Polygamy.

[chakma613]

The reason I gave for Rabbeinu Gershom's decree is what he wrote in his sefer, I did not invent anything and attribut it to him cv's. Sephardim can still practice polygamy, however it is undisputed in the Ashkenazic community that what RG said holds true for today. I do not know where you get the idea that we(Ashken. Jews), do not have to follow the decree anymore, but until a leading posek(such as R' Eliyahsiv), in the Ashk. community decides that we no longer have to follow it, we must, we cannot take torah into our own hands and be our own poskim. RG was a great rishon who deserves respect - his decree became a custom for the Jewish people to follow, and to my knowledge, it had nothing to do with the Goyim's attitude. Even if it did, I'm sorry to say it, but while R' Kahane was great, He was NOT a rishon. he wasn't even a posek. It's like comparing him to Rambam, Rosh, Maharsha, etc..it can't be done.

If he did give the reason you gave, then I am mistaken.  If you can give a source then please do so.  I did not deny that R' Gershom was a great authority and the practice of polygamy is still not practiced by myself and the Askenazim nor do I plan on having more than one wife.  I was arguing Torah with you, and showing you the Sephardic point of view since they do have a valid Torah objection which I agree with.  Just because someone is a Sage does not mean that we are not allowed to confront them on their teachings if we think they made a mistake, as R' Kahane writes these same words and proves it from the incident with Hanah and Eli in Samuel 1.  Secondly, how do you know that R' Gershom was a bigger sage than R' Kahane?  I think that R' Kahane was on par with R' Gershom. 

Also the guy's decree was only for 1000 years which passed.

I'll ask my rebbe for the source, but for now, I can't remember it

[Daniel]

With every country's population evenly split 50:50 male:female, polygamy can't possibly be sustainable long term.

Some African cultures have a practice called polyandry where the woman marries every brother from another family.

[chakma613]

With every country's population evenly split 50:50 male:female, polygamy can't possibly be sustainable long term.

Some African cultures have a practice called polyandry where the woman marries every brother from another family.

A woman having multiple husbands?? That goes against the 7 laws of noah..see hilchos arayos(laws of forbidden relationships), one of them is the prohibition of znus with an aishes ish(intercourse with a married woman), and the punishment for doing that is death.

[Daniel]

With every country's population evenly split 50:50 male:female, polygamy can't possibly be sustainable long term.

Some African cultures have a practice called polyandry where the woman marries every brother from another family.

A woman having multiple husbands?? That goes against the 7 laws of noah..see hilchos arayos(laws of forbidden relationships), one of them is the prohibition of znus with an aishes ish(intercourse with a married woman), and the punishment for doing that is death.

I understand that. But that's their culture and they don't follow these laws. We can condemn for this if we want, but that would be engaging in ethnocentrism, at least according to my  professor from the liberal state college I attended.

[chakma613]

With every country's population evenly split 50:50 male:female, polygamy can't possibly be sustainable long term.

Some African cultures have a practice called polyandry where the woman marries every brother from another family.

A woman having multiple husbands?? That goes against the 7 laws of noah..see hilchos arayos(laws of forbidden relationships), one of them is the prohibition of znus with an aishes ish(intercourse with a married woman), and the punishment for doing that is death.

I understand that. But that's their culture and they don't follow these laws. We can condemn for this if we want, but that would be engaging in ethnocentrism, at least according to my  professor from the liberal state college I attended.

Her's the deal..all of humanity has had the chance at one point or another to follow th 7 laws of Noah, they are the universal law of mankind. I cannot care less about their culture if they do not follow these laws, they are just as responsible for their deeds as any other nation, and thy are not excused because "they have a different culture" yeah, a G-dless one that rejects the basics of moral decency. Since when do we have to acknowledge, and not condemn those who are damaging the world with their sins? How is ti "ethnocentric" for us to want to repair the world's sins? It's ridiculous, and it stems from the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want and not be reprimanded for doing it, and that is totally anti-torah.

[Trumpeldor]

According to wikipedia, Rabbinic Ashkenazi Judaism has outlawed polygamy since the 11th century.

One question I would ask for Chaim is if he agrees with a woman's having the right to ask for a divorce.

[TheCoon]

I think if all parties are happy in a polygamic relationship there isn't anything wrong with it. However, it greatly heightens the chance of immoral behaviors occuring when you're in a relationship like that. I think the human condition dictates jealousy, mistreatment of children and even homosexual relations are much more likely to occur. Like much of the Bible, it gives us a blueprint with how to best lead our lives, and polygamy is generally not the best way to do things.

[chakma613]

According to wikipedia, Rabbinic Ashkenazi Judaism has outlawed polygamy since the 11th century.

One question I would ask for Chaim is if he agrees with a woman's having the right to ask for a divorce.

Ha, "ashkenazic judaism" that's a laugh..Judaism is Judiasm, the torah is indivisible, and the only differences are in Minhagim(customs). It just shows you who's editing wikipedia, those who would have you believe that Judaism has been changed by Rabbis, and that it is no longer in its purest form. also, calling authenitc judaism"rabbinic" is in itself wrong. The perushim(pharisees), did not practice any form of judaism that was different from that which was given to the jews at Sinai by Hashem. To call it rabbinic judaism is to say that i is not the word of G-d, when in fact it is. To answer your question about a divorce, a woman certainly has the right to ask for one if she feels it's necessary, however she must be given a divorce document called a Get by her husband, only then can she remarry.

[jdl4ever]

I know that R'Gershom was a greater sage because we have a teaching that states that with every generation, we lose a little bit of Torah or rather, we get further away from it, we are on a downward cycle, until Mosiach comes. Even in the times o the Gemara this was so, See Talmud Brachos chapter keitzad mevarchin for a strory about the differences between the "doros hareshonim" and the "doros achronim". To say that the Torah of Rabbi Kahane was even close to that of RG, is like saying that Rashi is like Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT'L, you can't compare a rishon with an acharei achron.

I am aware that there is a general rule that is taught in the Talmud that each successive generation is not as great as the previous one, but this is just a general rule speaking in generalities and is not to be interpreted in absolutes.  There are exceptions to this rule.  Sometimes a generation is better than it's previous generation, as you find several examples in the writings of the Prophets.  Similarly, sometimes a Sage arises that is a throwback from previous generations in greatness (see the Talmud where it says a heavenly voice proclaimed that Hillel the little was worthy of the Ruach Hakodesh).  I am saying that you can not speak in absolutes saying that no one was as great as R' Gershom in this generation, since I believe that R' Kahane was a throwback from previous generations and even R' Mordechai Eliyahu thought so as well and said that R' Kahane was a gilgul of a biblical warrior.  If R' Mordechai Eliyahu thought that R' Kahane was on par with the Biblical warriors, so me thinking he was on par with Rabbenu Gershom is a moderate position. 

[Lisa]

Since I was the one who posted in Ask JTF about polygamy, I figured I'd throw my two cents in here, being that I strongly disagree with Chaim on this, and I apologize in advance for my long post.  As I see it, even though polygamy was not prohibited, it was not directly sanctioned either. 

First off Genesis says the following:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

Notice that Genesis did not say "wives."  Also, once you marry one wife, how can you leave your mother and father a second time?

And consider Deuteronomy 17:14-17

14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

Speaking of a man's heart being led astray, take the example of King Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and who ended up allowing these wives to build idolatrous temples in Israel.  That was very bad!

Note that the following Biblical figures were all monogamous:

Adam and Eve
Noah
Job
Isaac
Moses

And like I posted on Ask JTF last week, all this polygamy created family problems.  Take the example of Isaac/Ishmael.  As a result of Abraham's mating with Hagar, we have the hateful fanatic Muslims.

There's also (for me) the very sad example of Leah, Jacob's wife.  She was unloved, and resented, and she knew it!  Her children, also knew on some level that their mother was not loved.  Take the example of Reuben bringing mandrakes (a known aphrodisiac) for his mother.

Genesis 30:14-15

14 One day during the wheat harvest, Reuben found some mandrakes growing in a field and brought the roots to his mother, Leah. Rachel begged Leah to give some of them to her.
15 But Leah angrily replied, "Wasn't it enough that you stole my husband? Now will you steal my son's mandrake roots, too?" Rachel said, "I will let him sleep with you tonight in exchange for the mandrake roots."

This same Reuben is the one who went and had sex with his father's concubine (Genesis 35:22, 49:4).  Now I'm sorry, but Reuben had some major issues. I should think much of them had to do with knowing his father did not love his mother. 

And how about Reuben and all his brothers selling Joseph into slavery?  That's certainly not the behavior of a happy family. 

And speaking of issues, look at King David's children.  Is having sex with all your father's concubines in an open tent on the roof of the house normal behavior?  Or how about trying to rape your half sister? 

So I guess what I'm getting at is that with polygamy, there are always the favored wives with their kids" and the less favored wives with their kids, who all know they're less favored, but were stuck in that situation, hence all the fighting and resentment. 

[newman]

In other words, you're not overjoyed at the prospect of sharing a husband, eh Lisa?

[chakma613]

Since I was the one who posted in Ask JTF about polygamy, I figured I'd throw my two cents in here, being that I strongly disagree with Chaim on this, and I apologize in advance for my long post.  As I see it, even though polygamy was not prohibited, it was not directly sanctioned either. 

First off Genesis says the following:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

Notice that Genesis did not say "wives."  Also, once you marry one wife, how can you leave your mother and father a second time?

And consider Deuteronomy 17:14-17

14 When you enter the land the LORD your G-d is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," 15 be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your G-d chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

Speaking of a man's heart being led astray, take the example of King Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and who ended up allowing these wives to build idolatrous temples in Israel.  That was very bad!

Note that the following Biblical figures were all monogamous:

Adam and Eve
Noah
Job
Isaac
Moses

And like I posted on Ask JTF last week, all this polygamy created family problems.  Take the example of Isaac/Ishmael.  As a result of Abraham's mating with Hagar, we have the hateful fanatic Muslims.

There's also (for me) the very sad example of Leah, Jacob's wife.  She was unloved, and resented, and she knew it!  Her children, also knew on some level that their mother was not loved.  Take the example of Reuben bringing mandrakes (a known aphrodisiac) for his mother.

Genesis 30:14-15

14 One day during the wheat harvest, Reuben found some mandrakes growing in a field and brought the roots to his mother, Leah. Rachel begged Leah to give some of them to her.
15 But Leah angrily replied, "Wasn't it enough that you stole my husband? Now will you steal my son's mandrake roots, too?" Rachel said, "I will let him sleep with you tonight in exchange for the mandrake roots."

This same Reuben is the one who went and had sex with his father's concubine (Genesis 35:22, 49:4).  Now I'm sorry, but Reuben had some major issues. I should think much of them had to do with knowing his father did not love his mother. 

And how about Reuben and all his brothers selling Joseph into slavery?  That's certainly not the behavior of a happy family. 

And speaking of issues, look at King David's children.  Is having sex with all your father's concubines in an open tent on the roof of the house normal behavior?  Or how about trying to rape your half sister? 

So I guess what I'm getting at is that with polygamy, there are always the favored wives with their kids" and the less favored wives with their kids, who all know they're less favored, but were stuck in that situation, hence all the fighting and resentment. 

I'm sorry, but while these poofs make sense to you, we do not learn out new ideas from pasukim(verses), it is not part of our biblical exegesis. We believe that the entire Torah, even what the commentators say, was all given by G-d to the Jews at sinai, therefore, we do not add our own "chidushim" or new ideas. If there's something in the meforshim(commentators) or in the Talmud, then you may of course bring it up to assert your point, however drawing your OWN conclusions based on the language of an ENGLISH translation of Torah is very dangerous, incorrect, and not in sync with the kosher way of learning torah. Even the greatest rabbis do not learn new things out from verses that are not stated in one way or another by a  midrash, gemara, mishnah, braita, etc..

[chakma613]

I know that R'Gershom was a greater sage because we have a teaching that states that with every generation, we lose a little bit of Torah or rather, we get further away from it, we are on a downward cycle, until Mosiach comes. Even in the times o the Gemara this was so, See Talmud Brachos chapter keitzad mevarchin for a strory about the differences between the "doros hareshonim" and the "doros achronim". To say that the Torah of Rabbi Kahane was even close to that of RG, is like saying that Rashi is like Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT'L, you can't compare a rishon with an acharei achron.

I am aware that there is a general rule that is taught in the Talmud that each successive generation is not as great as the previous one, but this is just a general rule speaking in generalities and is not to be interpreted in absolutes.  There are exceptions to this rule.  Sometimes a generation is better than it's previous generation, as you find several examples in the writings of the Prophets.  Similarly, sometimes a Sage arises that is a throwback from previous generations in greatness (see the Talmud where it says a heavenly voice proclaimed that Hillel the little was worthy of the Ruach Hakodesh).  I am saying that you can not speak in absolutes saying that no one was as great as R' Gershom in this generation, since I believe that R' Kahane was a throwback from previous generations and even R' Mordechai Eliyahu thought so as well and said that R' Kahane was a gilgul of a biblical warrior.  If R' Mordechai Eliyahu thought that R' Kahane was on par with the Biblical warriors, so me thinking he was on par with Rabbenu Gershom is a moderate position. 

R' Mordechai Eliyahu is not someone the general consensus paksens like, it would be like, lehavdil, deducig proof from neturei karta. I see your point, but we need a reliable consensus ofthe general community of  poskim and gedolim to make a statement about a person being a gilgul, or not belonging in his generation. Everyone agreed that the Vilna Gaon belonged in the era of the Geonim(hence his title), but very few have said that R'Kahane was anywhere near that. He was right in his political ideas, of course, but to say that he was on par with a Rishon, seems dangerous to me. Even the Vilna Gaon was only placed on a level of the previous era, even HIM they didnt call as great as a Rishon! So, kal vechomer with R' Kahane, if we say that the sage the vilna Gaon, who memorized the entire talmud, was only placed a level ahead of his own era, and not at that of a rishon, then how can we say that r'kahane be placed many levels up, when he came after the gaon? see my point?

[Lisa]

I'm sorry, but while these poofs make sense to you, we do not learn out new ideas from pasukim(verses), it is not part of our biblical exegesis. We believe that the entire Torah, even what the commentators say, was all given by G-d to the Jews at sinai, therefore, we do not add our own "chidushim" or new ideas. If there's something in the meforshim(commentators) or in the Talmud, then you may of course bring it up to assert your point, however drawing your OWN conclusions based on the language of an ENGLISH translation of Torah is very dangerous, incorrect, and not in sync with the kosher way of learning torah.

Chakma13, English is my native language, and so of course I'm going to read and quote from the English translation of the Bible.  If you want to respond to my points, based on specific facts, that's fine.  But dismissing my entire post just because I used English translations is not an argument. 

[chakma613]

I'm sorry, but while these poofs make sense to you, we do not learn out new ideas from pasukim(verses), it is not part of our biblical exegesis. We believe that the entire Torah, even what the commentators say, was all given by G-d to the Jews at sinai, therefore, we do not add our own "chidushim" or new ideas. If there's something in the meforshim(commentators) or in the Talmud, then you may of course bring it up to assert your point, however drawing your OWN conclusions based on the language of an ENGLISH translation of Torah is very dangerous, incorrect, and not in sync with the kosher way of learning torah.

Chakma13, English is my native language, and so of course I'm going to read and quote from the English translation of the Bible.  If you want to respond to my points, based on specific facts, that's fine.  But dismissing my entire post just because I used English translations is not an argument. 

Lisa, it is a very valid argument, because the torah was written in hebrew, and it's intricacies can only be understood in said Hebrew. We have many advanced methods of biblical exegesis and a lot of them are dependent on the lashon(language, wording) of a given verse(i.e. gezera shava, binyan av). I mean, if we understood the bible in english terms, it would read "in the beginning g-d was created"! this is why it is absolutely necessary to learn hebrew to understand torah, the trnaslations are not meant o be a crutch permanently. My argument was not only based on your use of an english tanakh, but also due to the fact that to my knowledge, what you are saying is not found anywhere in the meforshim, talmud, or any other authoritative work. You simply cannot say something of legal ramifications without some basis in talmud, meforshim, or midrash. It just doesn't work that way, unless you want to practice the type of Judaism reform does..in that case, you can do the type of methodology you are employing

[chakma613]

I know that R'Gershom was a greater sage because we have a teaching that states that with every generation, we lose a little bit of Torah or rather, we get further away from it, we are on a downward cycle, until Mosiach comes. Even in the times o the Gemara this was so, See Talmud Brachos chapter keitzad mevarchin for a strory about the differences between the "doros hareshonim" and the "doros achronim". To say that the Torah of Rabbi Kahane was even close to that of RG, is like saying that Rashi is like Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT'L, you can't compare a rishon with an acharei achron.

I am aware that there is a general rule that is taught in the Talmud that each successive generation is not as great as the previous one, but this is just a general rule speaking in generalities and is not to be interpreted in absolutes.  There are exceptions to this rule.  Sometimes a generation is better than it's previous generation, as you find several examples in the writings of the Prophets.  Similarly, sometimes a Sage arises that is a throwback from previous generations in greatness (see the Talmud where it says a heavenly voice proclaimed that Hillel the little was worthy of the Ruach Hakodesh).  I am saying that you can not speak in absolutes saying that no one was as great as R' Gershom in this generation, since I believe that R' Kahane was a throwback from previous generations and even R' Mordechai Eliyahu thought so as well and said that R' Kahane was a gilgul of a biblical warrior.  If R' Mordechai Eliyahu thought that R' Kahane was on par with the Biblical warriors, so me thinking he was on par with Rabbenu Gershom is a moderate position. 

R' Mordechai Eliyahu is not someone the general consensus paksens like, it would be like, lehavdil, deducig proof from neturei karta. I see your point, but we need a reliable consensus ofthe general community of  poskim and gedolim to make a statement about a person being a gilgul, or not belonging in his generation. Everyone agreed that the Vilna Gaon belonged in the era of the Geonim(hence his title), but very few have said that R'Kahane was anywhere near that. He was right in his political ideas, of course, but to say that he was on par with a Rishon, seems dangerous to me. Even the Vilna Gaon was only placed on a level of the previous era, even HIM they didnt call as great as a Rishon! So, kal vechomer with R' Kahane, if we say that the sage the vilna Gaon, who memorized the entire talmud, was only placed a level ahead of his own era, and not at that of a rishon, then how can we say that r'kahane be placed many levels up, when he came after the gaon? see my point?

LOL, you gotta change some of these yeshivish terms. We're not THAT smart :-) What's kal vechomer?

ha, sorry about that, it's the way i talk while thinking in torah terms. Kal vechomer is used in torah circles when debating laws. it means literally "light and heavy" and it dictates that if we can learn things out as follows: If a weak man can lift a  20-polund weight, then how much more so can a strong man do it? see the logic there? that's a kal vechomer in short. So what I was saying that if we do not even put the Vilna Gaon on a level more than one level above where he was, and since the vilna gaon memorized and knew the talmud by heart,  then how much more so,and how obious is it that do we not put rabi kahane, who lived later, on a level higher than one above his level? I'll explain,

Vilna Gaon - lived in the era of the Achronim, the later rabbis. Now, he was placed on a level of the Gaonim, sages that were two levels above the time period he was living in.

R'Kahane - acharei acharon, the period after the acharonim. If we place him two levels above where he lived, he would be labeled a Rishon, as JDL4ever said, however, if we do this, we have to say that he was at least equal to the Vilna gaon. Now, did R'Kahane know the entire Talmud by heart? I don't think so.

[chakma613]

I know that R'Gershom was a greater sage because we have a teaching that states that with every generation, we lose a little bit of Torah or rather, we get further away from it, we are on a downward cycle, until Mosiach comes. Even in the times o the Gemara this was so, See Talmud Brachos chapter keitzad mevarchin for a strory about the differences between the "doros hareshonim" and the "doros achronim". To say that the Torah of Rabbi Kahane was even close to that of RG, is like saying that Rashi is like Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT'L, you can't compare a rishon with an acharei achron.

I am aware that there is a general rule that is taught in the Talmud that each successive generation is not as great as the previous one, but this is just a general rule speaking in generalities and is not to be interpreted in absolutes.  There are exceptions to this rule.  Sometimes a generation is better than it's previous generation, as you find several examples in the writings of the Prophets.  Similarly, sometimes a Sage arises that is a throwback from previous generations in greatness (see the Talmud where it says a heavenly voice proclaimed that Hillel the little was worthy of the Ruach Hakodesh).  I am saying that you can not speak in absolutes saying that no one was as great as R' Gershom in this generation, since I believe that R' Kahane was a throwback from previous generations and even R' Mordechai Eliyahu thought so as well and said that R' Kahane was a gilgul of a biblical warrior.  If R' Mordechai Eliyahu thought that R' Kahane was on par with the Biblical warriors, so me thinking he was on par with Rabbenu Gershom is a moderate position. 

R' Mordechai Eliyahu is not someone the general consensus paksens like, it would be like, lehavdil, deducig proof from neturei karta. I see your point, but we need a reliable consensus ofthe general community of  poskim and gedolim to make a statement about a person being a gilgul, or not belonging in his generation. Everyone agreed that the Vilna Gaon belonged in the era of the Geonim(hence his title), but very few have said that R'Kahane was anywhere near that. He was right in his political ideas, of course, but to say that he was on par with a Rishon, seems dangerous to me. Even the Vilna Gaon was only placed on a level of the previous era, even HIM they didnt call as great as a Rishon! So, kal vechomer with R' Kahane, if we say that the sage the vilna Gaon, who memorized the entire talmud, was only placed a level ahead of his own era, and not at that of a rishon, then how can we say that r'kahane be placed many levels up, when he came after the gaon? see my point?

LOL, you gotta change some of these yeshivish terms. We're not THAT smart :-) What's kal vechomer?

ha, sorry about that, it's the way i talk while thinking in torah terms. Kal vechomer is used in torah circles when debating laws. it means literally "light and heavy" and it dictates that if we can learn things out as follows: If a weak man can lift a  20-polund weight, then how much more so can a strong man do it? see the logic there? that's a kal vechomer in short. So what I was saying that if we do not even put the Vilna Gaon on a level more than one level above where he was, and since the vilna gaon memorized and knew the talmud by heart,  then how much more so,and how obious is it that do we not put rabi kahane, who lived later, on a level higher than one above his level? I'll explain,

Vilna Gaon - lived in the era of the Achronim, the later rabbis. Now, he was placed on a level of the Gaonim, sages that were two levels above the time period he was living in.

R'Kahane - acharei acharon, the period after the acharonim. If we place him two levels above where he lived, he would be labeled a Rishon, as JDL4ever said, however, if we do this, we have to say that he was at least equal to the Vilna gaon. Now, did R'Kahane know the entire Talmud by heart? I don't think so.

Oy, I made a mistake...they said that the Gaon was GREATER than a rishon, and as great as a Gaoninc rabbi..I wasn't thinking. But my point remains valid

[Lisa]

OK Mr. Wiseguy, how about this commentary from Yitzchok Adlerstein, Director, Jewish Studies Institute at Yeshiva of Los Angeles, Sydney M Irmas Chair in Jewish Law and Ethics at Loyola Law School?

http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/clinton.html

"The greatest moral beauty resides in the margins of the legal codes, in what the law neither prohibits nor demands. Not every legal license is meant to become typical practice. The law can sometimes allow, without approving. It can even allow, while still morally condemning.

The Bible permits polygamy. Almost without exception (and special circumstances attach to the exceptions), the sages of the Talmud never married more than one wife, while writing reams of law concerning the right of polygamy. The record of the Talmud is clear: a man should build a relationship with one wife. The law may permit him more, but the law does not necessarily describe the way things should be.

Greater people, or those to whom others look for guidance, are held in Jewish tradition to a higher standard. What might be legal, understandable, and even morally defensible for a lesser person, is objectionable in a more important one."

[chakma613]

OK Mr. Wiseguy, how about this commentary from Yitzchok Adlerstein, Director, Jewish Studies Institute at Yeshiva of Los Angeles, Sydney M Irmas Chair in Jewish Law and Ethics at Loyola Law School?

http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/clinton.html

"The greatest moral beauty resides in the margins of the legal codes, in what the law neither prohibits nor demands. Not every legal license is meant to become typical practice. The law can sometimes allow, without approving. It can even allow, while still morally condemning.

The Bible permits polygamy. Almost without exception (and special circumstances attach to the exceptions), the sages of the Talmud never married more than one wife, while writing reams of law concerning the right of polygamy. The record of the Talmud is clear: a man should build a relationship with one wife. The law may permit him more, but the law does not necessarily describe the way things should be.



Greater people, or those to whom others look for guidance, are held in Jewish tradition to a higher standard. What might be legal, understandable, and even morally defensible for a lesser person, is objectionable in a more important one."

Lisa, I never said you were wrong in saying that polygamy is not a good idea. I simply said that the way you went about proving that point was incorrect

[DownwithIslam]

Lisa, I am with you in that I think polygamy wouldn't work in todays society. I think it would turn the jews centuries back.

[Lisa]

Thank you Downwithislam!

[kahaneloyalist]

me and my Rebbe used to joke with lots of wives you get lots of saros

[chakma613]

me and my Rebbe used to joke with lots of wives you get lots of saros

Pirkei avos, the talmud's aggadic source for ethical statements made by Chaza'l(chachamainu zechronam levracha, the sages of blessed memory), says "the more wives, the more witchcraft"

[Daniel]

According to wikipedia, Rabbinic Ashkenazi Judaism has outlawed polygamy since the 11th century.

One question I would ask for Chaim is if he agrees with a woman's having the right to ask for a divorce.

My sense would be that Chaim would agree that the woman has very right to ask for a divorce. But that woman can only remarry once she is given a "get" from her husband. Otherwise, she is not allowed to remarry until she receives the get. I heard that in some orthodox communities, they actually beat the husband up in order to coerce a get from him. I'd be curious to know if Chaim would agree with this tactic.

[chakma613]

According to wikipedia, Rabbinic Ashkenazi Judaism has outlawed polygamy since the 11th century.

One question I would ask for Chaim is if he agrees with a woman's having the right to ask for a divorce.

My sense would be that Chaim would agree that the woman has very right to ask for a divorce. But that woman can only remarry once she is given a "get" from her husband. Otherwise, she is not allowed to remarry until she receives the get. I heard that in some orthodox communities, they actually beat the husband up in order to coerce a get from him. I'd be curious to know if Chaim would agree with this tactic.

..the product of misinformation. The only time the Bait din(court) beats up the husband is if he was abusive to his wife and refuses to divorce her..they will also excummunicate him(cherem) if the need be.