Jewish Oral Tradition Part 2, Treatment of Women

Updated thru 9/11/2016

Continued From Jewish Oral Tradition - Part 1 - Introduction

Some of my previous posts explained that the written Torah unfairly discriminates based on gender. 

We see this even in the 10 commandments.

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. 

Notice how a man's wife is lumped in with man's possessions such as a house, servants, oxen and asses. ( The Torah is not referring to the gluteus maximus here.)

Under Oral Tradition, women’s inferior status is ubiquitous. This post is only a tiny tip of the ice berg.

Women Can Not Be Witnesses, Women Can Not Contribute to Prayer Quorum, Women Ineligible To Judge; {ETA 9/11/2016 Women Ineligible To Be King Or In Authority.}

Rambam's Hilcot Edot Section 9 - Women may not serve as witnesses. Nor can servants; minors;  mentally or emotionally unstable individuals; deaf-mutes; the blind; the wicked debased individuals; relatives; and  androgynus are also unacceptable - for there is an unresolved doubt whether they are considered as women.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 55 - A minyan ( the number of congregants required for certain prayers) requires at least 10 males. Women don't count.

Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 7 A women is not eligible to Judge.

{ETA 9/11/2016 Rambam's Melachim uMilchamot  Chapter 1 Paragraph 5 - A women may not be appointed King. This also applies to all positions of authority in Israel.}

Only Male Polygamy is Allowed

Rambam's Hilcot Ishut - 14 -  A man can have numerous wives, and his wife may not object to this. [However  the Ashkanaz Jews later instituted a ban for Ashkanaz Jews, no doubt because of the surrounding Christian culture which prohibited polygamy.  I believe that ban was to last until a certain date, a date which I think has passed.] 

Marriage and Divorce Ala Oral Tradition

Talmud Gittin 90a Mishnah. Beth Shammai say: a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her. Beth Hillel, however, say (that he may divorce her) even if she has merely spoilt his food, since it says,  because he hath found some unseemly thing in her. Rav Akiba says, (he may divorce her) even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes.

So per Oral Tradition what are the grounds for divorce ? They really did not know and made things up based on 'deductions' of Torah verse. 

Until about 1000 years ago - under oral law the male was able to divorce his wife without her consent.  European Jews thereafter required her consent. They just invented laws. 

Unlike the male, the wife can not issue a divorce. Rambam's Hilcot Gerushin 1 explains The man must voluntarily initiate the divorce. However, Gerushin 2 explains there are some limited circumstances where the man can be compelled to issue a divorce. 

Sometimes the man withholds giving divorce papers creating problems for the spouse; because she can not marry without them. 
{ETA 9/9/2016 Sometimes the man has vanished for one reason or another and this leaves the women unable to remarry.  These are called the Agunot Problems for more see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/agunot1.html }

The point is Divorce Oral Tradition style was and still is biased in favor of males. It unfairly discriminates based on gender. 

Only Males can initiate marriage. Talmud Kiddushin 2a -  A women is 'acquired'  in one of three ways: money or contract or sex. Kiddushin 5b But if she gives him (money or its equivalent)

and says ‘Behold, I am consecrated unto thee,’ ‘I am betrothed unto thee,’ ‘I am a wife unto thee,’ she is not betrothed.

Women's Mind

Talmud Yoma 66 - A wise woman asked R. Eliezer: Since with regard to the offence with the golden calf all were evenly associated, why was not the penalty of death the same? He answered her: There is no wisdom in woman except with the distaff. Thus also does Scripture say: And all the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands.

Talmud Avot - Chapter 1 Mishna 5 Engage not in too much conversation with women. They said this with regard
to one's own wife, how much more (does the rule apply) with regard to another man's wife.

Talmud Kiddushin 49b Ten Kabs [measures] of gossip descended to the world: nine were taken by women.

Conclusion

A compelling case can be made Oral Law and Tradition unfairly discriminates against women and holds man superior despite some modern day Rabbinic apologetics. 

P.S. Many Orthodox Jews today may not be sexist, but that is besides the point. The historical Oral Law and Tradition was sexist. Even if Oral Tradition may sometimes write complimentary things about women, it does not change the actual halacha - the oral law.

Continued Jewish Oral Tradition Part 3, Treatment of Heretics

The Bible, The Priests, The Female and the Disabled

Sources at bottom of post unless otherwise shown

Leviticus 21:16 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying: Whosoever he be of thy seed throughout their generations that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath any thing maimed, or anything too long,
19 or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed,
20 or crook-backed, or a dwarf, or that hath his eye overspread, or is scabbed, or scurvy, or hath his stones crushed;
21 no man of the seed of Aaron the priest, that hath a blemish, shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire; he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23 Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not My holy places; for I am the LORD who sanctify them.
24 So Moses spoke unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

There are numerous similarities between the Israelite ‘Temple’ (portable or otherwise),  Israelite ‘Temple’  rituals and other ancient near east religions. Even the Torah term Kohanim (the priestly class) was a common name for priest guilds in the ancient near east. Some of these similarities have already been discussed in my prior posts, but for now the focus will be on the verses cited.

First - Females are disqualified from service. ( But surely there were tasks that females could have performed.)  Milgrom discusses the female exclusion. “Women were excluded from priesthood probably out of fear of menstrual pollution, a reason that is expressly cited for Ethiopians....”.

Second, the Torah is not punishing the blemished or disabled -  see verse 22.

Thirdly, the physically blemished or disabled are excluded from this service. This is not about workers compensation. No accommodation of the tasks are made for the disabled. The Torah was not aware of  American with Disabilities Act and non discrimination. Just having certain  blemishes regardless of ability to perform tasks is disqualifying from certain services.

Fourthly - the Torah glaringly fails to list Moral blemishes. Milgrom wrestles with this issue, and I will not pursue it in this post.

Fifthly the ‘twelve listed blemishes’ are expanded to 142 blemishes by the Talmudic Rabbi’s.(Milgrom)
[I suppose the Rabbis  could not leave well enough alone.]

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

Sixthly - Before we are quick to judge this discriminatory practice, it probably was a feature of many ancient near east cultures.

Page 233 Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: “One of the problems uncovered by the Diviners was that the Temple precinct had been defiled by invalids and mutilated people who had entered it’s doors” This had caused  the gods to be angry at Hatti. “The notion that physically impaired people could defile the sacred precinct should be compared to II Samuel 5:6-8, Leviticus 21:16-23, Deuteronomy 23:1" 

[He is almost certainly referring to Deuteronomy 23:2. It is not certain  Deut 23:2 fits in the same category as Levit 21:16-23]

Regarding the Leviticus verses : “The requirement that priests bear no physical blemish is not limited to Israel but is attested universally.” (Milgrom)

{ETA Page 206 Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible - Kenton Sparks 2005 - Physical perfection of priests - is also found in Mesopotamian and Emar  rituals.}

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

Conclusion

The Torah missed a ‘golden’ opportunity to repudiate discrimination and superstitions regarding females, the blemished and the disabled.  Surely, that is what they must have been for other cultures. Instead the Torah codifies discrimination and superstitions.

Sources 

Milgrom  - The Anchor Bible Volume 3A Leviticus 2000 by Jacob Milgrom. Regarding Leviticus 21:16 - 24

The Bible, the Brother, and the Widow

Deuteronomy 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel. 7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say: 'My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me.' 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him; and if he stand, and say: 'I like not to take her'; 9 then shall his brother's wife draw nigh unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say: 'So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house.' 10 And his name shall be called in Israel the house of him that had his shoe loosed. 

It seems the living brother is shamed in the community if he resists this obligation. The living brother is thus encouraged to add an additional wife or marry for the first time his deceased brother's wife.  Some men would welcome the opportunity while others would resent it.

In some instances it is possible such an institution may be beneficial to the widow, for example if she unable to support herself, yet that does not seem the primary motivation of the law - see verse 6. Also see verse 5, she is  not free remarry anybody she chooses, since she is prohibited from marrying outside her husbands kin, even an outside wealthy man.

See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9859-levirate-marriage : Marriage with a brother's widow. This custom is found among a large number of primitive peoples, a list of which is given by Westermarck ("History of Human Marriage," pp. 510-514). In some cases it is the duty of a man to marry his brother's widow even if she has had children by the deceased, but in most cases it occurs when there are no children, as among the Hindus ("Institutes of Manu," v. 59-63).)]. 

JPS page 422 states Biblical, Near Eastern and Roman inheritance law assigned special responsibilities to the husband's brother - to continue the deceased line of the childless widow.

Are we to understand this law is handed down from God at Mount Sinai ?

It seems much more probable that levirate laws were extant or developed among the ancient Israelites and then ascribed to divine authority.

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

JPS  - Jewish Study Bible 2004 Berlin and Brettler

The Bible, The Husband, and The Virgin

Updated 2/10/2014

Deuteronomy22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 and lay wanton charges against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: 'I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity'; 15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders: 'I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 and, lo, he hath laid wanton charges, saying: I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. 19 And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. {S} 20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.

The Torah commentator Rashi explains - 'and they shall spread the garment' -  This is a figurative expression, meaning: they shall clarify the matter as [“clear”] as a [new] garment, [Sifrei 22:92, Kethubah 46a]


The Torah commentator  Ramban (Nachmanides - Deuteronomy - Translated by Rabbi Chavel 1974-1976  page 274) says Rashi is wrong. It means literally examine the cloth as it was a custom in former times in Israel. He cites Kethuboth 10a - bring me the sudar (cloth) and Kethubah 46a.

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

From Kethuboth 10a "Some one came before Rabban Gamaliel the 
son of Rabbi [and] said to him, 'My master, I 
have had intercourse [with my newly-wedded 
wife] and I have not found any blood.' She 
[the wife] said to him, 'My master, I was a 
virgin.' He said to them: Bring me that 
cloth. They brought him the cloth, and he 
soaked it in water and he washed it and he 
found on it a good many drops of blood. 
[Thereupon] he [Rabban Gamaliel] said to 
him [the husband]: Go, be happy with thy 
bargain."


From Kethuboth 46a "..according to the Rabbis what [could be the 
sense of the instruction,] And they shall 
spread the garment? — R. Abbahu replied: 
They explain [the charge] which he 
submitted against her; as it was taught: 
'And they shall spread the garment' teaches 
that the witnesses of the one party and those 
of the other party come, and the matter is 
made as clear as a new garment. R. Eliezer b. 
Jacob said: The words are to be taken in 
their literal sense: [They must produce] the 
actual garment."

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

So some Rabbis took the Torah text more literally, others less so. It seems clear that by the time of the Talmud codification the so called ‘unbroken’ oral tradition  was ‘broken’, (and not just for this issue.)

Friedman -  the garment of the wedding night or the cloth under the couple as virginity evidence.

JPS-JT - bedding garment or bridal garment.

Sex and the Bible 1983 by Gerald Larue page 66. "The writers of the bible lay great emphasis upon the importance of virginity in women, no such emphasis is laid on virginity in males". "So important was the unbroken hymen the parents of the bride saved the blood stained sheets from the daughters wedding night as proof of her nuptial virginity". 

JPS page 416 - "There was little conception of the women as a free agent, either in legal or sexual terms."  So it was in the Ancient Near East and the Torah.  An examination of the cloth which the husband and wife consummated the relationship. "There is scant medical support for the underlying assumptions: that intercourse would cause the first perforation of the hymen and that such perforation would cause bleeding upon the bedding, which is here held up in public display as legal evidence". 

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

What if a women marries a man and the man is adulterous with an unmarried women, is he punished  ? No. see my post on Suspected Adultery   

What if a women marries a man and the man is not a virgin, is he punished  ? No. See Larue for example. 

There are instances in the Talmud where the Rabbis note that there are causes (for example famine and others)  for non virginity other than sex. 

Sources

JPS - Jewish Study Bible 2004 Berlin and Brettler

JPS-JT The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Jeffrey H. Tigay 1996

Friedman - Commentary on the Torah with a New English Translation 2001 by Richard E, Friedman

Suspected Adultery and the Bible Remedy

Updated thru 7/29/2018

This post will focus on the Torah ritual regarding the suspicion of your wife’s marital infidelity. 

We will see the Torah's way of dealing with such a situation is sacrifice and magical potions. 

Notice the Torah law does not discuss suspicion of a husbands infidelity. Is not what is good for the goose also good for the gander ? According to the Torah NO. (sources at end).

Sexual contact between a married man and an unmarried women was not considered adultery (page 294 JPS).

Numbers 5:11 and the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: If any man's wife go aside, and act unfaithfully against him, 13 and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act; 14 and the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled; or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled; 15 then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. 16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD. 17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water. 18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal-offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causeth the curse. 19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse; 20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband-- 21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; 22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.' 23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. 25 And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the LORD, and bring it unto the altar. 26 And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke upon the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27 And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have acted unfaithfully against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away; and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed. 29 This is the law of jealousy, when a wife, being under her husband, goeth aside, and is defiled; 30 or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon a man, and he be jealous over his wife; then shall he set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. 31 And the man shall be clear from iniquity, and that woman shall bear her iniquity. 

The Torah custom has similarities to other cultures And Raises Some 'Problems'

1) Regarding the Number verses cited: (Page 294 JPS) "Water ordeals of varying types are attested from the ancient Near East." 
Regarding Numbers 5:11-31 “The ordeal, or more correctly, the trial of   the suspected adulteress, is a means of allaying or confirming the fears of a husband that his wife has been unfaithful.”  Due to lack of evidence , judgment and subsequent punishment is left to the Divine. “Most importantly, the priest administers the  women’s oath and utters the curse that takes effect if she is guilty.” The waters reveal whether she has been faithful or not.

 [If the bitter waters were a poison to induce abortions, then it would likely induce abortions or potentially cause problems for an  innocent pregnant wife. What kind of cipher is that ? Also, is the Torah advocating abortion ? Seems like the Creator of the Universe will have to interfere in the marital problems of the ancient Israelites]

Page 298 Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament - Theodore Gaster 1969 - writes there is no doubt the ceremony washing off written curses into the water was a superstition that could not possibly produce the effect on an adulterous while leaving the faithful wife unharmed. The book explains: It is a widespread superstition that the magical influence of a written charm can be communicated to a person when the individual drinks the water that has the washed off characters in it.

[Is it possible the Torah 'author' and purveyors  knew the whole procedure was bogus ? Could be, but the Torah itself never remotely suggest such a thing.  Also, I am not aware that our tradition held the ordeal was  bogus.] }


2) Here are several similar trials sampled from Frazer 

Page 307 "In many parts of Africa it has been, and perhaps still 
is, customary to submit criminal charges, particularly poison in
accusations of witchcraft, to the test of poison : the accused
and sometimes the accusers also, are compelled to swallow
a poisoned draught, and according to the result a verdict
of guilty or not guilty is returned. As a rule, a man is
declared innocent if he vomits up the poison, but guilty if
he either retains it or evacuates it by purging. Death from
the effect of the poison is regarded as a sure sign of guilt"


Page 328 Sierra Leone: 
"From this account we learn that negro women demonstrate their fidelity to their husbands by drinking red water
 just as Hebrew women of old demonstrated their domestic
virtue quite as conclusively by drinking bitter water and calling
down curses on their heads, or rather on their stomachs
and legs, if they lied."

Page 331 "On the Gold Coast the wood which furnishes the poison 
for the ordeal is called odmn. The accused either drinks a 
decoction of the wood or chews a piece of the wood and 
afterwards drinks a bowl of water. The poison acts both
as an emetic and as a purge : if the accused vomits it up,
he is acquitted ; if he does not, his guilt is established.
Women accused of adultery, for example, have to drink a
brew of this poison in presence of a priest ; the draught is
believed to have power to burst the belly of an adulteress.
Fear of the consequences, it is said, often leads unfaithful
wives to confess their guilt."

Page 372 Thonga, a Bantu tribe:  "A woman charged with
adultery, for example, may say to her accuser, " Let us
go and drink the poison." Accordingly, they repair to a
medicine-man, whose business it is to prepare the decoction ;
he administers a little of the drug in a potion to both the
accused and the accuser, and the one who, after swallowing
the draught, shows symptoms of intoxication or loses consciousness, is declared guilty."

Page 378  Zambesi Area.
"This ceremony is called jnuavi, and is performed
in this way. When a man suspects that any of his
wives have bewitched him, he sends for the witch-doctor,
and all the wives go forth into the field, and remain fasting
till that person has made an infusion of the plant. They
all drink it, each one holding up her hand to heaven in
attestation of her innocency. Those who vomit it are considered
innocent, while those whom it purges are pronounced
guilty, and put to death by burning. The innocent return
to their homes, and slaughter a cock as a thankoffering to
their guardian spirits. The practice of ordeal is common
among all the negro nations north of the Zambesi."


India : Page 406 "Trial by the Cosha is as follows : The accused is made to drink three draughts of the water in which the images of
the Sun, of Devi, and other deities, have been washed for
that purpose ; and if within fourteen days he has any sickness
or indisposition, his crime is considered as proved." 


Page 413 "The notion, that the magical influence of a Common
written charm, whether for good or evil, can be com
municated to any person by making him or her drink the a charm
water into which the characters have been washed off, is 
widespread among superstitious people at the present time
and has no doubt been so since the days of antiquity"

[Some of the trials in Frazer involve 'poisons' some do not.  I do not know if the Torah's concoction contained of poison or not. [ETA - But floor sweepings are not safe to eat.]

Sources

Folk-lore in the Old Testament volume III 1918 James G. Frazer

JPS - Jewish Publication Society The Jewish Study Bible 2004 Berlin and Brettler