Hebrew Marriage Beliefs Judaism Believes

Hebrew Marriage Beliefs

Judaism believes that marriage to be the ideal state of existence, that a man without a wife or, a woman without a husband are incomplete (Jewish pp).

Marriage is considered a relationship and bond between individuals, and the accepted intention is that this bond refers to a male and female union or commitment (Jewish pp).

From the era of the Talmud up to the enlightenment, social association of the sexes was usually restricted, and within Orthodox Jewish communities today, these social restrictions are still in force (Jewish pp). Matrimonial engagements were commonly brought about by a third person, usually a professional match-maker, called a shadchan, and the process is called Shidduchim (Jewish pp). The shadchan received a brokerage-fee fixed by law, most often this was a small percentage of the dowry, which was paid by either or both of the parties at the wedding or shortly thereafter (Jewish pp).

The marriage ceremony, based on the rules of transfer of property or of rights in antiquity, includes the woman accepting a ring or something of value from the man, thus indicating her acceptance of the terms of the marriage (Jewish pp). This is call betrothal, of kiddushin or erusin, in which a prenuptial agreement, ketubah, is read publicly and is witnessed and signed (Jewish pp). The couple is then joined in matrimony under the chuppah, in the ceremony of Nissuin, symbolizing that the union results in the establishment of a residence together (Jewish pp). Quite often the chuppah is made of an outstretched tallit, or Jewish prayer shawl, although it can be any type of canopy (Jewish pp). When the groom gives the ring, he makes a declaration, "You are consecrated to me, through this ring, according to the religion of Moses and Israel," and traditionally the bride simply accepts the ring and closes her hand, making no verbal response (Jewish pp). The climax of the ceremony is reached when both the bride and groom drink wine and then the groom steps on the wineglass to break it (Jewish pp). The origin of this custom is shrouded in history, however, the oldest source seems to be from the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berachot, with a story about the wedding of Ray Ashi's son (Jewish pp). The story says that when the celebrants began to get carried away or rather out of control, Ashi brought out and broke a crystal glass in front of them in an attempt to obtain their attention and quiet them down (Jewish pp). Early medieval Taludic commentators interpreted this as meaning that even during moments of great celebration, one must maintain proper decorum (Jewish pp). This also may be related to the belief that it is best to temper one's joy, in order to avert inviting bad fortune (Jewish pp). Other interpretations suggest that the breaking of the glass represents the Jewish community's continuing sorrow of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and that no celebration is totally complete without the Temple (Jewish pp). Among Kabbalists, this custom is said to be a reminder of the broken fragments of Creation, and our need to engage in Tikkun Olam, the repairing of the world on a spiritual level (Jewish pp).

In the past, a Jewish betrothal could be contracted in three ways:

With money (as when a man hands a woman an object of value, such as a ring or a coin, for the purpose of contracted marriage, and in the presence of two witnesses, and she actively accepts);

Through a shtar, a contract containing the betrothal declaration phrased as "through this contract;" or By sexual intercourse with the intention of creating a bond of marriage, a method strongly discouraged by the rabbinic sages

(Jewish pp).

The ketubah, which has been in use for some 2,000 years, defines the rights of the wife and obligations of the husband, and due to the overriding importance, it was not written in the Hebrew language, but in Aramaic, the lingua franca of Jews at the time the first Ketubot became standardized (Jewish pp). Orthodox Judaism uses a traditional ketubah based on the forms that have evolved and standardized over the past millennium, and although there are minor variations between Orthodox groups, there are no major legal or theological differences (Jewish pp).

The Laws of "Family Purity," or taharat hamishpacha, have always been a pre-requisite of the Jewish marriage, and requires a knowledge of the menstrual Niddah laws which all Jewish brides and grooms have been required to study and practice (Jewish pp). Niddah in Judaism, is technically a state of minor exclusion when a woman is menstruating and for about a week later until she immerses in a ritual bath known as a mikvah (Jewish pp).

In the Book of Genesis, "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him, male and female he created them. ... saying: 'Be fertile and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it" (Massachusetts pp). Then in Chapter 2 of Genesis, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul (Massachusetts pp). And then God planted a garden eastward in Eden ... And made various trees that were pleasant to the sight and good for food, "the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (Massachusetts pp). The Lord God then took "the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it" ... explaining that he might eat freely, however, of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, "thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Massachusetts pp).

Then according to Genesis, the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him an help meet for him, and out of the ground ... formed every beast of the filed and every fowl of the air ... But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Massachusetts pp). And so while Adam slept, the Lord God, "took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh ... And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her unto the man" (Massachusetts pp). And then Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man ... Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh" (Massachusetts pp). Genesis 4:1 confirms the union between man and woman: "The man had sexual relations with Havah, his wife; she conceived, gave birth to Kayin (acquisition) and said, 'I have acquired a man from ADONAI'" (Stern 4).

There are other passages in the Old Testament concerning a union between man and woman. In the Book of Isaiah, "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God, for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornament, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels" (Massachusetts pp). In the Book of Tobit,

"Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for an helper and stay, of them came mankind: thous hast said,

It is not good that man should be alone, let us make unto him an aid like unto himself ... And now, O Lord, I take not this my sister for lust but uprightly: therefore mercifully ordain that

we may become aged together, And she said with him, Amen"

(Massachusetts pp).

The Book of Psalms reads, "Thy wife shall be as fruitful vine by the sides of thine house, thy children like olive plants round about thy table" (Massachusetts pp). And then of course there is the Song of Songs, which is perhaps the most beautiful and erotic poem written, that says, "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine." (Solomon 1: 2). Throughout the Song of Solomon, it is clearly assumed that the poem is a love poem between a man and a woman.

Michael Satlow's book, "Jewish Marriage in Antiquity," begins with a page found in the Cairo Geniza that states,

"There are twelve good measures in the world, and any man who does not have a wife in his house who is good in her deeds is prevented from enjoying all of them.He

dwells without good, without happiness, without blessing, without peace, without a help, without atonement, without a wall, without Torah, without life, without satisfaction, without wealth, [and] without a crown" (Satlow pp).

The nucleus of this "sermon in praise of a wife," is found in a single talmudic sugya, for the darshan, marriage to a good wife is an unqualified good (Satlow pp). This obscure, nameless darshan's interpretation of B. Yevamot 62b has been particularly enduring, yet, according to Satlow, "while such an interpretation of this sugya makes a good sermon, it makes poor history ... The sugya as a whole is in fact an attempt to answer the question, Why should a man marry" (Satlow pp). And the answer that it gives is much more complex than recognized by "our" darshan (Satlow pp).

Virtually every society supports marriage as a social institution, and so must answer the question of "why marry," therefore the answers serve the concrete function of convincing people to marry, "thus physically reproducing the institution ... thus societies, like those of Jews and non-Jews in antiquity, that offer quite distinct social roles to men and women," often use different means of persuasion to convince men and women to marry (Satlow pp). However, on the other hand, marriage can also be found an articulation of how that society's understands marriage, which in turn becomes a key to understanding more complex issues of group values and identity (Satlow pp). When modern Americans suggest that one should marry for love, this is actually reflecting the value placed on an individual's happiness, and thus is also reinforcing other institutions, such as democracy, that depend on this same value (Satlow pp).

According to the Mishnah, "A man should not cease from [attempting to fulfill the commandment] of procreation unless he has children" (Satlow pp). It goes on to say that the School of Shammai says, "In order to fulfill the commandment to procreate he must have] two boys," and the School of Hillel says, "A boy and a girl, as it is written ... Male and female he created them (Gen. 5:2)" (Satlow pp). Satlow points out that the Babylonian Talmud's discussion of this mishnah is composed mainly of two intertwined, yet independent, commentaries (Satlow pp). One commentaries is on the mishnah proper, the obligation to procreate, while the other is on marriage (Satlow pp).

The Talmud begins its commentary thus: "But if he has children, he may abstain from procreation, but he may not abstain from having a wife" (Satlow pp).

Rav Naiman said in the name of Shmuel, "Even if a man has several children, he is forbidden to live without a wife, as it is said, 'it is not good for man to be alone'" (Satlow pp). However, some believe that if he has children, he may abstain both from procreation and from having a wife (Satlow pp). Satlow notes, that if he has now children he marries a woman capable of bearing children, but if he has children, he can marry a woman not capable of bearing children (Satlow pp). The practical difference, says Satlow, is that he "may sell a Torah scroll, (in order to contract a marriage only) in order (to marry a woman capable of bearing) children" (Satlow pp). Marriage to a woman incapable of procreation is of a lesser level than marriage to a fertile woman, thus a man is not permitted to sell a holy object in order to raise money for the marriage contract (Satlow pp). Musonius Rufus, a first-century Roman aristocrat, stated in his writing, that marriage was not only a topic for philosophers and moralists, but also for rhetors (Satlow pp). The rationale that a man should marry in order to create a household is pervasive in many Jewish Palestinian sources, in fact, early all Jewish writings from the Second Temple period share this view (Satlow pp).

Author Andrew Dearman points out that there is no exact equivalent for the modern Western term for 'family' found in the Old Testament because the two societies, modern Western and ancient Near Eastern, have different ways of defining kinship and social identity (Dearman pp). According to Dearman, the closest Hebrew term to 'family' is 'bet ab,' which literally means as 'father's house,' and reflects a male-headed, multigenerational household as the basic kinship unit in ancient Israel (Dearman pp). Dearman says that a household was shaped "by endogamous marriage rites, patrilineal succession, and inheritance customs that privileged the eldest son, all practices which differ appreciably form the modern Western counterparts" (Dearman pp). Moreover, it is important to understand that the literary contents of the Old Testament originated from only segments of ancient Israel (Dearman pp). Mispaha, another term related to the idea of family and often rendered 'clan,' is a kinship unit of related fathers' houses, and this association of related clans would comprise or constitute a tribe, or sebet (Dearman pp). Each of these units or clans was crucial to the self-understanding of an individual in ancient Israel who, as is often noted in text, had a pronounced sense of corporate identity (Dearman pp). Dearman explains that 'household' is perhaps the best modern term to describe the family in ancient Israel, "since the assumptions about what comprised a family in that society included its socioeconomic profile" (Dearman pp).

Dearman goes on to point out that the second creation account, Genesis 2:4 -- 3:24, presents an etiology of the family, the primary social institution of human culture (Dearman pp). Alhtough other ancient accounts concentrate on the role of a particular deity in establishing creation's order or on the founding of a significant temple at the dawn of creation, "the biblical account concentrates on the relationship established between God and humankind, and that between man and woman" (Dearman pp). According to Dearman: