Roman Catholics, and 12 times higher than that for Protestants.

Marriages forbidden in the bible were regarded by the rabbis of the middle ages as invalid - as if they had never occurred; any children born to such a couple were regarded as bastards, and the relatives of the spouse were not regarded as forbidden relations for a further marriage. On the other hand, those relationships which were prohibited due to qualifying as seconds, and so forth, were regarded as wicked, but still valid; while they might have pressured such a couple to divorce, any children of the union were still seen as legitimate.

Adultery

In the classical era, the rules about adultery changed somewhat; the death penalty was abolished in 40 AD (as it was for all other crimes). Furthermore, the Talmud forbade conviction if the woman had not been forewarned, in the presence of two witnesses, against committing adultery, or if she had not known the intimate details of the laws against it.

Egyptian practices

The bible's prohibitions on incest and bestiality, along with a prohibition against passing children through the fire MLK, are collectively introduced by a condemnation of the behaviour of the Canaanites and of the Egyptians. Though the text doesn't identify what it means by the activities of Egypt, some Jewish writers, in the middle ages, argued that lesbianism was one of them; hence, Orthodox Judaism prohibits lesbianism.

However, in Orthodox Judaism, female-female sex acts are not regarded as a loss of virginity, and therefore do not prevent the participants from future marriage to someone claiming descent from an Israelite priest (see below for why this would otherwise be an issue). Neither is such activity deemed to constitute adultery; consequently, a lesbian affair is not regarded as appropriate grounds for divorce.

Age

The marriageable age, in Judaism, is highly gender-specific. According to the Talmud, it was permissible for an adult male to have sexual intercourse with a 3 year old girl, if she was maritally single; girls could be betrothed (Hebrew: erusin) and married (Hebrew: nissu'in) at this age. By contrast, the earliest point at which a male is permitted to become betrothed (erusin) is the age of majority; for a male, the age of majority, in Judaism, is usually 13 years of age plus one day, but could be as late as 35 years plus one day, in certain circumstances.

A girl younger than the age of majority could be compelled to marry against her will, although she also had the right to an subsequently annul the marriage. However, the Talmud did not allow the marriage to be annulled if it was the girl's first marriage, if it had been arranged by her father; in earlier classical Judaism, one major faction - the House of Shammai - even argued that such annulment rights only existed during the betrothal period (erusin), and not once the actual marriage (nissu'in) had begun. If she exercised this right, a decision known in Hebrew as mi'un (literally meaning refusal/denial/protest), it lead to a true annulment, not a divorce; a divorce document (get) was not necessary, and a girl who did this was not regarded by legal regulations as a divorcee, in relation to the marriage.

Despite the young threshold for marriage, marriages with a large age gap between the spouses (eg. between a young man and an old woman) were thoroughly opposed by the classical rabbis. In the middle ages, many rabbis tried to abolish child marriage altogether; this, however, was due to their distaste for mi'un, rather than due to any concern about paedophilia. Effectively, child marriage became nearly obsolete in Judaism; in modern times, it is an extremely rare event, as most areas with large Jewish communities have national laws against it.

Inability to give consent

In the bible, marriage is treated as if it were an act of purchase. It was thus seen in Jewish tradition as a civil transaction, and therefore as requiring the consent of the contracting parties; in the bible these were the groom and the bride's father, but in later Jewish tradition it came to be seen as an arrangement between the bride and groom.

Like many cultures and nations, the insane (Hebrew: shoteh) were not regarded as having moral agency, in Judaism, and therefore were forbidden from getting married. As with many legal systems, insanity has a somewhat nuanced definition; in classical Judaism, insane, as far as it concerns questions of moral agency, refers to:

• confirmed maniacs,
• people with severe mental retardation, if they show signs of derangement (such as inexplicably destroying their clothes, or persistently putting themselves in unnecessary danger)
• people sufficiently intoxicated that they are likely to suffer loss of unconscious

Classical Judaism required that all testimony be given verbally, and that all witnesses be able to hear; deaf-mutes (Hebrew:heresh) - people who are both deaf and mute - were regarded as having no moral agency at all, as far as ritual and law were concerned. Thus it was the Talmud's opinion that deaf-mutes were prohibited by the bible from getting married, although the Talmud itself insists that deaf-mutes should be allowed to marry if the marriage and betrothal were conducted using some form of sign language. Due to the Talmud's opinion of the bible's intent, any marriage of a deaf-mute was not regarded as having as much validity as normal marriages, leading to a number of complications.

Exclusions from the assembly

The Deuteronomic Code prohibits men from taking part in the qahal of Yahweh, if they are a mamzer, or they have been forcibly emasculated; their descendants, up to the tenth generation, were also prohibited by this law code from taking part in the qahal of Yahweh. The qahal was a subset of the wider 'edah; both these Hebrew terms (and several others) are usually translated into English as congregation or assembly, although in some locations horde and swarm are better renderings of 'edah.

The Talmudic writers interpreted the prohibition against such people joining the qahal as a rule against ordinary Jews marrying such people. No explanation of the phrase mamzer is given in the masoretic text, but the Septuagint translates it as son of a prostitute (Greek:ek pornes); the Talmud argues that it refers to a child born either of incest (as defined by the Bible), or of adultery, though this is complicated by the Jewish definition of these things.

Special rules for priests

Agreeing that the bible forbade priests from marrying divorcees and prostitutes, the Talmudic writers interpreted the biblical reference to dishonoured (Hebrew: halala) as a distinct category of women forbade from marrying priests. Thus they forbade marriage between a priest and a widow, if her former brother-in-law had refused to perform a levirate marriage, and she had consequently performed the Halitzah ceremony. Furthermore, they argued that a priest should divorce his wife if she had been raped, by someone other than her husband.

The Talmudic writers also forbade marriage between a priest and any women captured during warfare, as they preferred to err on the side of caution, and therefore suspect that these women would have been assaulted by their captors. They did, however, allow marriage to such a woman if witnesses had been with her for the entire period of her capture, and the witnesses confirmed that no such assault took place.

Additionally, the Talmudic rabbis regarded any divorcee or prostitute who married a priest, in defiance of these rules, as becoming a dishonoured woman by doing so; so too were any female children, resulting from such a union, classed among dishonoured women. For a priest to marry a woman who became dishonoured, due to her previous illicit marriage to a priest, was regarded as doubly wicked; for example, if a priest married a divorcee, and then, after the married ends, another priest married her, it would break both the prohibition against marrying a divorcee, and that against marrying a dishonoured woman.

High priests were regarded by the classical rabbis as being subject to the same restrictions as priests, with the additional biblical prohibition against marrying widows. However, there was a modification to these rules; the Talmud permits a high priest to remain married to a widow, if he had married her while he was merely an ordinary priest. Furthermore, the biblical demand that a high priest should marry a virgin of his own people was interpreted as additionally banning marriage between a high priest and a convert to Judaism..

Although the first century destruction of the temple in Jerusalem resulted in the priesthood being redundant, the Torah frequently portrays the Israelite priesthood as an hereditary position, and so the rabbis of the middle ages regarded these regulations as applying, still, to all men who claim to be descended from such priests; such claims can often be detected in modern surnames resembling the Hebrew word kohen, the term used in most parts of the masoretic text to mean priest (the cognates in related languages, however, mean soothsayer).

See also

• Jewish views of marriage
• Jewish views of incest
• Interfaith marriage in Judaism
• Moral agency in Judaism
• Qahal

References

• Lamm, Maurice (2008), The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Jonathan David
• Eisenberg, Ronald (2005), The 613 mitzvot: a contemporary guide to the commandments of Judaism, Schreiber Publishing

1. Genesis 24:2–4
2. Genesis
3. Deuteronomy 7:3
4. Leviticus 18:7–11
5. Blue Letter Bible, Lexicon results for zanah (Strong's H2181), incorporating Strong's concordance (1890) and Gesenius's Lexicon (1857)
6. Leviticus 21:7
7. for the translation of the latter word as dishonoured, This article incorporates text from the 1903 Encyclopaedia Biblica article "profane", a publication now in the public domain.
8. translations including the New International Version take this view
9. Leviticus 21, LXX
10. translations including the King James Version take this view
11. Leviticus 21:13
12. Leviticus 21:14
13. Leviticus 21:14
14. Leviticus 20:10
15. Deuteronomy 22:22–25
16. Peake's commentary on the Bible ad loc
17. Numbers 5:11–31
18. Exodus 22:19
19. Leviticus 18:19
20. Leviticus 18:23
21. Leviticus 20:15–16
22. Leviticus 20:18
23. Peake's commentary on the Bible, ad. loc.
24. Leviticus 18:22
25. Eisenberg 2005, p. 325
26. Eisenberg 2005, p. 324.
27. Sanhedrin, 74a
28. Kiddushin 68b
29. Isaac ben Sheshet, Responsa, No. 119
30. ^  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Intermarriage". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
31. Moses of Coucy, Sefer Mitzvot ha-Gadol, 112
32. Berakhot 28a
33. Kiddushin 5:4 (Tosefta)
34. Shulchan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer 4:10
35. Genesis Rabbah, 65
36. Leadership Council of Conservative Judaism, Statement on Intermarriage, Adopted on 7th March, 1995
37. 'Abodah Zarah 34b
38. Yebamot 76a
39. Survey of the American Rabbinate, The Jewish Outreach Institute, (retrieved 6th May 2009)
40. Summary of Rabbinic Center for Research and Counseling 2003 Survey, Irwin H. Fishbein, Rabbi, D. Min., Rabbinic Center for Research and Counseling, (retrieved 6th May 2009)
41. D.Einhorn, in The Jewish Times, (1870), No. 45, p. 11
42. Ricoux, Demography of Algeria, Paris, 1860, p. 71
43. National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01
44. Census of New South Wales, 1901, Bulletin No. 14
45. Yebamot (Tosefta) 2:3
46. Yebamot 21a
47. Cite error: The named reference Yeb21b was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
48. Cite error: The named reference TifYeb21 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
49. Cite error: The named reference JewEncInce was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
50. Yebamot 62a
51. Joseph Jacobs, Studies in Jewish Statistics (1885; reprinted 2008), ch. 1
52. ^  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "marriage". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
53. ^ Shulchan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 16, 1
54. Yebamot 94b
55. Sanhedrin 41
56. Cite error: The named reference Sot12 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
57. Cite error: The named reference JewEncAdu was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
58. Leviticus 18:3
59. Joseph Karo, Shulkhan Arukh, 3:20:2
60. ^ Beit Sh'muel , ad. loc. based on Maimonidies
61. Niddah 44b
62. ^  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Majority". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
63. Kiddushin, 50b
64. Yebamot 107a
65. ^  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Mi'un". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
66. Yebamot 107a
67. Yebamot 108a
68. Yebamot 44a
69. Sanhedrin 76a
70. Yebamot 109a
71. ^ This article incorporates text from the 1903 Encyclopaedia Biblica article "marriage", a publication now in the public domain.
72. ^  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "marriage laws". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
73. ^  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Insanity". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
74. Erubin 65a
75. ^  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Deaf and Dumb in Jewish Law". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
76. ^ Deuteronomy 23:2–4 (verses 1-3 in some English translations)
77. Leviticus 4:13–14
78. ^ This article incorporates text from the 1903 Encyclopaedia Biblica article "assembly", a publication now in the public domain.
79. for example, in Judges 14:8, 'edah is used to refer to a group of bees
80. Deuteronomy 23:2-4, LXX
81.  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "Mamzer". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
82. Yebamot 24a
83. Yebamot 56b
84. ^ Ketubot 22a
85. ^ Ketubot 27a
86. ^  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Singer, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). "halalah". The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.
87. Yebamot 77a
88. Leviticus 21:17 (in the King James Version, it is verse 14 instead)
89. This article incorporates text from the 1903 Encyclopaedia Biblica article "Priest", a publication now in the public domain.

• Jewish marital law