GirlChat #517400
One of them...
Posted by gimwinkle on 2010-December-13 17:24:49 EST, Monday
In reply to What scholars? posted by Lateralus on 2010-December-13 15:59:36 EST, Monday
Views: 0 Likes: 0
Professor at Franciscan Biblicum Studium - Jerusalem. Translations by Fr. A. Parent O.F.M., and Fr. James Heinsch, O.F.M.
From the age of twelve, to twelve and one half years, a young Jewish girl was able to be promised in marriage. Her father still had rights over her: he was able to sell her as a slave to a Jew for seven years. After the age of twelve and one half, the young girl was able to be married. Only the husband could dismiss her, give her his writ of renouncement. The contrary was impossible (Mark 10:12 was written in Rome and reflected the juridical situation of that village.) Adultery was punishable by death. When a woman went out she had to veil herself and she was banned from speaking to men. Marriage was arranged by her parents. Since the young girl worked at home, her departure from it demanded an economic compensation. The future husband had to pay the dowry, which consequently became the property of the woman in case of renouncement. The amount which the father of a girl from Jerusalem would receive, at the time of betrothal of a spouse who was not from the same town was especially high: An inhabitant of a small town who married a girl from Jerusalem must give her, as a dowry in marriage, her weight in gold; a girl of a small village who married a man from Jerusalem must bring as dowry his weight in gold (Lam Rabba 4:2). This text showed the importance that was attached to Jerusalem, and well as the fact that the cost of living was much higher in Jerusalem than elsewhere.
It was quite common to be engaged to a relative. Inter-marriage among Tribe members was common. The priests had the custom of choosing their wives from priestly families. The fiance had to feed, lodge, and clothe his fiancee. If she was convicted of adultery, she was renounced by a Letter of Divorce. If the fiance died, the fiancee was considered his widow. Certainly, during the time of betrothment, no intimate relationship was permitted [Emphasis, mine.] Betrothments were usually done by offering the gift of an engagement present to the fiancee.
Generally, marriage was celebrated one year after the betrothment [Emphasis, mine.] The celebration of the family lasted one week. Outside the family house, no religious ceremony took place. The morning of the wedding, the fiancee, dressed by her parents, was covered with a veil that hid her eyes. Her friends put a sash on her. That evening, the fiancé would remove the veil, and unfasten the sash. A procession left the fiancés home. It was preceded by musicians and participants carrying torches, among whom were the father of the groom, and friends of the spouse and bride. Most often the procession arrived late because they were haggling over last minute clauses in the contact of marriage, called the Ketuba.
Before leaving the house of her father, the bride sang songs of lamentation. The maid of honor took care of attending to the beauty of the bride who was accompanied by virgins. The procession led to the house of the father of the groom. It was there that the marriage was celebrated. The father blessed the bride with seven blessings. Then the groom gave a gold or silver ring to his bride saying: Behold, you are made holy for me according to the Religion of Moses and of Israel. He then proclaimed a blessing over a cup of wine meant for the couple. The banquet, accompanied by song and dance, followed. When the groom came in order to be one with his wife, his friends left and extinguished their torches. Only friends of the groom remained outside, waiting for the signs of virginity. The bride would keep these all her life.
The marriage was celebrated for three days if she were a virgin, for the tribunal the next day. If the bride was not a virgin, she was denounced immediately. When he remarried a widow, the marriage was celebrated for four days.
The woman was to look after her husband. The husband had to provide food, clothing and lodging and fulfill the conjugal duties. Besides this, he had to buy back his wife if she were ever captured. He had to get medicine if she fell sick, and a tomb for her burial. Even the very poor was obliged to procure two flute players and one who wailed for the funeral.
The woman had to obey her husband, mill the grain, cook, wash, make the meals, nurse the infants, work the wool, and, in some cases, wash the face and feet of her husband. Polygamy was permitted. After 10 years of married life without child, the husband was permitted to take another woman. The right of divorce was exclusively on the side of the husband. The text from Deuteronomy (Dt. 24:1) was subject to different interpretations between the Hillelites and Shamaites. For Hillel, things that brought displeasure to the husband gave him the right to dismiss the woman. In case of a divorce, the husband had to return to the woman the dowry prescribed in the contract of marriage.
Women had to veil themselves when going outside, so that no one could recognize their face. In the countryside, they were able to take water at the fountain. Women worked in the fields, and sold olives by the door. However, a woman was never allowed to go to the fields alone.
To the young girls was given the duty of feeding and dressing their father, of helping him when going out or returning when they are old, of washing their face and feet. Nevertheless, from the point of view of succession, boys came before the girls. Near the age of 12 and one half, a girl did not have the right to refuse a marriage decided by her father. The father was also able to sell his daughter as a slave. Only a girl older than 12 and one half years of age was autonomous regarding her own marriage.
Call it 13 for intimacy.
This post is archived, preventing any new replies.
Responses
- Yes, but . . . - Lateralus on 2010-December-13 17:51:50 EST, Monday - (0 / 0 / 43)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - Scotty on 2010-December-14 06:09:15 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 36)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - Lateralus on 2010-December-14 07:19:10 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 35)
- The only thing meaningless is your drivel - Seamus on 2010-December-15 10:59:18 EST, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 27)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - Lateralus on 2010-December-15 18:12:08 EST, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 26)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - qtns2di4 on 2010-December-16 02:13:31 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 25)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - Lateralus on 2010-December-16 03:23:33 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - Lateralus on 2010-December-16 03:16:58 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 23)
- A few points for Lat... - Iron Marxist on 2010-December-18 03:56:01 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 18)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Baldur on 2010-December-18 18:30:17 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 11)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Lateralus on 2010-December-18 20:04:04 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 10)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Baldur on 2010-December-18 22:23:55 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 9)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Lateralus on 2010-December-19 02:39:48 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 8)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - qtns2di4 on 2010-December-19 03:27:19 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 7)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Lateralus on 2010-December-19 04:44:27 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 4)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Baldur on 2010-December-19 08:57:34 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Lateralus on 2010-December-19 19:10:10 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - qtns2di4 on 2010-December-19 07:58:17 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Plyushkin on 2010-December-20 06:05:49 EST, Monday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Baldur on 2010-December-19 08:57:34 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- What are those things in your sig pic? - Plyushkin on 2010-December-19 03:37:04 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Yes - qtns2di4 on 2010-December-19 06:38:23 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Lateralus on 2010-December-19 04:44:27 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 4)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - qtns2di4 on 2010-December-19 03:27:19 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 7)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Lateralus on 2010-December-19 02:39:48 EST, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 8)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Baldur on 2010-December-18 22:23:55 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 9)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Lateralus on 2010-December-18 20:04:04 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 10)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Baldur on 2010-December-18 17:32:40 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - qtns2di4 on 2010-December-18 04:21:08 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 4)
- You pretty much have it - Lateralus on 2010-December-18 05:45:19 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: You pretty much have it - Iron Marxist on 2010-December-18 11:56:28 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Iron Marxist on 2010-December-18 04:36:07 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- government - Baldur on 2010-December-18 17:44:25 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- You pretty much have it - Lateralus on 2010-December-18 05:45:19 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: A few points for Lat... - Baldur on 2010-December-18 18:30:17 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 11)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - qtns2di4 on 2010-December-16 03:49:07 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 3)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - Lateralus on 2010-December-16 04:43:59 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 2)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - Iron Marxist on 2010-December-18 04:11:21 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - qtns2di4 on 2010-December-16 07:52:54 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - Lateralus on 2010-December-16 04:43:59 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 2)
- A few points for Lat... - Iron Marxist on 2010-December-18 03:56:01 EST, Saturday - (0 / 0 / 18)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - qtns2di4 on 2010-December-16 02:13:31 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 25)
- Re: The only thing meaningless is your drivel - Lateralus on 2010-December-15 18:12:08 EST, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 26)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - lgsinmyheart on 2010-December-14 11:03:47 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 4)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - Lateralus on 2010-December-14 17:44:51 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 3)
- There is NO burden of proof upon us - Seamus on 2010-December-15 11:14:19 EST, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 2)
- Re: There is NO burden of proof upon us - Lateralus on 2010-December-15 21:57:28 EST, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- You insist on showing your ass - Seamus on 2010-December-17 08:39:39 EST, Friday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: There is NO burden of proof upon us - Lateralus on 2010-December-15 21:57:28 EST, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- There is NO burden of proof upon us - Seamus on 2010-December-15 11:14:19 EST, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 2)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - Lateralus on 2010-December-14 17:44:51 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 3)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - gimwinkle on 2010-December-14 09:53:39 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Correction - Lateralus on 2010-December-14 07:22:34 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- The only thing meaningless is your drivel - Seamus on 2010-December-15 10:59:18 EST, Wednesday - (0 / 0 / 27)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - Lateralus on 2010-December-14 07:19:10 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 35)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - Baldur on 2010-December-13 18:09:53 EST, Monday - (0 / 0 / 5)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - gimwinkle on 2010-December-13 18:21:23 EST, Monday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - Lateralus on 2010-December-13 18:16:37 EST, Monday - (0 / 0 / 3)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - lgsinmyheart on 2010-December-14 10:55:30 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Yeah, that sounds right--thanks!--NT - Lateralus on 2010-December-14 18:00:31 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Grrrr . . . --NT - Lateralus on 2010-December-13 18:17:28 EST, Monday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - lgsinmyheart on 2010-December-14 10:55:30 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: Yes, but . . . - Scotty on 2010-December-14 06:09:15 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 36)