this *is* an interesting discussion. is this the rabbi gold you're talking about, sally?
MyJewishLearning.com - Ideas & Belief: Traditional Sources on Non-marit
i guess my starting point here would be slightly odd unless you understand where i'm coming from. as far as i can tell, nearly all the laws around marriage are for the benefit and protection of everybody concerned, husband, wife and children. however, the technical term here translated as "adultery",
TiNAPh is not what the english term means. the hebrew term signifies literally "moving from one to the other" and, as the rashi commentary explains:
Adultery applies only [to relations] with a married woman, as it is said: "[And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a[nother] man, who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor,] [both] the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death" (Lev. 20:10); [and it says,] “[You are] the adulterous wife, who, instead of her husband, takes strangers” (Ezek. 16:32). [In both these verses, the term “adultery” is used in reference to the extramarital relations of a married woman.]
so what is being penalised here on one hand is a married woman who moves between men - and the most *important* reason why this is not allowed is because of the risk of having a baby who would suffer the stigma of
mamzerut, being the result of an illicit relationship which would mean the child could only marry a convert or another mamzer. however, the child of a relationship between a married man and a woman other than his wife is not subject to this status.
the next important thing to remember is the man that has had relations with a married woman is subject to *exactly the same penalty* as the woman concerned; this is not a penalty that falls on the woman alone, as the Torah clarifies in the verse rashi mentions in leviticus.
if neither man nor woman are married to anyone else, it isn't adultery - although it is possible that they might become married thereby, as bob points out, so it's hardly encouraged, despite the clear fact that premarital or "licit" non-marital sex often took (and continues to take) place! which brings us to the point which seems to interest everybody, about whether a married man can legitimately have relations with a woman other than his wife. the basic answer is *yes* (look at abraham and jacob here!) but there are certain important caveats:
firstly, the wife must agree to this; it cannot be done without her knowledge. secondly, if the marriage contract signed by the man specifies that it is not permitted, then he must abide by this. i believe the penalty is that he'd be compelled to grant her a divorce and pay damages, there might be lashes as well - nowadays this would be considered a matter of course were it not covered by the ban of rabbenu gershom (see below)
there are two other important issues. one is, of course, the ability of men to marry more than one wife, as in the case of jacob. this is hedged about with many, many qualifications, e.g. the husband must be able to afford it, may not show preference to one over the other and must additionally be able to provide them both with as much sexual satisfaction as they require! and, before anyone gets any ideas, he can't have a threesome with them both (that would come under the "licit non-marital but discouraged" rubric). moreover, multiple wives have been prohibited in ashkenazic tradition since the C13th i believe by rabbenu gershom of mayence, who (i believe) held that it would make christians jealous. no such situation obtained in the jewish communities of the islamic world, of course, which meant that some of the yemeni jews who arrived in israel in the 1950s had more than one wife and were allowed to keep them. incidentally, they weren't allowed more than four, as this would have made muslims jealous. however, nowadays, as far as i am aware, everyone abides by the ban of rabbenu gershom, including both sephardim and eidoth ha'mizra
h (the "eastern communities").
the penultimate issue is that of
pilagshut or "concubinage". technically, this is permitted; a man may take a woman as a concubine for as long as *both of them* wish it. this entails *no religious* stigma to either man or woman (provided the woman isn't married and the man's wife doesn't object) but, as far as i know, married men aren't allowed to take concubines either and, of course, it falls foul of another rabbinic stricture which disapproves of what is considered promiscuous conduct. concubinage, however, is no longer used, although i'm not entirely sure why if not for the reason that there was a *social* as opposed to religious stigma attached. nachmanides (ramba"n) tried to have it reintroduced, but this failed. reading between the lines, i think that this probably always translated into "don't get caught having it off before you get married or at any rate don't advertise the fact", at any rate that is what still goes on even in much of the (non-ultra) orthodox community; the attitude is "well, it's all well and good until someone decides to take someone else to the beth din (religious court) and then there'll be a horrible mess."
finally, i should note that it is technically possible to engage in any number of sequential, monogamous marriages, but what a lot of hassle! i certainly know a religious bloke that is on his fourth and may yet come to five and i believe there was one talmudic sage who used to travel for a living and would get married for the duration of his short stay in a town; personally, i think a degree of informality need not be entirely discouraged as long as it does not harm your marital prospects in the long term or undermine one's commitment to lifelong marriage - but then again, my own pre-marital history would have been considere
d unconscionably lax!
b'shalom
bananabrain
).
