B"H
Moshe,
Allow me to correct you. In one of your earlier posts, you said that "Rambam's ruling," presumably about a man taking plural wives, "is only for kings." Actually, he refers there to "Pilegshim" or concubines, while he permits any Jewish man to take co-wives, or to engage in polygamy. Maimonides writes this in his Code of Jewish Law (Mishne Torah, Hilkoth Ishuth 14:3): "A man can marry several women, even one-hundred, whether all at once, or one after the other, and his wife is not able to withhold it. However, this is on the condition that he is able to provide food & clothing for each, and to perform his marital duty on each wife as it is fitting."
In Yemen, where the practice is well-known and accepted by all, most Jewish men chose to marry a single woman, whereas perhaps one man in every twenty would take an additional wife over his first wife. (As everyone knows, Rabbeinu Gershom's edicts against polygamy was not accepted by them.)
Sincerely,
David

David,
You are correct, I did mean that the Rambam restricted Pelagash only to kings.

quote:

"A man can marry several women, even one-hundred, whether all at once, or one after the other, and his wife is not able to withhold it...

Remark 1) "even one hundred" means many - as many as he can support!

Remark 2) His wife cannot prevent him" because when they got married, she knew her husband has this possibility.

Remark 3) Rabbeinu Gershon's Cherem cancelled this Torah law, and the secular State of Israel has adopted the prohibition of polygamy (and punishes it!), even as it recognizes "same sex-marriages".

Isn't it time to revise our habits and return to the original Torah Law?

I read somewhere that while pologymy was/is permitted that it was never considered the ideal is this incorrect?

also do the sages say anything about the differeng reasons that motivate one to take multiple wives? Do they distinguish between a man with a charitable heart who wants to take in a widow versus a man who is simply satisfying his appetites ?

quote:

it was never considered the ideal is this incorrect?

The Torah seems to indicate that it was the ideal and was correct for the first Lemech, and gives the reasoning, which I think is described as common practice.

Also by one of Kayin and Hevel, it says Hevel was born with two twin sisters who were his wives. Bereishis 4:1 and Rashi quoting Bereishis Rabbah 22:2-3.

I think its near Bereishis 35:17 there is a midrash that Rashi quotes saying that a twin sister was born with each of the 12 sons, and two twin sisters born with Binyamin, quoting Bereishis Rabbah 82:8.

quote:

Originally posted by rob:
The Torah seems to indicate that it was the ideal and was correct for the first Lemech, and gives the reasoning, which I think is described as common practice.

What is mentioned as the common practice of the depraved dor hamabul is no indication that it was condoned.

quote:

common practice of the depraved dor hamabul

Lemech apparently had the potential to be the Gadol HaDor of his generation -- Rav Naimon of Baltimore expounds a drash that Lemech sounds like Melech, and explains the preponderance of 7's in these verses... that 7 represences Malchus, by Ushpizin visitors, and Tefillin wraps, and days of the week with Shabbos king over them all... and Shemita... and he had many more examples.

This was before Shes.

Lemech-1 may not have been the smartest pea in the pod, what with is absurd [per Rashi] kal v'chomer comparing his manslaughter of Kayin with Kayin's murder, and not realizing, as his wives did, that wiping out Kayin meant wiping out all of Kayin's descendents, which was everyone other than Adam and Chava...

However the Torah doesn't seem to describe these first 8 generations of mankind as depraved.

...

Furthermore there was nothing at all depraved about Sarah's suggestion that Avraham take handmaid as a 2nd wife; nor Rachel nor Leah's suggesting to Yaakov to take their handmaids as second wives.

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

However the Torah doesn't seem to describe these first 8 generations of mankind as depraved.

Furthermore there was nothing at all depraved about Sarah's suggestion that Avraham take handmaid as a 2nd wife; nor Rachel nor Leah's suggesting to Yaakov to take their handmaids as second wives.

Rashi specifically describes the practice of having one wife for procreation and a second for beauty as "derech dor hamabul". The Torah in Bereshis 6:11-12 and see Rashi there clearly states that "dor hamabul" was depraved, and especially regarding issues of "ervah", to the point where even the animals were affected.

Of course I didn't mean that all polygamy is "depraved", just that no proof of its acceptance can be derived from Lemech.

quote:

Originally posted by Peretz Moncharsh:

Rashi specifically describes the practice of having one wife for procreation and a second for beauty as "derech dor hamabul".

Rebbe Peretz,

I was looking for Rashi's commentary, but I could not find it in Breishis 6:11-12. Of course, I do not doubt that he said this. I trust your source. However, it would seem that Rashi meant that if a man had two-wives, yet with only one wife he perfomed his marital duty, while with the other, he did not perform his marital duty in order to preserve her natural beauty, this would be "derech dor hamabul." For the generation of the great Deluge had corrupted their manners in what regards pro-creation. Rashi would agree, it would seem, that if a man had two co-wives and faithfully performed his marital duty upon both wives, he would not have fallen into the category of "derech dor hamabul."

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

That Rashi is in 4:19, in 6:11-12 Rashi explains that dor hamabul was depraved. Again, I agree that not all polygamy is "derech dor hamabul", but Lemech is not the one to turn to for proving its acceptability.

I never hears or saw anything regarding Lemech having great potential, But he had a very prominent son-in-law in Noach. Interesting that Noach married a significantly older woman, about a thousand years or so.

B"H
Thank-you, Rav Peretz.

By the way, I have a nine year old daughter, named "Naamah." I understand that Lamech's daughter (Noah's wife) was named Naamah. Lamech and his progeny came from the line of Cain.
Noah and his progeny came from the line of Seth. When Noah married Naamah, by this union, the progenies of both Cain and Seth were preserved.

There was another Naamah who, on account of her great beauty, the angels in heaven were enticed and approched unto her carnally, and gave birth to the giants known as the "Nephillim." They have since disappeared from the earth. So it is that I've heard.

The third Naamah was "Naamah the Ammonitess," a proselyte whom King Solomon had married, and who became the mother of King Rehoboam.

Sincerely,
David

B"H

One of the absurdities of the laws of the secular State of Israel is that it outlaws polygamy, unless a man and his co-wives entered the country as non-citizens, and later became citizens. (Baba-Sali came to Israel from Morocco with his three wives. They later became citizens of the State of Israel, and the State recognized his marriages with his three co-wives. Many Yemenite Jews have had similar stories.)

On the other hand, the secular laws of the State will recognize a man who is legally married, and yet carries on a romance with a second woman (concubine), giving her special rights as if she were legally married with that man! By an act of law, if a woman who maintains a relationship with another man even though they were not legally married (and even if the man is already married to another woman), since she is "known by the public" (ידועה בציבור) to be his bed-partner, she is entitled to receive a part in any inheritance left by that man!

How generous has become the secular law of the State, in this regard!! For, according to the Torah, a concubine has no special rights or privileges, and does not inherit from her partner. But here, they have made the concubine a legal heir - yet, forbid polygamy!!! Unbelievable!?

David Ben-Abraham

quote:

However, it would seem that Rashi meant that if a man had two-wives, yet with only one wife he perfomed his marital duty, while with the other, he did not perform his marital duty in order to preserve her natural beauty, this would be "derech dor hamabul."

The Rashi by Lemech seems to describe performing marital functions however with the one wife expected to give birth, and the other wife expected to not give birth.

In Lemech's case he had children by both wives.

Now by Tamar there additional aspects to method by which a husband might keep his beautiful wife from becoming pregnant while still having relations.

quote:

giving her special rights as if she were legally married with that man! By an act of law, if a woman who maintains a relationship with another man even though they were not legally married (and even if the man is already married to another woman), since she is "known by the public" (ידועה בציבור) to be his bed-partner, she is entitled to receive a part in any inheritance left by that man!

It would seem to be interesting legal questions to see if the courts of the State of Israel would reconcile for us under these principles:

1) Can a mistress sue a wastfully-spending primary wife for using up what would be their shared inheritance unfairly?

2) If G-d forbid there would be an adulterous woman, does she have claims to both her husband's estate and her lover's estate?


Oh I could never be an Egyptian!

the Torah permits concubines ?

B"H
Sharachana,

Rambam (Maimonides) says that concubines were permitted only unto kings. Ramban (Nachmanides) disagrees, saying that concubines were permitted unto all men. A case in point is the "Pelegesh begiv'ah."

At any rate, the practice of taking concubines was not seen or heard of in orthodox Jewry since the days of old.

David

quote:

It would seem to be interesting legal questions to see if the courts of the State of Israel would reconcile for us under these principles:

1) Can a mistress sue a wastfully-spending primary wife for using up what would be their shared inheritance unfairly?

2) If G-d forbid there would be an adulterous woman, does she have claims to both her husband's estate and her lover's estate?

-------------------

Im just so enjoying these hypotheticals...if anyone has any answers please post.

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
B"H
Sharachana,

Rambam (Maimonides) says that concubines were permitted only unto kings. Ramban (Nachmanides) disagrees, saying that concubines were permitted unto all men. A case in point is the "Pelegesh begiv'ah."

At any rate, the practice of taking concubines was not seen or heard of in orthodox Jewry since the days of old.

David

Is there any indication that polygamy will return in the Messianic Era?

There is not only an "indication" that polygamy will return in the Messianic Era, it is a divine promise in the Torah and the Prophets that we will return to Hashem and keep His law, and do tshuva by "circumsizing our hearts", and the King Messiah is dafka the one who will lead Israel to the observance of the Torah.
Polygamy is part of the Torah, so it will necessarily return - if not before Messiah, then under his rule!
Something to look forward to...

quote:

Originally posted by AharonBenjamin:
Is there any indication that polygamy will return in the Messianic Era?

Aharon, Shalom!

By asking if polygamy will "return" is to suggest that it has gone away and is no longer applicable today. This might be true of the Jews of Ashkenaz and of the secular laws of the State of Israel, but it certainly is NOT true of the Jews in Yemen, where polygamy is still practiced!

At any rate, one of the functions of the Messiah is to restore our divine Torah to its former glory, so it is very conceivable that polygamy will be reinstated in the land of Israel, when all those secular laws have been forsaken.

However, a person who takes upon himself certain strictures is not easily released from those strictures. (This has nothing to do with disputes, since disputes will no longer exist at all in the days of the Messiah. Rather, strictures are different, in that people sometimes make a certain thing which is ordinarily permitted unto them to be forbidden unto them.)

In the book Matei Yosef, volume II, the section on Yoreh De'ah, section 1, he gave a protracted response concerning the changing of one's customs, wherein he concludes with this statement:

"The general rule arising from our words is that the Ashkenazi Jews who come to settle in Egypt, and in all of the countries of the Sephardic Jews, whilst they hold to certain restrictions on the Passover according to the custom of their places, the obligation squarely rests [upon us] to inform them that the Sephardic Jews practice leniency in the matter. And if he shall say thus, that what he practiced as a stringent measure [in his former country] was [only] because of his apprehension over what Maimonides and the other exponents voiced as their opinion, whose opinion is that [the leaven] returns to its full potency, he has no right [to change] for a more lenient practice. And even if he shall ask [to change his custom], no one allows him! For he has no release [from his strictures], ever! For, lo, it has become like a thing which the Law itself prohibits upon him! Even Rabbeinu Asher and his company agree with this, that he has no release [from his strictures], etc."

Refer there for a look in depth into this subject.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham