Understanding the term “concubine” requires delving into historical and cultural contexts, as its meaning and implications vary significantly across different societies and time periods. While the word itself might sound archaic to modern ears, the concept of concubinage has played a notable role in religious and legal history, particularly within Jewish tradition.
To put it simply, a concubine, often referred to as a “pilegesh” in Hebrew, is broadly understood as a female partner in a relationship that resembles marriage but lacks some of its legal and social formalities, especially concerning inheritance and the rights of the woman and her offspring. The nuances of this definition, however, are where the complexities arise, particularly when examining its place within Jewish law (Halakha).
In Jewish tradition, the concept of “pilegesh” is not straightforward and has been the subject of much discussion and debate among religious scholars. Rabbi Rakeffet highlights the importance of language itself when discussing sensitive topics like this. Just using the term “concubine” can evoke different reactions and understandings compared to using the Hebrew term “pilegesh.” This difference in perception underscores the need to approach the topic with cultural and historical sensitivity.
Historically, within Jewish law, the status of a “pilegesh” was debated, particularly concerning the formalities required for entering and dissolving such a union. A key question was whether “kiddushin” (a formal betrothal ceremony) and a “Get” (a formal divorce document) were necessary, similar to a full marriage. Rabbi Yaakov Emden, a prominent 18th-century rabbi, proposed the idea of concubinage as a solution for Jewish men who traveled for work and were separated from their wives for extended periods. He suggested that concubinage could serve as a permissible alternative to traditional marriage in specific circumstances, especially where remarriage was not an option due to the existing ban on polygamy. Rabbi Emden’s view was that this form of concubinage would require “kiddushin” to initiate and a “Get” to terminate, making it akin to marriage in many legal aspects, except for the absence of a “ketubah” (marriage contract). However, even for the “ketubah,” Rabbi Emden advised creating a similar contract to ensure the woman’s financial security.
Medieval rabbis further debated whether the religious obligation to procreate necessitated a full marriage with all its obligations or if concubinage could theoretically fulfill this mitzvah. Some opinions, possibly including Maimonides (Rambam), suggested that concubinage might have been a legal allowance primarily for kings, noting that the Torah does specify special rules for kings. However, Ramban (Nachmanides) countered this view by referencing the Book of Judges, which recounts a story involving a man and his concubine during a time when “there was no king in Israel,” suggesting concubinage was not exclusively limited to royalty. This raises questions about who was permitted to have a concubine and under what circumstances, leading to further discussions about judges, community leaders, or even wealthy individuals.
Despite historical discussions and varying interpretations, the overwhelming consensus within modern Judaism is that concubinage is “not recommended,” as Rabbi Yissochar Frand concludes. Several factors contribute to this stance. These include the halachic complexities surrounding the practice, the long-standing tradition of monogamous marriage within Jewish communities for the past two millennia, and the strong emphasis Judaism places on traditional marriage as a highly valued mitzvah. Furthermore, there is a general reluctance to deviate from established norms and practices that have been in place for centuries.
Historically, there were even more controversial approaches to managing human desires. As an example, Rabbi Isaac Arama criticized practices in 15th-century Spain where some rabbis seemingly condoned and even provided communal support for houses of ill repute as a way to mitigate more serious sins. This historical anecdote, while extreme, highlights the spectrum of approaches and discussions surrounding relationships and marriage throughout Jewish history.
In conclusion, while concubinage (“pilegesh”) has a place in historical and halachic discussions within Judaism, it is not a practice that is endorsed or encouraged in contemporary Jewish life. Modern Judaism strongly emphasizes traditional, monogamous marriage as the ideal framework for relationships, family, and fulfilling religious obligations. The historical and legal intricacies of concubinage serve as an important reminder of the evolving nature of religious law and social norms, and the ongoing dialogue within Judaism regarding marriage and relationships.
