I hate to repeat myself, but ... fantastic post ! I love your blog man !
> If anyone has specific ideas on what could have been the immediate catalyst for this legislation, I’m all ears.
this is very tentative - could it simply be the new Christian environmnent ?
After all, at the time of Rabeinu Gershom's Takana, Ashkenaz Europe had just become the new major center for Judaism, after centuries of being mainly based in Babylonia.
I would need to do some extensive research, but I assume that in Bavel polygamy was acceptable, while in Christendom it was not.
Ashkenaz wasn't a major center yet. The overwhelming majority of the world's Jews lived in the Moslem world. Ashkenaz was a new center, and the only center in the Catholic world. Polygamy remained acceptable in Sephardic lands until very recently.
The difference between Catholic and Moslem cultures, or economies for that matter, might have much to do with it; i just don't know enough about the subject.
Great post.
>3) In the prophers, especially Ezekiel, the theme of marriage and divorce between God and Israel constantly recurs. There is no indication, ever, that God, who is considered the ‘man’ in the metaphors, has more than one ‘Chosen People’. In fact, it seems absurd to suggest otherwise. That marriage can be a metaphor for chosenness implies that marriage is ideal constructed as a monogamous relationship.
What do you have to say about Amos 9:7, which admittedly, I don't fully understand?
Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?
Acc. to Abraham Grossman, the immediate catalyst for the cherem was that men had begun to travel extensively on business to other countries, sometimes staying for years, and could take wives and start families in other countries (apparently there was virtually no polygamy otherwise, within ashkenaz). They'd sometimes abandon the first family, and the cherem d'rabbeinu gershom was designed to counteract this.
there are apparently parallel gezeros in sefard, for men who come from foreign lands to testify that they are unmarried, and to require them to grant their wives a divorce if they return to their native countries.
S.
You just quoted one of my favorite parts of the Navi (cause I'm a big hippy like that, and I do think some form of "plural chosenness" is a good idea, cf. Rav Yitz Greenberg and Yeshayah ha-Navi)
Amos doesn't actually claim there's more than one "chosen nation", however.
When he describes the exchange
"Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?"
He shows God making a strong point about a chosen people not living up to its responsibilities. Here's a hypothetical background to the pesukim:
Bnai Israel: we're so holy, we're so holy, we're so holy. lets oppress the poor and worship idols and kill and thieve and it's okay, cause we're CHOSEN.
Hashem: Look at yourselves! You're not special, you're just as bad as anyone else on Earth - the Ethiopians, for instance. You think you're so great? Why?
BI: Cause you took us out of Egypt! that makes us HOOOOOLLLYYYY....
H: But I took all SORTS of people out of all SORTS of places and delivered them to new lands! Let's see, I took the Aramim from Kir, and the Pelishtim from Kaftor, and the Chicanos from Mexico, and the Anglo-Saxons from Germany, and the Hawaiians from Polynesia....
BI (for the optimistic): We're sorry God. We see your point. We have nothing to brag about unless we're *Acting* like a chosen people. We'll try to live up to our chosen people responsibilities now.
-an alan scott production
Good post
) The Biblical and Rabbinic word for co-wives is ‘Tzatah”, which literally means ‘enemy’.
Tzarah, you mean.
There are also many references to the negative hanhaga of two wives - one for the beauty and one for the babies.
I can't think exactly which book/ tape, but Rav Berel Wein, if I recall correctly, feels that Christianity was the catalyst of ashkenazi monogamy; according to catholicism, even one wife is one too many.
Therefore, if the Jews in Europe did not want to be totally ostracised, they would have had to try to fit in
interesting theory.
something tells me that not believing in Jesus was separated Jews from Catholics in Ashkenaz more than sexual ethics, but whatever.
also, why didn't the cherem spread to spain after the reconquista?
Jesus died without ever being married, and Chastity is therefore the ideal of many Christian sects, including catholicism. Nevertheless, the church recognised that if marriage were to be banned, the religion would die out within a few generations (such as the quakers did).
Therefore, Catholicism permits marriage, but does not portray it as an ideal.
If one wife is merely tolerated, there would be no space in the religion for polygamy.
If the christians were only allowed one wife, but their neighbours the Jews were allowed more, the Jews would be seen as immoral, thus causing the ostracism.
So, you're right. It is the belief in Jesus that's behind the whole thing.
@ times the torah will say"...and to him 2 wives" telling me it was not common.
Ayinyud -
I know some Quakers who'd be very shocked to find out they died out. Quakers do have kids. I believe it was the Shakers who did not.
my bad
The shakers were an offshoot of the quakers, similar name, oops, sorry
i assume that you're talking about the christian quakers and shakers, not the Jewish ones.
Explanation: 'quaker' is the literal translation of the term 'chareidi'.
just got the mareh mekomos that i couldn't find, thanks to bob.
It's a tosefta in ketubot 5:1. and r' tarfon didn't marry 5 women in order to allow them to eat trumah during rough years.
he betrothed 300 (it's disputed there whether betrothal to a kohen without consummation can allow a woman to eat Terumah)!
talk about marriage of convenience!
A very beautiful post.
But the question remains where do we draw the line? If the underpinning of the Biblical marriage and divorce laws, or even the estate and Mitzvoth Sh'hazman G'romo' laws were fashioned according to the social norm of those times (as well it should be) hence all those later additions (cherem on two wives, on divorce without consent)or subtactions (no Kidushey Katanah allowed)Where does this end?
Can we say that Death Penalty for carrying on Shabbos was according to those norms (where a mere slap on the wrist was absolutely worthless. even killing was not such a strong deterrent after all it's only a cessation of existence, All kinds of devious tortures and killing methods were needed in a society where dying and killing [the 300 Orlahs of Samson is reminiscent of the Indian Savaged custom of scalping] was almost glorified).
Will we say that Korbonos was for that society only a'la the Rambam?
Will we say that Raping women in battlefield will not be reinstituted in Moshiach's Army. (If the concept of Moshiach means more than an allegory of the world becoming a peacfull place, Tikkun Olam)
Will we say that the Laws of a Priestly Caste was for a society that wasn't ready for any other system?
Will we say that Circumsiscion (barbaric to a Modern's sensibilities)was for a society where tearing flesh while grieving was the norm. So that cutting off a piece of skin and keeping an old Cannenite tradition (to the extent that even the people of Shecehm would understand that to a tribe that circumsizes it is undignified for a women to have an uncircumsized husband)was perfectly Ok.
It is after all quite obvious that the Torah and most of it's laws happen to fit very perfectly with the norms of that society.
Will we say that the important element in a religion i.e. the God element should be emasculated from it's anthropmorphic terminology and even from its "personal" terminology to the extent of leaving Him/It with no conceptualization at all? And maybe just calling Him/It with the simple term Existence, Being, Havaiah, Hoveh?
So are we just living according to laws that were written for other people in another time?
True the Rabboninm came and changed a lot an awful lot that is, but aren't we still captive to laws meant for a complete different culture.
there are many other biblical norms that have been obviated in various ways, some of them on the excellent list you compiled. to wit:
1) common custom, even as early as the gemara, was for a dying person to disburse his or her estate via a 'matnas shchiv mera', essentially a will, which distributed amongst sons and daughters evenly. it is the prevalent custom today, as the only time you see exclusion of female progeny is when there's no will and the brothers are jerks.
2) death penalty - 'misherabu ha-rotzchim, batlu dinei nefashos'. i don't think it means that they couldn't handle the caseload. rather, they understood that meting out the death penalty only served as a deterrent in particular types of situations. furthermore, there's a very clear strain in rabbinic literature to minimize the death penalty (i.e., once in 70 yrs = 'killer court').
3) I certanly hope that Tzaha"l would court martial and imprison any soldier who rapes during the course or aftermath of combat. that's one area that i think we've done quite nicely in. we don't even need to wait for moshiach's army (inless tzaha"l IS...)
more later.
AddeRabbi,
I presume it didn't spread to Spain, because as long as Jews were still accepted in Christian Spain, Muslims were as well.
As for vegetaranism, I wonder in what way it is "fummer than Torah"? Doesn't the Rambam say it's a mitzva to eat fish and meat on Shabbos? What about Korbanim?
acc. to Ramban, permission to eat meat is a concession to man's baser nature.
eating korbanot isn't the same as eating 'b'sar hetter'. the gem. in ta'anit suggests that after the churban the impulse to refrain from meat is a proper one, but couldn't be made standard because it's unlivable. with other sources of protein readily available in our time, it's not so unlivable. this is the cliff-note version.
adderabbi,
but are there reasons to live it? what about the income of jews working in shechita? the animal's soul getting elevated by being eaten in a holy process?
"the gem. in ta'anit suggests that after the churban the impulse to refrain from meat is a proper one, "
but most jewish vegetarians don't have this impulse in mind; they have cruelty to animals in mind.
Commenting by HaloScan
