Meet My Husband, and My Wife
FreiFem2011BlogsI saw this infographic which features the varieties of biblical marriage – you know, that sacred institution between “one man and one woman” as stated in the Holy Book. Turns out all those Rabbis and fundamentalist Christians are getting the Old Testament model a little bit wrong:
It seems like the bible’s model might have more in common with Dan Savage’s approach to relationships (as featured in this recent, fascinating NYTimes Magazine article “Married With Infidelities”) than Michelle Bachmann’s.
Some frum Jews are waking up to this holy precedent. The Jerusalem Post just reported on a charedi Israeli group trying to reintroduce polygamy.
Personally, I’m cool with everything from monogamy to polygyny to polyandry to open marriages – as long as all members are free to enter or leave the marriage at will, have a fair share of autonomy within the marriage, and there is an honest commitment to the terms and boundaries of the marriage – whatever they are – throughout.
Where do you stand on the issue?
5 Responses
FYI, this graphic greatly distorts the bible. For one, a virgin who is raped does NOT have to marry her rapist. The rapist has to marry the victim, but the victim can opt out. The obvious question is, why would a victim want to marry such a person? The answer is that this rule is for the victims benefit, the reasoning is that a woman wants to be married and would rather be married to her attacker than no one at all. As a victim of rape it may be somewhat difficult for her to find someone. (Remember that many rape victims are blamed and told that they brought it on themselves…)
In addition, once married he may never divorce her (unless she wants) that gives her the opportunity to make his life living hell.
That was then, these days I would suspect most women would choose not to marry their rapist.
Also, a story that happened isn’t necessarily marriage.
AH – while I agree with you on the stickler point of the Torah not saying she is forced to marry her rapist – however – listen closely to what you yourself are saying –
“As a victim of rape it may be somewhat difficult for her to find someone. (Remember that many rape victims are blamed and told that they brought it on themselves…)”
you mean to tell me that a rule book claiming to be the be all and end all of ALL moral decisions for ALL TIME and a society which claims to be the greatest moral society in history (don’t forget what we were taught about Dor Hamidbar being the “Dor De’ah” – the ULTIMATE generation of closeness to Hashem and spiritual understanding) would actually be speaking to a people that would so terribly shun a rape victim for no fault of her own to the point where she would WANT to marry her rapist??
“a woman wants to be married and would rather be married to her attacker than no one at all.” – REALLY?? do you really believe this was EVER true for any woman?
“gives her the opportunity to make his life living hell.” – this is the methodology of how a proper legal system metes out justice??
“Some frum Jews are waking up to this holy precedent. The Jerusalem Post just reported on a charedi Israeli group trying to reintroduce polygamy.”
Did you actually read the article? Or do any fact checking/research?
If you had done any of the above, you would have learned that the so-caled new Sanhedrin (of which some anony-fools are apparently advocating polygamy) is hardly a ‘haredi’ group, rather they are an amalgam of messianist national-religious and Steinzaltzian whack jobs.
The Post itself quoted haredi rabbis (even Sefardis, for whom polygamy is still ‘mutar’)roundly condemning this.
You have issues with what Judaism has turned into; I get it. You do yourself no favors and lose credibility with hit pieces such as this.
Sy Lar — That seems like a very weak objection. Based on what your saying, FreiFem need only replace the word “charedi” with the world “Orthodox” (not such a major change, if you ask me) and — pop! — the article is fully valid.
Whether we’re talking of a fringe group of “Steinzaltzian whack-jobs” or fringe Haredim, the essence remains the same. People do weird things in the name of religion. One day it’s burka-wearing sefardic chasidim in Beit Shemesh, another day it’s Toldos Aroners stoning a dog to death, and another day it’s polygamy. Enough religious nuttiness to go around for all, I’d say.
Chay Nobody – You actually answer your own questions!
While the Torah was given during the time of the Dor De’ah in the Midbar it must be relevant for all time. While I’m pretty sure the Dor De’ah would not shun a rape victim (or rape someone to begin with for that matter) the Torah is accounting for all times and circumstances.
Do I believe that a woman would rather marry her attacker than no one at all? Possibly. That reason was given in the Gemara, written during a period when the Jews were exiled in Bavel, a quick Google search shows us the mentality that exists in the region even today:
http://www.circleofmoms.com/debating-mums/men-offer-to-marry-rape-victims-rather-than-kill-them-650235#_
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2604929/posts
I usually don’t try to pretend that I understand cultures that I haven’t experienced (including those in the past) but I’m pretty comfortable saying that 2000 years ago it wasn’t any better.
In a society where women could be rounded up for the king (i.e. the Purim story), had to be hidden in boxes, could not own land…and WERE KILLED if they got raped, this law provides for a pretty decent set of rights as well as some amount of justice. (You raped her, you take care of her ’cause no one else will.)
So, yes, a woman may prefer to marry her attacker over the alternatives. (Although, I sincerely hope that the Jews didn’t pick up that attitude from their neighbors (and that there were no rapes) and that it didn’t happen.)
Also, keep in mind that rape does not have to involve a vicious assault by an unknown attacker, it could involve a guy that she’s with taking things further than she intended and she decides to forgive him and move on. (Hey, maybe she kinda enjoyed that he couldn’t resist her.)
The comment on how she may treat him was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, sorry that didn’t come across.
My point in commenting was to show that the entire graphic is completely off base. I picked on that one ’cause it most directly distorts the Torah. They all have problems though. The entire Levirate Marriage bit is construed very different from reality, in fact the entire thing can be gotten out of (as is done today).
The whole “submitting sexually” business is untrue. While there is a general policy that married people have to have sex (not such a bad rule I would think) “not tonight honey” means no and that’s that. Et cetera.
While this is the first place I’ve seen this graphic I’ve heard the arguments contained before, they are being thrown around with an almost malicious intent, making things out to be the opposite of what they really are, and should have no credit by anyone. As another commenter points out fact-checking is important!
There is one thing they get right though, nowhere does the bible define mariage as “one man and one woman.”