In a Tortoiseshell
This paper is about the development of polygyny in Jewish law. This excerpt defends Maimonides’ application of Islamic law and social standards to his presentation of polygyny in Jewish law.
Excerpt
Jewish tradition overtly centralizes law, and legal systems tend to operate on a top-down basis. Yet, the definitive codes of Jewish scholar Maimonides present another possibility to Jewish traditional attitudes. Maimonides carefully contextualizes and phrases his rulings about polygyny—the case of a man being married to more than one woman at the same time, while polygamy is the general term for marriages of more than two people—in a manner that is more closely akin to culture than to law. In this sense, he treats Islamic law as a social reality that can legitimately impact his juridical conclusions under Jewish law.
Maimonides addresses the topic of polygyny in chapter 14 of his “Hilkhot Ishut”, or the Laws of Marriage, in the broader context of expectations of intimacy between husband and wife (onah). The English translation reads as follows:
A man [has the prerogative of] marrying several wives – even 100, whether at one time or one after the other. … Therefore, our Sages commanded that a person should not marry more than four wives, although he has ample financial resources, so that he will be able to fulfill his conjugal obligations towards each one once a month.1
Maimonides places this law in a very surprising context.2 If he truly wanted to express support for polygyny based on Jewish marital tradition, then he would have placed it in chapter 10 which addresses the laws of marriage. To express it as an addendum to Hilkhot Onah – laws specifically governing expectations of physical intimacy – diminishes its emphasis as a form of marriage. Instead of making a point about polygyny, Maimonides makes his point about Hilkhot Onah, and he uses polygyny as a mode by which to express his point. This placement expresses that Maimonides does not treat polygyny as a central question in Jewish tradition; instead, it is a reality affecting physical intimacy that can be socially accepted or rejected.
Further, the substantive content of his presentation subtly mirrors aspects of Islamic law. Maimonides writes: “our Sages commanded that a person should not marry more than four wives, although he has ample financial resources, so that he will be able to fulfill his conjugal obligations towards each one once a month.” Yet, the Talmudic sages did not “command” that a person not marry more than four wives. In fact, they explicitly termed this advice as an “עצה טובה,” good advice.3 Maimonides’ transformation of the Talmud’s advice into a “command” actually echoes the Islamic law which imposes a firm limit of four wives. 4
In addition to his consistency with Islamic tradition, Maimonides also neglects the formulation borne by Jewish tradition. In doing so, he does not reject the Jewish perspective; he merely treats any presumed Jewish Masoretic perspective on this topic as a legal fiction. In its only direct discussion on the validity of polygyny, the Talmud presents two opinions:
Rabbi Ami said: Even in this case he must divorce [his first wife] and give [her the payment for her] marriage contract, as I say that whoever marries a woman in addition to his [first] wife must divorce [his first wife] and give [her the payment for her] marriage contract. [Conversely,] Rava said that a man may marry several women in addition to his first wife, and [there is nothing wrong with this practice] as long as he has enough to support them.5
Many rabbinic scholars, in their commentary on Maimonides’ law, situate him in Rava’s camp. Both permit polygynous marriages.6 However, in truth, many medieval rabbinic scholars believed that both Rava and Rabbi Ami accept polygynous marriages. They argue that Rabbi Ami merely requires consent from the first wife, while Rava does not.7 Neither party is rejecting or endorsing polygynous marriages; instead, they debate the requirement for permission from the first wife.
When Maimonides deviates from Rava’s language, he implies that he sides with those scholars who frame the Talmudic debate as nonexistent. In this sense, he is not forsaking Jewish tradition for Islamic law, nor is he rooting his teaching in Rava’s. Rather, he is employing Islamic law as a social standard for a topic that is not addressed directly within Jewish tradition. Thus, when other rabbinic scholars criticize him for deviating from Jewish tradition and subscribing to what they term “Muslim practices”, they fail to understand that Maimonides does not view the question of polygyny as a question of tradition; he views it as a social question.8
Footnotes
- Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nashim, “Ishut,” chap. 14. Translated by Eliyahu Touger. Brooklyn: Moznaim Publishing. ↩︎
- For an analysis of Maimonides’ intricate organizational methods, see Isadore Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980). ↩︎
- See BT Yevamot 44a; See, in contrast, Tur’s presentation of the same law: “our sages gave good advice not to marry more than four wives …” (Tur Even HaEzer 1:1). ↩︎
- For an analysis on the force of this law in Islamic tradition, see Mordechai A. Friedman, “Polygyny in Jewish Tradition and Practice: New Sources from the Cairo Geniza,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 49 (1982): 67. Also see Leor Halevi, Muhammad’s Grave: Death Rites and the Making of Islamic Society, paperback ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 59. ↩︎
- BT Yevamot 65a. ↩︎
- See Hagahot Maimoniyot and Maggid Mishneh on Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ishut 14:3. ↩︎
- See, for instance, Ritva, commentary on Yevamot 65a. ↩︎
- Of note, a letter attributed to Maimonides (although likely not actually authored by him) criticizes French polygynous culture for its licentious bent. Assuming that Maimonides actually wrote this letter, it supports the notion that Maimonides was neither driven by Jewish tradition nor Islamic tradition; rather, he supported the way in which polygynous society was built in Islamic lands, and he believed that it was implemented improperly in French lands. See Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon), Iggerot ha-Rambam, “Mikhtav ha-Meyukhas le-Ḥakhmei Lunel,” 31–32. ↩︎
Works Cited
Hagahot Maimoniyot and Maggid Mishneh on Maimonides. Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ishut 14:3.
Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon). Iggerot ha-Rambam. “Mikhtav ha-Meyukhas le-Ḥakhmei Lunel.” Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nashim. “Ishut,” chap. 14. Translated by Eliyahu Touger. Brooklyn: Moznaim Publishing.
Rabbi Mordechai ben Hillel ha-Kohen. Mordechai on Ketubot. No. 291.
Ritva (Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet of Dampierre). Commentary on Yevamot 65a.
Tur. Even ha-Ezer 1:1.
Twersky, Isadore. Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.
Author Commentary / Eitan Gelb
It has been a pleasure writing this paper. I took Professor Krakowski’s “Marriage and Monotheism” course, which introduced me to the centralization of marriage in monotheistic traditions (in particular, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). I took interest in the topic of polygyny and decided to tackle an issue that does not have a lot of previous research: Maimonides’ position on polygyny. Maimonides was a medieval rabbinic scholar who lived in Islamic society. He compiled a code (the Mishneh Torah) that he believed covered the entire corpus of Jewish legal tradition. He was clearly influenced by his Islamic surroundings, and he also clearly bore a deep regard for Jewish tradition and orthodox practice. It is interesting to see the two merge as he develops his position on polygynous marriages.
It was particularly interesting to study this topic in light of its meta-legal implications. It is a topic that is permitted by the Bible, and yet has become one of the most socially egregious violations in all of Judaism. The prohibition was even instituted on a social scale, and, as my analysis of Maimonides shows, it was endorsed by rabbinic scholars because of the society in which they were living. It fascinates me how such a central legal principle has such sociological roots.
Editor Commentary / Sharon Leonard
Eitan’s wonderfully written piece truly embodies this year’s theme of “deep dive” as he explores a highly niche academic topic that is not widely familiar to those outside of Judaic studies. Yet, he does an excellent job of orienting the reader in a very clear and concise manner. In this excerpt, Eitan provides just enough contextual information to make the argument accessible without oversimplifying its complexity. What stands out most, however, is the way in which Eitan meaningfully engages with a scholarly conversation that has lasted for centuries and is still ongoing today. Entering such an ancient debate is itself a significant undertaking, and it is especially impressive how he has been able to identify a fresh angle through which to evaluate existing arguments and contribute new insight. In this excerpt, Eitan’s analysis really shines through. In my opinion, one of the most compelling moments of analysis comes from his interpretation of Maimonides’ textual placement: “If he truly wanted to express support for polygyny based on Jewish marital tradition, then he would have placed it in chapter 10 which addresses the laws of marriage… This placement expresses that Maimonides does not treat polygyny as a central question in Jewish tradition; instead, it is a reality affecting physical intimacy that can be socially accepted or rejected.” Here, Eitan employs an important close reading strategy by examining not only what the author states explicitly, but also the broader context surrounding the text. In doing so, he is able to draw out new insights that earlier scholars may not have recognized, demonstrating how meaning can emerge beyond an author’s direct claims. Lastly, one of Eitan’s greatest strengths is his clear commitment to academic objectivity and intellectual integrity. The topic he engages is inherently controversial, yet he does not approach it with the aim of persuading readers toward a predetermined position. Instead, Eitan analyzes the material in a careful and methodical manner and demonstrates a willingness to consider multiple perspectives and interpretations. This openness ultimately strengthens his argument as it reflects a nuanced understanding of the topic rather than pushing for a one-sided claim. His concluding sentence is particularly effective in this regard because it underscores his ability to analyze Maimonides’ argument thoughtfully without the interference of religious bias.
Author
Eitan Gelb ‘28 is a sophomore at Princeton, studying Electrical and Computer Engineering. He has edited and written in school newspapers and journals, and he has also been published in journals related to academic Jewish topics. Some recent publications include: The History of The Study of Kodashim and An Analysis of The Laws of Building a Temple.
Editor
Sharon Leonard ‘27 is a junior in the History department at Princeton. In addition to working as an editor at Tortoise, she is also a Writing Fellow at the Writing Center and an editor at MoonPress. She has previously written and edited Archive Section pieces for the Daily Princetonian. One day, she hopes to publish her own fiction novel.