Jump to content

Talk:Jewish views on marriage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylor0323.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


As civil marriage does not exist in Israel, the only institutionalized form of marriage in Israel is the religious one, i.e. a marriage conducted by a cleric. In specific, marriage of Israeli Jews must be conducted according to Orthodox Jewish halakha(my emphasis)

What about Israelis who are not jewish? This implies that marriages in Israel between non-jews do not have to be conducted according to Orthodox Jewish halakha, however this makes no sense if there is no civil marriage. What was the intended meaning?

16:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

Israeli marriages are conducted by the religious streams. Christians get married by the Christian authorities, Muslims by the Muslim authorities, Druze by the Druze authorities. Etc. What's the problem? Incidently, this actually is simply a continuation of Ottoman law, from the time of the ottoman Empire Amechad 17:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Some hold, therefore, that much intermarriage today, is thus not a deliberate rejection of Judaism, but a choice to marry a person that one has happened to meet."

This is exactly how I see it. If you think Jewish identity is being threatened, don't blame intermarriage, blame the apathy towards religious education and towards inculcating piety that results in Jews and gentiles having enough in common to get married.

I was taught the syllables of the prayers and a few factoids about the major holidays, three hours a week, with no theological or doctrinal exploration, no indication of why this blooming, buzzing confusion was important. I think I and a practicing Jew (more than three days a year, that is) would be incompatible. --Calieber 18:12, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So you suggest to not tell Jews what they do wrong, because, since they weren't taught properly to begin with, why start now? I don't care how a Jew is raised, when he picks up a BLT I will quickly remind him that pork is not Kosher. - SF2K1

What if it was a girl? You'd be too scared to say anything I bet. Zargulon 12:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not familiar with all the details of Steve Greenberg's proposal, I know him well enough to know that the way it was presented here is dubious at best. I will call him some time this week to ask him what he really said, noting that as much as I admire him as a teacher and a friend, his views on marriage (particularly gay marriage, for which he is most famous) are highly controversial in traditional circles. In the meanwhile, I have attempted to fix the article here so that it is more in keeping with my reading of Steve there. Danny 22:45, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Greenberg has publicly published his views. The article gave a weblink to his own essay, reproduced below. As far as I know, everything he says nowadays is automatically rejected by most of Orthodox Judaism. They don't like the fact that a gay Orthodox rabbi has outed himself; until recently Orthodoxy had tried to maintain the fiction that no gay Orthodox rabbis existed. (Many even tried to argue that no gay Orthodox Jews existed.) In many mainstream Orthodox circles (Agudat Yisrael, Young Israel) he is trief. In much of the Modern Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America he also is considered damaged goods. Privately, however, he still has some currency among liberal Orthodox Jews, both rabbis and laypeople. RK 01:26, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
I removed my comment; apparently I mixed Steve Greenberg up with Irving Greenberg. I wish to publically apologize to Irving Greenberg; something I had never imagined I would do.Mzk1 (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that his proposal will ever be accepted by Orthodox Judaism. Publicly his proposal is being discussed and debated by many Conservative rabbis, but they show no signs of adopting this view. Instead, they are unofficially sending such couples to Reform rabbis, many of whom will perform a Ger Toshav marriage. The Conservative movement has had an outreach movement for such couples for years, and has recently stepped up efforts in this area. However, their official position, which they actually follow in practice, is that they will not perform any marriage ceremony between a Jew and a non-Jew. However if such a couple happens to come to a Conservative synagogue, and shows interest in a single-faith Jewish household, then they will be welcomed with open arms. (How open, of course, depends on the people in the particular synagogue. Some are more progressive, some shoot themselves in the foot.) RK 01:26, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
Among Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis, they no longer view halakha (Jewish law) as binding, and thus see no formal impediment to performing an intermarriage of any sort. Individual Reform and Rec. rabbis have total autonomy as whether or not to officiate at such ceremonies, and each sets their own preconditions. I have spoken to a few who agree with Rabbi Greenberg's Ger Toshav proposal, and they are already accrying it out, sometimes on behalf of O and C rabbis who sent couples to them. RK 01:29, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
Rabbi Steve Greenberg's Ger Toshav intermarriage proposal.

There is a problem in your article using a mistranslation of Deuteronomy 24:1 כי־יקח אישׁ אשׁה ובעלה = related taking boundary an Is and Ishah and the Baal hers, the Baal is the Bridegroom of Mount Zion that both the Ish, man, and Ishah, woman are wed to at Bar and Bat Mitzvah, and they do not marry each other, they take each other under Mahar Contract to bear children for the Messiah, the Baal which means Boss and owner of the houce of Abraham. The word nudity, means she has been stripped of her covering, the Messiah, by the man wedding her instead of the Messiah, so she is divorced from him, and he dies for violating the covenant

"related taking Ish a Ishah and the Baal hers, and birth if water not she comes favoured within eye my snake mine his, related from comes within her nudity, the word, and engrave unto her writing a divorce and give within the hand hers and send her from the house his." כי־יקח אישׁ אשׁה ובעלה והיה אם־לא תמצא־חן בעיניו כי־מצא בה ערות דבר וכתב לה ספר כריתת ונתן בידה ושׁלחה מביתו׃ Deuteronomy 24:1 and goes her from the house his and walks her unto Ish next ויצאה מביתו והלכה והיתה לאישׁ־אחר׃

Deuteronomy 24:2

and if hates that Ish the last and writes unto her writing a divorce and gives within the hand hers, and sends her from the house his or dies the Ish the last his snake, happy, gay, wed, unto take her unto him, unto Ishah, בידה ושׁלחה מביתו או כי ימות האישׁ האחרון אשׁר־לקחה לו לאשׁה׃

Deuteronomy 24:3

not able the Baal hers the Rosh, Head, his snake happy, gay, wed, to send her unto turn taking she her unto birth his she unto him, unto Ishah the last mine happy, gay, wed, that defiled her, related the Idols hers, himself unto the face mine Yahweh, and not she repents, associate the Earth, happy, gay, wed, Yahweh the Elohey yours gives unto you the inheritance. לא־יוכל בעלה הראשׁון אשׁר־שׁלחה לשׁוב לקחתה להיות לו לאשׁה אחרי אשׁר הטמאה כי־תועבה הוא לפני יהוה ולא תחטיא את־הארץ אשׁר יהוה אלהיך נתן לך נחלה׃

Deuteronomy 24:4

אשׁר = Ox Head Tooth Rosh, Head = Happy, Gay, Wed,

and alike me mine (and related ) the opening Ish a virgin Happy, Gay, Wed, (already wed to the Messiah, you cannot give her a second bridegroom) not to Happy, Gay, Wed, her, and tooth alike housed (laying) eying water hers, (with her) Mahar (contract) mine water the courtyard Rosh, Head, snake hers, (contracting hers, unto him) unto the Ox Head Tooth her (unto Ishah) וכי־יפתה אישׁ בתולה אשׁר לא־ארשׂה ושׁכב עמה מהר ימהרנה לו לאשׁה׃

Exodus 22:16 (22:15)

וכי = and related ־יפתה = opening אישׁ = a Ish בתולה = a virgin אשׁר = happy, gay, wed, (already wed to the Messiah, you cannot give her a second bridegroom) לא־ארשׂה = not to happy, gay, wed, her ושׁכב = and laying עמה = with her מהר = Mahar, contract ימהרנה = contracting לו = unto him לאשׁה׃ = unto her

At Bar Mitzvah, called אישׁ Ish, a male thirteen or older, is a Wed member of the Ish, alike happy, gay wed Joseph I am Asaph Elohim , Called אשׁה Ishah, from אישׁ Ish, the Man, and the possessive pronoun, ה hers, at Bat Mitzvah at age twelve, a virgin is happy, gay, in the Wedding unto the Ish alike happy, gay, Asaph Elohim Joseph, and is taught that they are the Concubine of the King of Kings, the bone of the son of Adam, called Elohim the son of Yahweh name Israel, and that all the Men truly wed by Spirit Yahweh to the son of Adam, his son Israel named Joseph, are his flesh, and his Eunuchs, and are acceptable mates, sowing his sanctified seed, and no other men, are acceptable mates. I am Baal Joseph, heir by birthright of the house of Israel 2001:558:6014:31:6162:1C0E:74DC:4405 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baal Joseph. I am having difficulty understanding your post in Talk. From the first lines on. Can you please edit it in a way so that they English and all are clear, fixing punctuation and grammar? Also, if this is its own topic, please add a new section rather than putting it under "Question". And you may want to log in too. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lieberman Clause[edit]

What's the basis of the argument that the Lieberman clause in a ketubah is contrary to halakhah?

I haven't read it, but I believe the problem is that a forced get is not valid. So if the clause forces the man to give a get, even if he does, the get is invalid since it was under duress. 16:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not true actualy, if a man violates any of numerous laws (or the wife) he may be compelled, and in some cases the court may be required to compell him. the idea that no sort of forced get can be valid is haredi propoganda and simply is not true. If halacha were actualy followed (and our courts had teeth) there would not even be such a thing as an aguna, unless the wife abandoned her husband. Try reading the shulchan aruch about it. Regularly it states "kofin oso" infact, there is an entire siman on when we force him and when we dont. if he, for instance, changes his job to a malodious profesion, and his wife objects, we force him to divorce her. If he does not follow one of the obligations in the kesuba, and is accustomed to such, we force him, if he hits his wife, many authorities hold that we force him to divorce her. (there is debate as to whether or not her starting with him matters.) Also if he verbaly abuses her, we force him, even if his wife still wants him. (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is anti-Chareidi propaganda. Of course Chareidim, like anyone else, believe that a court may, under certain circumstances, force a divorce. The problem (and this is a general statement, I do not know what the lieberman clause is) is that it MUST be a Beis Din doing the compelling, or a secular authority enforcing the Beis Din. Rabbis do this in Israel, although there is the issue that if the cause is not proper, then you have a forced - and invalid - get again, and many Rabbis are afraid. Rabbi Dochovsky, who was up for Chief Rabbi and a secular court position (he refused the latter), and is considered Chareidi, went through all of this in a recent interview in B'sheva, saying that Rabbis have to take responsibility. (He also mentioned the interesting opinion of Rav Kapach.) However, it would not be held constitutional in the U.S. to do this sort of thing. BTW, before I married I was asked to sign a pre-nuptual from the RCA. I thought it was inequitable, but I signed anyway.Mzk1 (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a debate. A few years after it came out Norman Lamm wrote an article in Tradition arguing it was not valid in halakha. Since the 1960s, btw, many Conservative rabbis have required a seperate pre-nuptual civil agreement (basically the same text as the Lieberman clause but in a seperate civil document) be signed. Amechad 17:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move : "religion-X's view of marriage" to "religion-X's teaching on marriage"[edit]

Involves Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian



The title change would make clear that these pages refer to official doctrines, not general view of ordinary members of the community. Also Judaism and Hinduism mention wedding customs which are not "views". Zargulon 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish teachings on marriage
Jewish marriage customs
Buddhist teachings on marriage (NB plural)
Confucian teachings on marriage (ditto)
Hindu teachings on marriage
Hindu marriage customs
...not least to keep canon from custom. "See also" can be used to inter-relate. Regards, David Kernow 16:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inextricably invovlves WP in the highly PoV task of declaring which Jewish teachers are official. (And what would be the meaning of the phrase "Official Hindu teachers", anyway? What "official" stucrure are we talking about here? At least in Judaism and Christianity, there are answers to such a question, even if there are several incompatible ones.) Septentrionalis 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me that rabbis are official Jewish teachers by definition; of course they can still be good or bad, and individuals can choose not to pay attention to them, but they are all supposed to teach the same things (at least within their sect). I think Hinduism does have fixed or canonical teachings. "Official" was probably a poor choice of word on my part. Zargulon 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

legally binding[edit]

These marriages are legally binding in Israel, though not recognized by the rabbinate as Jewish. What is the benefit of marriage from israel authorities? Tax, social money, ..??--Stone 13:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of CfD nomination[edit]

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ger Toshav proposal[edit]

It would be interesting to hear other opinions concerning this section. Does one controversial man's controversial proposal deserve a large separate section? Does it merit mention at all? Also disturbing is that the section does not even identify Steven Rosenberg as a controversial figure. I will edit the article to include the "proposal" in its correct context. 07:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Mekudeshet"[edit]

The article says that the word "Mekudeshet" means "Holy", but I remember hearing somewhere that the word "kadosh" from which the word mekudeshet derives means, in a way, "seperate" which in this context could mean exclusivity (This would also make sense grammatically). I'm not sure what the talmudic view on this is, anyone know or have any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mekudeshet literally means betrothed. It is etymologically related to the meaning of holy or consecrated or set aside for a purpose. I have removed the statement that "Mekudeshet" means "Holy". Jon513 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a source, look at Kiddushin 2b and Tosafot ad loc. The only place that it implies that Kiddushin means "holy" is in the Bothrothal blessing.Mzk1 (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


After the conclusion of the respective Afd's had left Marriageable age in Judaism and Child marriage in Judaism unattended for several days, I have merged both into here. Please feel free to improve. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, Debresser, thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the praise. Always pleasant to receive, and to give. I also merged Arayot into Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Newman Luke has completely rewritten the Divorce section. As usual he has done so without any warning or consensus, but this time he made a nice job of it. He has omitted the parts about modern Jewish movements. Could somebody please have a look what should be done about this? Or perhaps it is ok the way it is now? Debresser (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC) The following comment was added in the minute it took me to change my first post here.[reply]

Agunah is actually still mentioned - its in one of the earlier paragraphs. The detail (and about modern Jewish movements) is in the new main article - Divorce in Judaism. Newman Luke (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The statement that matchmaking is Haredi is a mistake. Plenty of Modern Orthodox / Dati Leumi use the same method as Lithuanian / Yeshivish Chareidim. (For that matter, matchmaking is not limited to religious people.)

An article in the english Mishpacha (I think it was) a while back describes the Chassidic arranged marriage method. The interesting thing was that the author, who had (happily) gone through it, was explaining the custom to a chareidi magazine in a way similar to which she would have had explained in to a non-charedi magazine; that to the readers of Mishpacha it would be a strange, exotic custom.Mzk1 (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Child Marriage[edit]

It looks like a little bit of OR / POV on the first sentence. Tosafot's point was that the exile meant it was hard to assemple a dowry. The fact that the postion of an unmarried woman was very difficult (still is) is part of the background, not the main point.Mzk1 (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I modified that section. (I was not the one who removed the large section.)Mzk1 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To deBresser: Although I think if you look up the original you will see that it is not OR, I will not fight you on this one.Mzk1 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erusin article[edit]

After a lot of work, I improved most of the erusin article. I kept as much of NL's stuff as I could (so it is a bit cumbersome) and tried to keep to his idea to avoid being mono-cultural. I used the JE quite a bit, even though I think it is sloppy; NL seems to have missed the Betrothal article, which I did not so much as cite as to use to back up the works I did cite. Based on what he said, I assumed his early sources were not directly consulted, so I only looked at encyclopedias (for the most part) to see if what he said had a source.

I removed or modified the stuff that the original editor misunderstood or took beyond what was stated. For example, there is no proof there that a local custom to break the wine vessel is the source of the general custom to break a vessel. There is an interesting place at the bottom of the Marriage ceremonies article in JE where he seems to have missed the semi-colon. I changed anthropological-sounding language to something closer to normal English; I also modified past to present where it seemed warranted.

I added two main sources: Rabbis Maurice Lamm and Aryeh Kaplan. The former is a very popular handbook in print for a long time; the latter is a very scholarly work (10 cites where the JE has one), much better than the JE, except that it is not peer-reviewed. It also has some Sephardi information. (Note that Rabbi Kaplan himself is of Sephardi origin.)

I added a link to erusin at the bottom; I hope this is fine. We need some more stuff; perhaps someone would like to help (or use material from there here).

If anyone would like to help, we need more stuff:

  • Material from good non-Orthodox sources, without prejorative comments or guesses as to who has the most marbles.
  • Sources for Orthodox double-ring ceremonies, that make clear the halachic aspect.
  • Sources for Israeli Secular Orthodox weddings, perhaps the most common kind. (What I have is OR.)
  • A good non-Ashkenazi source.

Move breaking the glass to here; it is not specific to erusin.

Style improvement; I am not the best writer. The amount of detail is because I followed NL's lead; I would like discussion before something is removed just for that reason.

Change the part before the wedding to a general "before the wedding" section; move the Tenaim to there, and link to the related articles.

Sources for the last section.

May I link to there from the body of the article?

I would appreciate comments. I am willing to defend every change that I made.Mzk1 (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conjugal Relations[edit]

It seems to say that the only the wife has conjugal rights. I beieve this is untrue; both Nedarim and Ketubot appear to say otherwise. The difference is that the wife's are in the Torah. Of course Conjugal rights are monetary; they do not allow physical force.Mzk1 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes by Gilabrand[edit]

I see several recent changes by Gilabrand. Perhaps he and other people could weigh in on these, particularly since some of them appear to contradict their sources. (For example, the statement about the mishna, and the quote from the Tosafot.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzk1 (talkcontribs) 16:07, 6 August 2010

At a glance, he removed a lot of material that seemed correct, and a lot of what was added is vague or dubious. I've made a few corrections. Overall, I'd be okay with reverting most of the changes pending better justification and discussion. What exact contradictions do you see in the sources? —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same thing that happened at Erusin. NewmanLuke was banned, and attempts were made to remove a lot of his stuff. Unfortunately, together with that, a lot of my stuff was removed. Also, I had already corrected his references and made the material more NPOV; so I stood more-or-less behind the result. No-one has banned me (yet).
Mishna: there are three ways of doing kedushin, including consummation
Tosafot (which I had already fixed): child marriage in Judaism is, by definition, under puberty, which is generally at 12. Thus we are talking about birth to 11.
Perhaps the biggest issue is the removal of references.
What I believe we have is, I believe, a well-meaning person who perhaps does not have the background to judge the material. Much like NewmanLuke himself, but without the my-way-or-the-highway. My apologies if I mischaracterized.Mzk1 (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other generic issue, and why I have not yet put back my material at Erusin. It appears that some believe that articles should not have too much detail. I think an encyclopedia should be, well, encyclopediac. But I do not like to fight. Can someone tell me based on which policy of guideline this is done? Thank you.Mzk1 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy I'm aware of other than WP:N. I'm pretty sure everything here qualifies. At most, it could be split to another article. I don't have the energy to spend on fixing this up, but I'd support a revert in this case, given the quantity of material removed without explanation, and the lack of adequate sources for the added material. —Aryeh Gregor (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there were intervening edits, so I can't just revert. The best would be to restore erusin, refer to it, and then put the other stuff here.Mzk1 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

responsibility for children[edit]

Isn't there a responsibility for men to sire children, two at least? If so, make sure to include the citation to Mishnah or Talmud. (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rambam or Shulchan Aruch would be better.Mzk1 (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is, and it is the subject of the first (and following) chapters of Even Ha'ezer. Debresser (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of gay couples?[edit]

Why is there no mention of gay couples or same-sex marriage, when same-sex marriages are recognized by two of the four main denominations of Judaism, including the largest in the United States? Why is the definition of marriage in this article so heternormative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to update the article with any relevant references you can find. Leegee23 (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This article does a good job of discussing the historical, biblical, and talmudic views of marriage, but I added the globalize tag to the top of this page for two reasons:

  1. It does not highlight regional views of marriage (Ashkenazi views, Sephardic views, etc.)
  2. It does not highlight denominational views of marriage (Orthodox views, Reform views, etc.) --GHcool (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tag should be removed. The text is "a worldwide view". That is not what you say here. In addition, I don't think there is much of a Ashkenazic or Sephardic view of marriage. And Orthodox and Reform views 1. are only recent 2. doubt in how far they are existent. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know very much about regional differences in views toward marriage, but I suspect that denominational differences exist and are worthy of inclusion here. A quick search on Amazon for "Jewish marriage" reveals that whole books have been published by Orthodox presses on the subject of marriage. There are fewer (but still worthy) books on modern Jewish marriage that seem to be intended for readers of any Jewish denomination. Just a few days ago, The New York Times published an editorial that deals (peripherally) with the Orthodox view of marriage. --GHcool (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if such different points of view exist, the Globalize template is not the right template, imho. In addition, I'd say that we should first be certain that other viewpoints exist before we start demanding them with a template. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to change the template to whichever the community thinks is most appropriate, but there is little doubt in my mind that there are subtle differences between Orthodox Judaism's view of marriage and non-Orthodox Judaism's. Some of these differences are discussed in the Women in Judaism article. --GHcool (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Biblical" References[edit]

Why are all the citations of Torah directed to a Christian translation of "the Bible"? This is most inappropriate, and scholastically inaccurate. But it seems to be a WP-wide macro, am I correct? How can I have this changed to point to something like the JPS translation? http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/sacred/bib/jps/gen001.htm#028 Leegee23 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on the documentation of Template:Bibleverse, you can add the source code "HE" to refer to the JPS translation of Machon Mamre. Debresser (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox same-sex marriage[edit]

Two points: 1) Are we discussing same-sex civil marriage or religious ceremonies? The discussion about Reform in this article draws upon this distinction. If civil marriages are at stake, then we probably can find RS that mention various attitudes held by Orthodox leaders and organizations. 2) The marriage of two gay men performed by Rabbi Steve Greenberg is mentioned. I have two questions about this:

a) Even if Rabbi Greenberg is still considered an "Orthodox rabbi" (whatever that means), is this significant enough to be included. clearly, he is so far outside the Orthodox mainstream that I'm not sure if this specific ceremony should be mentioned.
b) I'm not sure about the RS involved, but in the comment section of this blog http://morethodoxy.org/2011/11/18/an-orthodox-gay-wedding/, Rabbi Greenberg himself admits that the wedding ceremony only counted as a civil marriage, and that it was not meant to be a halachic marriage. This would also seem to mitigate against including this as a counter example to the predominant Orthodox position.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about that? Zargulon (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mention of that specific occasion confuses the point. I think it better to remove the second sentence. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the bible[edit]

I deleted the entire line about Women at festivities after looking up the citations and discovering they are completely inaccurate. The line was added by Maasharta11 in July of 2011 and cited from Encyclopaedia_Biblica. Marriage 4.Home[1]. Although the Encyclopaedia_Biblica was cited in good faith and the article does cite the verses referenced, the fact is the citations are false and have nothing to do with the issue (festive events) regarding which they are cited. I realize WP's goal is not to provide truth or fact, but propagating misinformation is probably also not a good idea. --pikipiki (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

education about Jewish Marriage[edit]

Can we add a section about classes and what Jewish marriage means in modern society? Examples form Rohr Jewish Learning Institute

  • Toneguzzi, Mario (March 4, 2012). "Ancient Marriage Secrets Revealed". Calgary, Canada: Postmedia Network Inc. Calgary Herald. The Rohr Jewish Learning Institute is presenting what it calls a "provocative" new series of classes on the secrets of successful marriage.James (Patch Staff), Davy (May 1, 2012). "Chabad of South Brunswick Explores Ancient Marriage Secrets". South Brunswick, New Jersey. Patch. Regardless of marital status, all are invited to attend the six-session course, presented by the Rohr Jewish Learning Institute (JLI) and taught by Rabbi Levi Azimov."Vail Valley class focuses on marriage". Article in EDWARDS, Colorado, Publisher in Vail, Colorado: Swift Newspapers. Vail Daily. ... presented by the Rohr Jewish Learning Institute and taught by Rabbi Dovid Mintz. "The Art of Marriage" will go far beyond platitudes, to cover topics at the heart of modern marriage. Does marriage still serve any purpose at all? How far should one go to make a marriage work? When is divorce the best option?"Vail Valley class focuses on marriage". Article in EDWARDS, Colorado, Publisher in Vail, Colorado: Swift Newspapers. Vail Daily. ... presented by the Rohr Jewish Learning Institute and taught by Rabbi Dovid Mintz. "The Art of Marriage" will go far beyond platitudes, to cover topics at the heart of modern marriage. Does marriage still serve any purpose at all? How far should one go to make a marriage work? When is divorce the best option?Brackman, Benjy (2012). "Ancient Marriage Secrets Revealed". Boulder, Colorado. Boulder Jewish News. The course is a product of the Jewish Learning Institute (JLI) an adult learning experience that offers its courses in hundreds of locations across the US....Judaism views a loving marriage as a spiritual as well as a human ideal. The Art of Marriage shows students how to attain that for themselves and for their spouses, with timeless lessons from both modern and ancient Jewish texts such as the Talmud and Zohar.

19:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Adamreinman, you are advertising the Rohr Jewish Learning Institute on Wikipedia. Please see WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO in this regard, or even WP:COI. At some point, this will start annoying people, like it already annoys me. Please be aware that at that time you risk that all your edits will be reverted, and you yourself will be topic banned or blocked. Please stop with advertising that institute here. There are so many other valuable contributions that still can be made to Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing in this article[edit]

Large parts of this article have no sources at all, and other large parts are only given primary sources such as Talmudic references. We even have Talmudic references for statements related to customs centuries following the Talmud. This is highly unsatisfactory and it is surely possible to do much better given the huge literature on the subject. Zerotalk 01:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punishment for male adultery[edit]

Why on earth does the article say that "As for men who committed adultery (with another man's wife), Abba ben Joseph and Abba Arika are both quoted in the Talmud as expressing abhorrence, and arguing that such men would be condemned to Gehenna." The punishment for a man who commits adultery with another man's wife is exactly the same as for the woman - death. If this sentence is trying to say that the same conditions apply to executing a man for adultery as to a woman (consent, warning, and witnesses), and that the death penalty for adultery was abolished for men as well, it should say so, and then include this sentence. Otherwise, it is wildly inaccurate.Polymath49 (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is indeed what the Gemarra says. To answer your question, apparently it means that even in case the man is not apprehended, he will still be sentenced to Gehenna. I'll leave it to you to clarify that in the article. :) Debresser (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish views on marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jewish views on marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

POV tag was added for the lede which does not seem to summarize the article content. It uses language like "de-emphasize procreation" to describe the views of non-"Traditional" denominations. What is traditional Judaism? It places undue emphasis on this and concludes: "This view is considered as a diversion from the Jewish Law by the Orthodox denominations, rather than as a legitimate, alternative interpretation." This doesn't seem to be weighing how the subject is discussed by reliable sources.

Seraphim System (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need for new Lead[edit]

There is an expression "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." (I'm not a former Marine, to whom that expression may belong) To accommodate what is currently in the article, and acknowledge the "Inadequate lead" HatNote, it seems that the current lead text can be defined as Pre-split and post-split (with reference to Orthodox Judaism). These two parts can form a nice overview, with a lead that introduces them. Pi314m (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce section[edit]

To edit this section, I will be using the source Hoffman, Lawrence A. “The Jewish Wedding Ceremony.” Life Cycles in Jewish and Christian Worship, University of Notre Dame Press, 1996, pp. 129–153. Lawrence A. Hoffman has a doctorate and has served as a professor at the University of Notre Dame. I will add information about how the ketubah, or marriage document could be used in divorce as Orthodox Jews have started to build divorce standards into the document. I will also include the standards for creating the Jewish divorce document or the get, as it is a very detailed process to ensure that no mistakes occur. There is not much information in this section and I simply wish to add more. All together I will add around 100-200 words. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Taylor0323 (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have my reservations about how pertinent this information will be in this article. This might be most relevant in Ketuba. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Debresser that it shouldn't be too ketuba focused. Can you make sure you're writing only about divorce, and mention ketuba only in that context. I do think the standards for the Jewish divorce document are important to put in this article, especially the get, because that's central to a section on Jewish divorce. Beware of too much detail, though, because there's a separate Wiki article that is just on the get (which you're welcome to edit too...). Brevity is key here. Thanks for making this article better! Chapmansh (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input! I will refrain from adding more details about the get as its function is already covered. In the second paragraph under agunah (under divorce) I will include the following information: One of such efforts by some Conservative Jews is that some are beginning to build provisions into the ketubah where if predetermined circumstances occur, the divorce goes into effect immediately. This is in reference to how Conservative Jews (not Orthodox, as I accidentally wrote before) are trying to combat husbands refusing a divorce to their wives. This edit will be less extensive as I previously thought. I will only be adding around 50 words. Let me know if you have any concerns about my additions.Taylor0323 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing discussion of Haymanot and Karaite Judaism[edit]

This article is missing a discussion of marriage in Haymanot and Karaite Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]