7/27/2019 Adultery Je

1/3

AdullamAdultery THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 216

I

I f

^

ADULLAM: An old Canaanitlsh capital inwestern Judah (Gen. xxxviii. 1; Josh. xii. 15, xv.35). It was fortified b y Rehoboam (II Chron. xi.7), and was an inhabited city till the end of OldTestament times (Micah, i. 15; Neh. xi. 30; II Mace,xii. 38). The modern Id-el-Miyeh now occupies itssite.The famous Cave of Adullam was a resort ofDavid when an outlaw (I Sam. xxii. 1; II Sam.xxiii. 13). Tradition has located it in the valley ofKharaitun, six miles southeast of Bethlehem. However, the locality mentioned above will suit the early

of the husband than that of the wife, modern lawhas ignored the distinction between the two crimes,and technically they are alike. But the ancientJewish law, as well as other systemsWoman's of law which grew out of a patriar-Rights dial state of society, does not recog-Enforced. nize the husband's infidelity to hismarriage vows as a crime, and it wasnot until comparatively recent times that the womanwas legally entitled to enforce her husband's faithfulness, and was given the right to demand a bill ofdivorce for his sexual imm orality (Isserlos on " Eben

SITE OF THE ANCIENT CITY OF ADULLAM.(By permission of the Palestine Exploration Fund.)history of David just as well, especially as it is probable that the word " cave " rests upon a false readingof the original and should be replaced by " stronghold." In later times Jud as Maccabeus visited thecity of Adullam (II Mace. xii. 38).BIBLIOGRAPHY: Clermont-Ganneau, Pal. Explirr. Fund,Quart. Statement, 1875, p. 177; Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, pp. 239 et seq.; Baedeker,Pal., 2ded., p. lo3. J. F. McC.ADULTERY (P)1KJ): Sexual intercourse of amarried woman with any man other than her husband. The crime can be committed only by andwith a married woman; for the unlawful intercourseof a married man with an unmarried woman is nottechnically Adu ltery in the Jewish law. Under theBiblical law, the detection of actual sexual intercourse was necessary to establish the crime (Lev.xviii. 20 [A. V. 19]; Num. v. 12, 13, 19); but this rulewas so far modified by the Talmudic law, that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to justify legalprocedure if the wife had been cautioned by her husband against intimate association with the suspectedman (Sotah, i. 2). When the Adultery is committedwith a married woman who is within the prohibited

degrees of consanguinity or affinity, the crime becomes INCEST. Although the common opinion ofmankind is more inclined to condone the Adultery

ha-'Ezer," 154,1). The sin of concubinage is, however, already severely condemned in Leviticus Rab-bah, xxv.Although in ancient society and law Adulterywas regarded as a private wrong committed againstthe husband, public law later on exercised controlof its investigation and punishment; for organizedsociety was impossible unless it punished this crime,which saps the very root of the social life. " Thoushalt not commit adultery " is not merely a commandnot to tamper with the domestic affairs of another,but a warning to refrain from unsettling the foundations of society.The law, therefore, sought to guard the sacrednessof the marriage relation by moral injunction and bylegal restraints. In patriarchal timesSacredness the purity of marriage was picturedofMarriage as jealously guarded (see the cases ofRelation. Sarah and Rebekah; Gen. xii. 18, 19,xx . 2-7, xxv i. 10, 11). The Biblicaland Talmudical ideal of marriage had a strong influence in controlling those who were susceptible topurely moral influence and suasion. "Thereforeshall a man leave his father and his mother and shallcleave unto his w ife, and they shall be one flesh "(Gen. ii. 24). The woman is made sacred by the ceremony of kiddushin, and is thereby set apart for herhusband alone (Kid. 2b). Idolatry, murder, and

7/27/2019 Adultery Je

2/3

217 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA AdullamAdulterygilluy 'arayot (which comprises both incest andadultery) are three crimes never to be committedunder any circumstances, and a man should sacrifice his life rather than commit them (Sanh. 74a).This was the decision of the rabbis at the'meetingat Lydda, during the Hadrianic Revolt (see Graetz,"Historyof the Jews," ii. 422-424.) Thus law andmorality went hand in hand to prevent the commission of the crime. For those, however, who weredeaf to warnings of law and reason, the punishment of death was ordained. Both the guilty wifeand her paramour were put to death (Deut. xxii.22).Unlawful intercourse with a woman betrothed toa man was adultery, because the betrothed woman, was deemed as inviolable as the married woman.The punishment for this crime was stoning to deathat the place of pub lic execution (Deut. xxii. 24).The punishment for Adultery according to the Mish-nah (Sanh. xi. 1) was strangulation; the rabbinicaltheory being that wherever the death penalty wasmentioned in the Bible, without any specific statement of the manner of its infliction, strangulationwas meant (Sifra, Kedoshim, 4, 9).The priest's daughter who committed Adulterywas burned to death, according to the rabbinical interpretation of the text in Lev. xxi. 9 (Sanh. 66J),and her paramour w as strangled (Maimonides, " Yadha-Hazakah, Issure Biah," iii. 3). When the crime iscommitted with a bondmaid betrothed to a man, it isnot Adultery technically, because the woman is notfree, and the death penalty is not inflicted, but asshe has a quasi-marital status, she and her paramourare scourged (Lev. xix. 20). Ibn Ezra (ad loc.) takesthe view that this case refers to the Hebrew maidenwho has been sold by her father and who is intendedto be the bride of her master orof his son, bu t who isnot yet betrothed; for thebetrothal would have madeher free ipso facto.Under the Talmudiclawthe severity of the Mosaiccode was in many instances modified, and the lawsrelating to Adu ltery came under the influence of amilder theory of the relation of crime and punishment. Indeed, the rabbis went soTalmudic far as to declare that a woman couldView. not be convicted of Adultery unless ithad been affirmatively shown that sheknew the law relating to ita theory that resultedin the practical impossibility of convicting any adulteress. No harm was done by this new view, becausethe right of divorce which remained to the husbandwas sufficient to free him from the woman, who,although guilty of the crime, was not punishable bythe law. Upon this mild view followed the entireabolition of the death penalty, in the year 40, beforethe destruction of the Second Temple (Sanh. 41a),when the Jewish courts, probably under pressure ofthe Roman authorities, relinquished their right to inflict capital punishment. Thereafter, the adultererwas scourged, and the husband of the adulteress wasnot allowed to condone her crime (Sotah, vi. 1), butwas compelled to divorce her, and she lost all herproperty rights under her marriage contract (Maimonides, "Yad ha-Hazakah, Ishut," xxiv. 6); norwas the adulteress permitted to marry her paramour(Sotah, v. 1); and if she married him, they were forcedto separate.The right of the husband to divorce his wife athis pleasure was a sufficient protection for him incase his wife was guilty of the crime of Adultery,even if he had no proof of it, but merely suspicionfounded on circumstantial facts. If the wife had

was not guilty of Adultery, because she did not actas a free agent. The usual punishments are notinflicted in such cases, and the legalExcep- consequences of Adultery do not followti ons. (Ket. 515). Such crime is no cause fordivorce, except if the woman be thewife of a priest. The priest is not allowed to keepher because of the peculiar sanctity of his office,which requires the highest degree of domestic purity(Yeb. 565).As " the eye of the adulterer waiteth for twilight,saying, No eye shall see me " (Job, xxiv. 15), Adultery is a crime usually difficult of proof, and theBiblical code contained provision for the case of thewoman who was suspected of Adultery by her husband. Moved by the spirit of jealousy, he broughther before the priest in the sanctuary, and she wasthere obliged to undergo the severe " ordeal of thebitter waters." A full account of the details of thisordeal is given in Num. v. 11-31; these details mayalso be found amplified in the Mishnah. The suspected woman was taken to the local court by herhusband and there his charge was made. The courtassigned two doctors of the law to escort the partiesto the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. The purposeof the hearing before the Sanhedrin was to evoke aconfession. The Sanhedrin appealed to the womanand suggested various causes that might have in-,duced her to go astray, and finallyasked her to confess. If she admitted her crime, she was divorcedfrom her husband at once and lost her propertyrights under her KETUBAII. But if she denied it, shewas taken to the East Gate of the Temple, in frontof the Nicanor Gate, and there was placed in chargeof a priest, who performed the ceremony mentionedin the Book of Numbers. He rent herGuilt garment so that her breast was ex-Tested b y posed, and loosened her hair; she wasOrdeal. draped in black; all ornaments wereremoved from her person, and a ropewas tied around her chest. Thus publicly exposed(only her servants being prevented from seeing her),the jealousy-offering was placed in her hands. Itwas a hum ble offering of barley meal, without oil orincense upon it, the feed of beasts, typifying themeanness of the crime that she was supposed to havecommitted. The priest then placed some of the dustof the Tabernacle in an earthen vessel full of water,and charged her with the solemn oath of purgation(Num. v. 19-22). After this the priest wrote the oath

on parchment, blotted it out with the water, whichhe caused her to drink, and the jealousy-offeringwas then offered upon the altar (Sotah, i. 4-6; ii. 1-3).If the woman refused to submit to the ordeal, andthere was circumstantial evidence of her criminality,she was obliged to separate from her husband (Sotah,i. 5). Whatever may have been the actua l significance of this ordeal when first established, withinTalmudic times it had merely a moral meaning.' Itwas simply a test under which the woman, if guilty,was likely to succumb and confess. R. Akiba says:" Only when the man is himself free from guilt, willthe waters be an effective test of his wife's guilt orinnocence; but if he has been guilty of illicit intercourse, the waters will have no effect"; and he basedhis opinion on a text in Hosea, iv. 14 (Sifre, Naso,21; Sotah, 47J). In the light of this rabbinicaldictum, the saying of Jesus in the case of the womantaken in Adultery acquires a new meaning. To thoseasking for her punishment, he replied, " He that iswithout sin among you, let him first cast a stone ather " (John, viii. 7).

7/27/2019 Adultery Je

3/3

AdulteryJSmilius THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA 21 8into disuse. During the Roman invasion of Palestine, and the last days of the commonwealth, theSanhedrin, under the presidency ofO rd ea l JOHANAN BEN ZAKKAI, abolis hed theAnnulled, ordeal entirely; as the Mishnah states,

"when adulterers became numerous,the ' ordeal of the bitter waters ' ceased, and it wasR. Johanan ben Zakkai who abolished it; as it iswritten (Hosea, iv. 14), ' I w ill n ot punish yourdaughters, when they commit whoredom, nor yourspouses, when they commit adultery; for themselvesare separated with whores, and they sacrifice withharlots' " (Sotah, ix. 9). For it-appears that underthe Roman regime, immorality spread among thepeople, the judges became corrupt, the springs ofjustice were defiled, and general demoralization resulted (Graetz, "History of the Jews," ii. 237, 238).Probably for th is very reason Queen Helena of Adia-bene, the illustrious and munificent proselyte to Judaism, favored the ordeal; for she presented a goldentablet to the Temple with the chapter from the Lawengraved on it, to be used for the rite of the ordeal(Tosef.,Yoma, ii. 3; Mishnah Yoma, iii. 10; Gem. ib .37b). But even if it had not been abolished, the ritewould have sunk into abeyance with the fall of theTemple, because, according to the Law, the ceremony could not be performed elsewhere.In the patriarchal days the Adultery of the wiferequired no proof, for whenever the head of thefamily suspected her, he could killTh e Law in her. Thus Judah ordered his daugh-Pat r iar - ter-in-law, Tamar, to be burned be-chal Days, cause of her supposed Adultery (Gen.xxxviii. 24). Her crime consisted inunlawful intercourse with a man other than thebrother of her deceased husband. For at first it wasthe custom, and afterward it became the law, forthe widow of a man who had died without leavingissue, to marry his brother, so that the child of thisunion might be of the blood of the deceased andbear his name (Deut. xxv. 5, 6; see LEVIRATE). Insuch cases the widow was really considered the betrothed of her brother-in-law, and her intercoursewith another than himself was punishable as Adultery. When the punishment of the adulteress andher paramour was taken out of the hands of thehusband and assumed by the civil law, this, likeevery other crime, had to be proved by two or morewitnesses, before a conviction and sentence couldfollow (Deut. xix. 15; Maimonides, "Hilkot Ishut,"xxiv. 18).Under the theory of the Talmudists, which stillfurther mitigated the severity of the law, the womancould not be convicted of Adultery until it wasproved that she had been previously cautioned, inthe presence of two witnesses, not to have any communication with the suspected man, and that, inspite of such caution, she had met him secretly under circumstances that would make the commission

of the crime possible (Mishnah Sotah, i. 1, 2; Gem.2b). This caution was given to her because of thegeneral tendency of the rabbinical law toward mercy,based in this case on a technical interpretation of theBiblical text (Num. v. 13). Practically, it workedan acquittal in nearly every case. If, however, thehusband was not satisfied with the result, the rightof divorce was left open to him, although, whendivorced under such circumstances, the wife did notlose her property rights under the ketubah. If rumors of the wife's Adultery were circulated duringthe absence of the husband, the court had the rightto summon and caution her with the same effect asthough it had been done by her husband (Maimonides, "Hilkot Sotah," i. 11).

The paramour was technically the adulterer (noef),and under the Biblical law suffered death togetherwith the adulteress (noefef). HisSt at us of crime was held in the greatest ab-Adu lte re r. horrence, and Raba and Rab voicedthe general opinion when they saidthat nothing would excuse the wilful adulterer, norwould all his virtues save him from Gehenna (Sotah, 4J>). Even a lustful desire w as deemed a moralcrime, and the echo of " Thou shalt not covet thyneighbor's wife " rings throughout the Talmud andrabbinical writings, and is reechoed in the NewTestament (Ex. xx. 17; Eben ha-'Ezer, 21; Matt.v. 27, 28). The adulte rer's folly is condemned andmakes him liable to the jealous wrath of the outraged husband (Prov. vi. 32-34; Job, xxxi. 9, 10).In Talmudic days, long after the abolition of thedeath penalty, the adulterer was punished by flagellation, and was forbidden to marry the faithless wifeafter she had been divorced. Even the mere suspicion of th e crime was sufficient to prevent theirmarriage. A case, however, is suggested in the Talmud in which this restriction seems to have beenremoved. Here the woman having been suspectedof Adultery was divorced, and having remarried wasagain divorced, and then married the man who hadoriginally been suspected of having committed Adultery with her; the marriage was declared lawful,because it seems that the intervening marriage wasconsidered in some degree a refutation of that suspicion, and acted as a limitation upon the originalinterdict (Yeb. 24*).

The child of an incestuous or adulterous connection was known as a MAMZEK It was not permittedto become a member of the Jewish body politic (Deut.xxiii. 3 [A. V. 2]), and could not intermarry with aJew or Jewess (Kid. iii. 12), although it did not loseits right to inherit from the husband of its mother,who, while not the legitimate father, was for thispurpose the putative father (Yeb. ii. 5; Maimonides,"Nahalut," i. 7).BIBLIOGRAPHY J. Selden, UxorHebraica, 1046; J. 0. Wagseil (translation of the Talmudic treatise Sotah, with elaborateannotations). Altdorf, 1674; Michaelis, Mos'aisches Ehere1785, v., passim; Saalschiitz, Das Mosaische Recht, 18ed., ii. 570-575; Z. Frankel, Grundiinien des Mosaisch-mudische Eherecht, Breslau. 1860; M. Duschak, Dasisch-Talmudische Eherecht, Vienna, 1864; M. Mielzlner,ish Law of Marriage and Divorce, Cincinnati, 1884;Amram, Jewish Law of Divorce, 1896; Leopold Low, Gemelte Schriften, 111 13 et seq. D. W. A.ADTJMMIM ("The Red"): Steep road leadingfrom the plain of Jericho to the hilly country aroundJerusalem. It was a part of the boundary betweenJud ah and Benjamin (Josh. xv. 7, xviii. 17). Thename refers to the redness of the material of whichthe road is made. It is now called Ta la'at ed-Dam.BIBLIOGRAPHY : Buhl, Geographie des Alten Palasttna,75,98. G. B. L.A DU M M IM . See COINS.AD VE NT OF ME SS IA H. See MESSIAH.ADVENTISTS: A Christian sect. Among thechief tenets of the Adventist faith are: (1) The restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land (see Bengel," Gnomon on the New Testament"), and their conversion, based on Rom. xi. 25, 26 (Ritschl, " Gesch.des Pietism us," i. 565-584). Hence the interestshown by the Adventists in the Zionist movement,though many believe that the return will not takeplace till after the Resurrection, basing their viewson the passage of Ezekiel, " Behold, O my people,I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out

of your graves, and b ring you into the land of Israel"