Rabbenu Gershom and the Ban on Polygamy in the 11th century 

I remember reading an article in an Israeli newspaper in 1993 when a group of Jewish families arrived in Israel from Yemen. The Israeli reporters swamped the Yemenites with questions, especially about polygamy as some of the men had more than one wife.

I always enjoy your lectures Dr. Abramson. I find them extremely interesting and enlightening. I get a kick out of your jokes too. I think you might have a shot at stand up comedy if you chose to do so. Thank you for your posts.

Greetings from Puerto Rico.Keep on the good work.

Wow! Just subscribed and this is one of the topics I'm most interested in! Thank you!

It is my understanding that this was a critical issue after WWII when surviving husbands could not be certain their spouse had died in the camps, and were prevented from remarrying. Also, I saw some discussion that by the time of the Gemara having mulpiple wives was uncommon. In fact, the rabbis said that a man can have more than one wife only if could support more than one wife, (Pardon the lack of citations.)

Rabbi, I'm one of your "goyisch" listeners. I was fascinated by this lecture because of the greater detail surrounding the תקנה של ר' גרשום. I had heard or read that part of the reasoning surrounding the תקנה was that all the polygamous marriages depicted in the תורה were negative in some respect. There was awful resentment and competition between Rachel and Leah, and the discord between Sarah and Hagar resulted in the expulsion of Abraham's son, to appease the jealousy of his older wife. You made no mention of these reasons. Did I learn the reason for the תקנה incorrectly ? Did the rule of monogamy among the Christians play a larger part than just the negative aspects of polygamy as seen in the תורה ?

Excellent, as always!

Fantastic lecture!! Thank you!!

The aguna case looks to me as if we're not understanding marriage as ancient people did. I think for them it was a protection offered by a man to a woman against an offspring. I think we're underestimating the libido of ancient men and maybe overestimating the libido of ancient women. So if the man is offering the protection, he's the one who can take it back. And he has enough to offer it to multiple women he can do it. And if his brother dies without kids, he has a moral duty to protect his widow. If you look at it that way: the woman is the requesting party and the entire marriage presupposes her agreement. Then it's implied that she could opt out any moment but it wasn't the usual case. For the slaves it had to be said clearly: if a slave comes to you running away from his master, you don't bring him back. Free women were more free than slaves, so logically if a woman runs away from her husband not intending to ever go back, she's just not married to him anymore. The case of a woman divorcing is absent in the Torah. That doesn't make it an impossibility of jewish life. It just implies that she gets nothing from her husband if she's the one leaving, otherwise the Torah would have described it. On the other hand if the husband is divorcing her he has to give her a paper offering her some kind of extended protection. The case for children raises many questions but I think we locked ourselves in a mindset that's different from them. In the Talmud it is mentionned that the rabbis prayed and God poked the eyes of idolatry and sexual desire but seeing that even the animals stopped procreating he restored one eye to sexual desire. So in the same way that we don't understand idolatry now, and how hard it was to resist, we can't understand the relationship between men and women at the time of the Torah. But contrarily to idolatry where the complete loss of desire made it easy to look back on the problem, the loss of half the libido would make it shameful to look back in every possible way, and people would not want to talk about it, and they would want to forget. We see how rape was treated "now you have to marry her and never divorce her, or if she doesn't want you can just pay the price of her virginity" what if she has already been raped and wasn't a virgin anymore? Was she freely rapable? No wonder she would want to get married.

Thank you Rabbi…

Thanks Doctor Another reason for R’ Gershon’s ban on polygamy can possibly be. This was the era of drastic change in the social and economic fabric of the Jews. This is especially true for the Jews in the Rhineland as they were the ones in control of the commerce. This forced them to leave home for long periods. Jews were probably marrying another woman in the place where they traveled to which can have enormous consequences. Imagine the Traveller dies and not knowing the child borne to him in the far off place marries a forbidden relative. Therefore, a man should not marry a woman in this country and then go and marry another woman in a different country, lest a son from one marriage and a daughter from the other, unaware that they are both children of the same father, unite with one another, and it could emerge that a brother marries his sister, the children of whom would be mamzerim. (Yevomot 37b) I don’t believe jews practiced polygamy since talmudic times. ( with the exception of jews influenced by Arabic culture)There is no inference in all of the Talmud of an Amorah that had two wives . And the Gemara of מאן הויא ליומא that we find By Rav and Rav Nachman , was specific to the place of דרשיש and שכנציב both being in Persia , ( Rav visited many places) which since Rav was respected by the Persians and Rav Nachman was חתנא דבי נשיאה , the Authorities would send for dignitaries some company for the night .The Amoraim wanted to avoid this immoral practice without offending their hosts.(פנינים ומרגליות הרב ראובן מרגליות עמ׳ ק״ל-קל״ד) “ Do not be surprised at Rabbi Tzadok. For behold, Rabbi Akiva was greater than him! When he went to Rome, informers slandered him to a local prefect, who then presented before him two beautiful women. [The prefect] bathed and anointed them dressed them up like brides, and they fell upon [Rabbi Akiva] the whole night. This one said: Come to me! And that one said: Come to me! But he sat between them and spat, and would not turn to them. They went before the prefect and said to him: We would rather die than be given to that man! He sent for [Rabbi Akiva] and said to him: Why didn’t you do with those women as all people do with women? Weren’t they beautiful? And weren’t they human beings just like you? Didn’t the One who created you create them as well? [Rabbi Akiva] said: What could I do? Their scent was worse to me than carcasses and vermin! (אבות דרבי נתן פרק ט״ז) This was only becoming an issue like I said at this period when jews took on traveling for commerce ״ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3i4nl8F8bVA.html

Perhaps you have addressed this elsewhere or further on, but on the flip side of agunah, or even simply divorcing a woman against her will is the issue (in America, at least) of how a woman can essentially hold prolong the divorce process til she gets what she wants, which I have seen others go through, to the point where the guy is exhausted and just gives up, and gives in. However, I haven't heard Rabbi's address this issue.... it's almost always about the woman, or the agunah. Can you please share your thoughts on this? Thank you.

I very much enjoyed the lecture but I'm still wondering the reasoning behind the strick ban in that time period.

Really interesting and informative. I have a question, theoretically could one of tbe leaders of a hasidic dynasty (like the late Lubavitch Rebbe) have the authority to change jurisprudential laws for their followers? As in could polygamy have been kosher for those in Chabad had rabbi Schneerson ruled on it?

It's amazing to see respected rabbis of the past addressing the same concept that comes up over and over again today -- is halakha compatible with the values Jews hold dear! i think its important to understand that deep down the torah supports the idea of love and acceptance, even though as humans we might struggle to see it. the story of rabbenu gershom is a fascinating contrast to ירידת הדורות

Hello Prof. Abramson Thank you for the intresting and informative lecture. I have a question. According to Simon Dubnow the jews in the time of the 2. Temple have already stopped to marry many wifes. I am not sure if simon Dubnow writes it but on top of my head i think he writes it in his 10 books of jewish histoy. Actually we can see it in the Talmud when the Talmud writes about a story of a Tanna or Amora and his wife, i can't recall that they mentioned 2 wifes. Alsways "his wife". Is my argument correct and if yes, why had Rabeinu Gershom banned it with a new "law" if itbwas alread common to marry only 1 women.?? I hope you have time to answer. Thank you

Interestingly in South Africa the decisions of the civil High Court of the Republic of South Africa will be in line with the halaga in regard to Jewish matters, for example if a husband refuses to grant a get to his wife the High Court will not grant a civil divorce. Also the law also recognises the decision of the Bet Din in a civil suit between two Jewish parties who have agreed to a Bet Din hearing on the matter; thus the decision of the Bet Din becomes the legal decision with the same status and means of enforcement as if the judgment was issued by a civil court. Criminal matters remain the jurisdiction of the High and Supreme Court. Thank you for your very interesting talks. They are greater appreciated and much valued.

So you’re telling me that the concept of “biblical marriage” that many people get very excited about, especially politically, has in fact changed at least once since the giving of the Torah. That all of these commandments that are unchanging and for all time, but at least one point in Jewish history, the entire definition, and very infrastructure of a biblical marriage has fundamentally changed. One wonders if naybe some of those who are perhaps, ah, challenging the prevailing definition of a biblical marriage couls find a consensus with Halacha scholars…

If someone does not agree with the ban, would that make it unlawful to take on a second wife or does that just apply where the rabbi has authority?

Humanity's plot thickens

What about pilegesh?

Simon Schwarzfuchs claims: ""The ordinance forbidding the reading of a letter sent to someone else without his permission is much later and cannot be attributed to Gershom." (Roth, Medieval Jewish Civ: an Encyclopedia). You present it as Rabbenu Gershom's. What's your opinion on this?

108th view lol... from Houston Tx

I think the 1000 year ban ended.. One credit card is enough for me.. 😆

So man restricts Gods gift of choice to something he allows because of feminism and more women supporting the Christian community and joining the church💰💰. Great video😊

the concept of Soul Mates is in the Torah , 2 halves that make a whole . Most men do not have the vessel spiritually , emotionally, financially to have multiple wives. look what happened to King Solomon , his wives were his downfall leading him away from God . Too much drama

We don’t love chagal

U mean Polygyny not polygamy ! Cause polygamy is for both men and woman vs polygyny wich is only for a men .

Actually, God did not permit polygamy, and Abraham was not a polygamist while he was married to Sarah. By Babylonian or Hittite law at that time, if a women was barren, he could take a second wife, if she, the wife, Sarah, did give him the right to a slave who stood in lieu of her during the sex...If you actually read it in Hebrew, Hagar never gets her own Ketubah. Sarah hands her hers, her marriage sign, for just the duration of Abraham having sex with Hagar. This meant that the child from that act would come under Sarah's Ketubah...This is why Abraham tells Sarah that Hagar is her servant and she can do with Hagar as she feels is right. It is why God tells Hagar to go back to her mistress...Hagar is a surogate "stand-in for Sarah"....Sarah acts legally, and when God makes a child-Son-Daughter with her, Isaac is monogomous and a peaceful farmer, like the original Adam..Likewise, given that Isaac is also God's, Sarah does not separate Hagar for Ismael, nor sell them into slavery. Hagar and Ismael are sent away with provisions, together. Isaac is never a warring, polygamous, pastoralist...Jacob is never allowed to enter the promised land or remain in it with two wives. Rachel is taken before his family enters...Only one husband - one wife (and Adam unit) is burried in the Cave of the Patriarchs', really Sarah - the Noble/Princess (whom Abraham keeps selling, he never prays for, like he never prayed or asked God for Isaac, but he asks God for Sodom and Gommorah, Ishmael, Lot, and Hagar...But never Sarah and Isaac). In fact, Gen. 28:10, the messenger tells Jacob that his father is Abraham...but the actually covenant was to be with the peaceful, monogymist farmer, Isaac, God's child, a second Adam...Gen. 17, only Goyim (twisted-prideful people) will come from Abraham; he represents Av Hmn - Hamon, a Phoenician/Punic God who covers the Holocaust....To close, even Ismael was monogymist. The way to bring peace to the world, is to teach the truth...Hephzibah, is for the original Hurrian goddess, Hepah -Hepat (KH, or Ch in lieu of the just the H)...God did not OK, polygamy...Do the math, it creates and perpetuates conflict, it is not Holy, God never Oked it, only the Goyim did.

Polygamy will always lead to homosexuality.