- This topic has 63 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“When a wife strays, it is far worse than when a husband does, since the relationship the wife has is supposed to be an exclusive relationship.”
the inference being that the relationship the husband has is not supposed to be exclusive?
That was precisely what I meant. I thought my intent was clear, but I would have spelled it out expressly otherwise.
A husband’s relationship with his wife was never intended to be exclusive. See, ?????, ????, ????, etc.
I presume Rabeinu Gershom decided that men were no longer able to maintain the multiple relationships properly.
But since Rabenu Gershom’s time, isn’t it supposed to be exclusive?
What is the halacha if a husband strays with a married woman?
But since Rabenu Gershom’s time, isn’t it supposed to be exclusive?
I don’t know. He never made an extra ban on a man just seeing another woman on the side, did he? It is about marriage.
In any event, it certainly is not just as bad as a woman.
What is the halacha if a husband strays with a married woman?
He is executed.
So a woman today should not necessarily expect a husband’s fidelity and this behavior would be kasher v’yashar; am I understanding this properly?
So a woman today should not necessarily expect a husband’s fidelity and this behavior would be kasher v’yashar; am I understanding this properly?
My guess is that such behavior is not proper.
But my question to you is: Why are you so sure it is not proper? I hope it isn’t because you think there needs to be parity between the sexes.
You guess?????? Can you find me ONE rav who will say that it’s okay for a married man to have an unmarried mistress on the side?
No. But I bet david99 can.
(Hee Hee. Couldn’t resist.)
“When a wife strays, it is far worse than when a husband does, since the relationship the wife has is supposed to be an exclusive relationship.”
“My guess is that such behavior is not proper.”
The implication of the first statement is that the husband is not supposed to be in an exclusive relationship (in today’s day & age). A woman needs more stability and ne’emanus. There’s no “too yeshivish” in this area!
Goyish famous marriages never last. Just look at Hollywood where everyone gets divorced about three weeks after getting married.
Is there any rhyme or reason to this thread? What shaiches does the British royal family have to do with us? They’re all descendents of George I, who was a lout from some small principality in Germany. Check their history – most of them were womanizers, idiots or both (except for Queen Victoria, who had other problems). The mystery for me is how a sensible-sounding person like Kate could be induced to marry into such a family. Look at what she’s getting for a father-in-law, for one thing.
Or maybe William pleaded with her to overlook his background and take him on his own merits. Hopefully he’ll be the “black sheep” of the family and actually live a responsible life.
George I may have been an ignorant lout, but his genes only comprise a small portion of the current royal’s makeup. There have been many kind, decent, intelligent, hardworking and even philosemitic descendants.
Happily married monarchs seem to include, their majesties George III (Fat George), Victoria, George V, George VI and Elizabeth II. Hardworking conscientious monarchs include George III, Victoria,George V, George VI and Elizabeth II. Edward VII maintained friendships with Jews, despite the public and press pressure not to.
Who among us does not have a lout or two in our family tree?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.