"chained wife"?

[steve]

i was reading about ketubahs and ran across the term "chained wife". so i looked it up and it was very interesting. notice especially the part that i high-lighted.

Agunah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Aguna" redirects here. For the genus of skipper butterfly, see Aguna (butterfly).

Agunah (Hebrew: עגונה‎, plural: agunot (עגונות); literally 'anchored or chained') is a halachic term for a Jewish woman who is "chained" to her marriage. It is also often used nowadays for a woman whose husband refuses or is unable to grant her an official bill of divorce, known as a get.

For a divorce to be effective, Jewish law requires that a man grant his wife a get of his own free will. Without a get or a heter aguna (permission by a halachic authority based on a decision that her husband is presumed dead) no new marriage will be recognized, and any children she might have with another man would be considered illegitimate.

Because of the difficulty of the situation for women in such situations, it has been a task for every generation of halachic authorities to try to find halachically acceptable means to permit such women to remarry. In the past it was somewhat commonplace, due to the danger of travel, for people leaving home never to be heard of again; as such, rabbis have had to deal with this issue on a constant basis. Over the past few centuries, thousands of responsa have been written to deal with cases of agunot.

In the past, most aguna cases were due to a husband dying without leaving clear evidence of his demise, or becoming mentally ill (insane). Nowadays many aguna cases arise as a result of a husband withholding a get in order to extort money or extract a more favorable divorce settlement or to get even with his wife. In response, aguna groups have organized to support these women and try to find a solution to this problem. Various remedies have been proposed, but as yet, no one solution has common acceptance. Nevertheless, the Prenuptial Agreement for the Prevention of Get-Refusal is one remedy which is in use in Jewish communities worldwide and is accepted by halachic authorities.

While it is widely assumed that the problem lies primarily in men refusing to grant their wives a get, and that it is a widespread issue; in Israel, figures released from the chief rabbinate suggest that men are refused divorce in equal numbers, and that the numbers are actually a couple of hundred on each side.[1] Nevertheless,


"A woman suffers more in this situation, as she is Biblically forbidden to marry again, and children she might bear to another man would be considered mamzerim (bastards) according to Halakhah [Jewish Law]. A man is similarly not permitted to marry before being divorced, but the ban is much less severe, and in any event his future children will not be considered illegitimate."
..........................
................................................................
In modern and ancient times, warfare has been a major cause of women being declared agunot (plural of agunah), as (especially in ancient times) soldiers are often killed with no one knowing. Many efforts have been made to resolve this problem in accordance with halachic principles. During World War II, some American Jewish and other chaplains provided combat soldiers with a "provisional get", which only goes into effect if the husband is missing in action, leaving his wife an agunah. This is based on a talmudic explanation of the incident of King David and Bathsheba (see II Samuel 11). According to one interpretation, David did not sin by lying with a married woman, since all of his soldiers gave a "provisional get" to their wives before leaving for battle. "Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: 'Everyone who went to war on behalf of David, left a provisional get for his wife'" (Talmud Bavli, Tractate Shabbat 56a). In the modern state of Israel, the Chief Rabbinate has rejected this proposal, not in the least because of the impact it would have on the morale of the troops.

 

[Scarecrow]

Wow...provisional means provisional...IF needed to prove that she was no longer in a covenant upon the death of her husband. This in no way makes the marriage covenant void while a soldier is away from home...that is simply ridiculous...and it also calls God a lair because through Nathan the prophet God addressed David's adultery.

2Sa 12 And the LORD sent Nathan to David...Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.'...David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die...

 

[steve]

i am not excusing david's sin, just pointing out that the matter might just be a little more complicated than we have been taught.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

steve wrote:

i am not excusing david's sin, just pointing out that the matter might just be a little more complicated than we have been taught.

What's complicated about it? The Bible plainly says that David committed both murder and adultery:

2 Samuel 12:9 NKJV Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite {there's the murder} with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife {and there's the adultery}, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. (emphasis and {comments} mine)

Why do we need to make things more complicated than the Bible does? David knew that Uriah was still alive when he committed adultery with Bathsheba, as is evidenced by his panic and his actions resulting from that panic when he found out that she was pregnant.

 

[steve]

Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done [this] evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, [and] be clear when thou judgest.

this seems less than simple, i would have thought that he had sinned against uriah.

 

[Scarecrow]

His sins involved a number of entities including God...we are created in God's image and therefore when we sin against an individual we sin against God. The law David transgressed is the law of God and God alone, so he only broke the law of God that is all he is saying...he is acknowledging that he broke God's law...he transgressed the law of God, not the law of Uriah or the law of Bathsheba...I have to agree with PolyDoc...why try to make things more complicated than they are...this is a very simple and straight forward matter.

 

[steve]

i find that i am not communicating well here.
if no one else has the intellectual curiosity to find this interesting and explore it, then i will just drop it.

 

[Scarecrow]

There is nothing to explore...if you want to delve into heresies that is your prerogative...

 

[Anonymous]

i am not excusing david's sin, just pointing out that the matter might just be a little more complicated than we have been taught

Mankind often complicate things but this situation wasn't the least little bit complicated to God....and God's perspective is the only one that really matters.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Anonymous]

There is nothing to explore...if you want to delve into heresies that is your prerogative...

Yep...this pretty much sums it up. Thanks Scarecrow.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Anonymous]

Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done [this] evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, [and] be clear when thou judgest.

this seems less than simple, i would have thought that he had sinned against uriah.

I understand this line of thinking, for I once embraced it. One day a brother challenged me and I will pass it along to all of us. Show me one place where the Bible describes or illustrates sin as transgressing the law of a man. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and in doing so he transgressed (sinned) the law of God. David defrauded Uriah by taking that which was his, but Davids sin was violating God's law in doing so, not Uriah's. Hence the conclusion, "against thee, thee only have I sinned."

 

[Anonymous]

i find that i am not communicating well here.
if no one else has the intellectual curiosity to find this interesting and explore it, then i will just drop it.

I think there is an issue that may not be clear to all in this thread. Here's my thought, no authority of scripture in this idea, but please consider it for awhile.
Unless a DNA test reveals that we have the DNA of Jacob/Israel, we should not be concerned with keeping the Mosaic Law, feasts or sacrifices. The Law was given to Israel and Israel for the law, for a specific purpose. That purpose was to preserve a family line until the fullness of time when God would produce His own Son the Messiah. After that time Israel will be preserved until the 144,000 Israeli witness prepare the world for the return of the Messiah. The Law delivered through Moses was never about "how to be saved or have sins forgiven. It was about keeping one family pure until the Messiah is presented. All other people on this planet are in a different relationship with God, nationally, but all of us Jew & Gentile alike are subject to the condemnation of Adam's sin and have been made welcome to the sacrifice of the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Everyone that makes it to heaven will be there because of faith in the shed blood and broken body of Jesus Christ and nothing else. It doesn't matter what name you pronounce as long as it is referring to God's promised and risen Messiah. While I am stirring up trouble, there is no evidence, Biblical or scientific that suggests that people of Saxon heritage or any other European group are the lost tribes of Israel. DNA testing will put this myth to rest once and for all. Let us quit trying to be Jewish or Hebrew when we are clearly gentiles. Christianity has Jewish roots, yes, but the flowers and branches are clearly gentile.

 

[CecilW]

Regardless of the rhetoric about heresy, it is an interesting issue, as it has obviously been hotly discussed and dealt with among those of Jewish descent for many generations.

Reading this thread, I was reminded of Joseph's answer to Potiphar's wife. Did he not say that he could not commit this sin against God?

Nonetheless, as to David's sin and the lenient Rabbi's opinion, Jesus seems to have made it quite clear what God thought of the Rabbis' logical arguments intended to circumvent the law. God doesn't buy it.

Finally, a thought regarding JohnW's post: As I remember, a considerable mixed multitude went up out of Egypt with the Israelites and were assimilated into the tribes. I don't remember any logistics regarding a 13th tribe of Mixed Multitude. Further, Jesus' own bloodline had a number of interesting non-Israelite specimens grafted in.

So I have trouble with the idea that the Mosaic laws were given to preserve a blood line. It seems more likely that Israel was intended as God's shining beacon of light in the darkness of the pagan world, with the intent that others would be drawn to the worship of God -- a mission at which Israel failed, as do we all too often.

As to the specifics, it seems pretty easy to decipher which pointed forward to Christ, which were timeless, and which might be culturally specific (maybe). But I think we can let each other figure those out withoutpublically calling each other heretics, can't we?

 

[Anonymous]

CecilW wrote, So I have trouble with the idea that the Mosaic laws were given to preserve a blood line. It seems more likely that Israel was intended as God's shining beacon of light in the darkness of the pagan world, with the intent that others would be drawn to the worship of God -- a mission at which Israel failed, as do we all too often.

If this was God's intent, then Israel and God failed, miserably.
Since we know that God never fails (at least I am confident, don't KNOW), then being a shining beacon must not have been His purpose for Israel.

 

[CecilW]

If this was God's intent, then Israel and God failed, miserably.
Since we know that God never fails (at least I am confident, don't KNOW), then being a shining beacon must not have been His purpose for Israel.

He lost Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels. Seems to have lost a certain number of humans as well, since He "Is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance.", yet they don't.

It's good logic, JohnW, but I fear a flawed premise.

I maintain that Israel DID fail miserably. The reason Jesus had to talk about placing a candle on a hill instead of under a bushel basket was precisely because Israel had done the latter. They kept turning from God and running after the pagan gods and practices instead of drawing the pagans to the worship of God.

This, in turn, was reflected in their "learned" attempts to circumvent the plain intent of God's will and law through logical arguments such as the one Steve brought up in this thread.

Is there a real issue? Sure. May not be overwhelmingly relevant to my family today, but in a different setting it COULD be. Here in the USA, a missing spouse can be declared legally dead after 7 years. Is the traditional Jewish manner better? *shrug* Different, anyway.

 

[Scarecrow]

God accomplishes what He intends to accomplish, no ifs, ands, or buts. Men cannot usurp the will of God. When Satan and the angels fell God was not sitting in heaven wringing his hands thinking "Oh no! I didn't know that was going to happen. :? Now what? At least it is two to one...I think I can still win this." Everything happens according to God's plan, according to God's will, and to serve His purposes. God knew Satan would fall, God knew Adam would sin, God knew that Jesus would redeem us from our sin, God knows..........everything.

 

[steve]

beam me up scotty, i can find no evidence of intellectual curiosity down here.

in fact, it seems to be feared and/or loathed.

 

[Jim]

i find that i am not communicating well here.
if no one else has the intellectual curiosity to find this interesting and explore it, then i will just drop it.

I think there is an issue that may not be clear to all in this thread. Here's my thought, no authority of scripture in this idea, but please consider it for awhile.
Unless a DNA test reveals that we have the DNA of Jacob/Israel, we should not be concerned with keeping the Mosaic Law, feasts or sacrifices. The Law was given to Israel and Israel for the law, for a specific purpose. That purpose was to preserve a family line until the fullness of time when God would produce His own Son the Messiah. After that time Israel will be preserved until the 144,000 Israeli witness prepare the world for the return of the Messiah. The Law delivered through Moses was never about "how to be saved or have sins forgiven. It was about keeping one family pure until the Messiah is presented. All other people on this planet are in a different relationship with God, nationally, but all of us Jew & Gentile alike are subject to the condemnation of Adam's sin and have been made welcome to the sacrifice of the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Everyone that makes it to heaven will be there because of faith in the shed blood and broken body of Jesus Christ and nothing else. It doesn't matter what name you pronounce as long as it is referring to God's promised and risen Messiah. While I am stirring up trouble, there is no evidence, Biblical or scientific that suggests that people of Saxon heritage or any other European group are the lost tribes of Israel. DNA testing will put this myth to rest once and for all. Let us quit trying to be Jewish or Hebrew when we are clearly gentiles. Christianity has Jewish roots, yes, but the flowers and branches are clearly gentile.

I agree with John, we just don't know and its all just speculation. I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing Jewish traditions and theology, unless it causes someone to stumble. One must stand with confidence and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and His shed blood. I think some may have been led astray, maybe nobody here, but others who fall from the grace of God and become entangled with the yoke of bondage, justification by the law. Maybe i'm just too white :lol:

 

[steve]

Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done [this] evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, [and] be clear when thou judgest.

this seems less than simple, i would have thought that he had sinned against uriah.

I understand this line of thinking, for I once embraced it. One day a brother challenged me and I will pass it along to all of us. Show me one place where the Bible describes or illustrates sin as transgressing the law of a man. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and in doing so he transgressed (sinned) the law of God. David defrauded Uriah by taking that which was his, but Davids sin was violating God's law in doing so, not Uriah's. Hence the conclusion, "against thee, thee only have I sinned."

thank you for that answer, i have been considering that position for some time and was pleasantly surprised that anyone else held it.
i threw the question out in the way that i did with the assumption that it was the mainstream of thought.

it is nice that we agree on something.

 

[steve]

i find that i am not communicating well here.
if no one else has the intellectual curiosity to find this interesting and explore it, then i will just drop it.

I think there is an issue that may not be clear to all in this thread. Here's my thought, no authority of scripture in this idea, but please consider it for awhile.
Unless a DNA test reveals that we have the DNA of Jacob/Israel, we should not be concerned with keeping the Mosaic Law, feasts or sacrifices. The Law was given to Israel and Israel for the law, for a specific purpose. That purpose was to preserve a family line until the fullness of time when God would produce His own Son the Messiah. After that time Israel will be preserved until the 144,000 Israeli witness prepare the world for the return of the Messiah. The Law delivered through Moses was never about "how to be saved or have sins forgiven. It was about keeping one family pure until the Messiah is presented. All other people on this planet are in a different relationship with God, nationally, but all of us Jew & Gentile alike are subject to the condemnation of Adam's sin and have been made welcome to the sacrifice of the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Everyone that makes it to heaven will be there because of faith in the shed blood and broken body of Jesus Christ and nothing else. It doesn't matter what name you pronounce as long as it is referring to God's promised and risen Messiah. While I am stirring up trouble, there is no evidence, Biblical or scientific that suggests that people of Saxon heritage or any other European group are the lost tribes of Israel. DNA testing will put this myth to rest once and for all. Let us quit trying to be Jewish or Hebrew when we are clearly gentiles. Christianity has Jewish roots, yes, but the flowers and branches are clearly gentile.

yes, we must absolutely warn everyone that i believe that Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
you are too gracious about it though, john. people might not fully understand what you mean.

normally on this board name-calling has not been allowed, but this, posted in another thread, most have been agreed with;

typical Judaizer/Pharisee.

so i have decided that in order to protect the sheep, and save john the trouble of continually reminding them who i am, i will henceforth sign myself:

steve, the judaizing pharisee