“Open Marriages: A Jewish Couple’s Solution?” by Atid Malka

Jewish Wedding by Wincenty Smokowski (1858, US-PD).

Throughout the Pentateuch and subsequently in the books of the Prophets and Writings, readers are confronted with the existence of polygamous relationships – Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, to name a mere few – but as of the eleventh century CE, Jewish men have been prohibited from taking more than one wife. These bans took effect on Ashkenazi Jewry, while Sephardi Jews did not adopt them widely. However, this prohibition does not preclude a man from taking a concubine alongside his wife. Contemporarily, open marriages (defined as a marital relationship within which both parties are free to enter into strictly sexual relationships with others outside of their marriage) are becoming increasingly more acceptable among younger generations en masse. This leads the keen observer to question whether open marriages are acceptable under Jewish law, or whether there exists an understanding of Jewish law that allows for an open marriage to exist. This question becomes more complicated as one attempts to square open marriages with the doctrine of shalom bayit (literally, “peace in the home”) and the opinion of the wife—whether favorable to the idea or not. This paper intends to confront, conceptualize, and define the bounds of marriage as it relates to the contemporary notion of “open marriage” under Jewish thought and Jewish law.

A Picture of Polygamous Practice and Concubinage 

Throughout the Tanakh (comprised of the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Writings), readers are exposed to at least sixteen different polygamous relationships. All of these cited polygamous relationships were such that a single man procured for himself multiple wives. Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder succinctly explains that this is the only type of polygamy that would be condoned under the biblical commandments. In turn, the polygamy spoken of in this paper is most readily understood as polygyny, a marriage structure in which a single man has multiple wives, as opposed to a polyandrous relationship structure where a single wife has multiple husbands.  However, polygamy was not the only multi-partner relationship status seen in the Tanakh. Additionally, there are numerous mentions of concubinage. For example, it is said that King Solomon had three hundred concubines.  (There exists debate amongst halakhic commentators as to whether the taking of a concubine is only permitted to kings. However, given the 2012 ruling noted above, this debate is not explored further herein.)

These relationships are starkly distinct from the open marriage conception that has grown in popularity in contemporary times. The difference between open marriage and polygamy is quite clear – polygamy necessitates multiple marriages. In the open relationship model studied in this paper, the extra-marital relationships are not those of additional marriages, but merely sexual relationships with others outside of the marriage. The difference between open marriage and concubinage, however, is more nuanced. Concubinage, under Jewish law, does not require marriage (hence the term “concubine” rather than “wife”), but such a shift in terminology does not eliminate the man’s duties to the concubine. Rather, the man retains duties to the concubine despite not being formally wedded to her. For example, even in a man-concubine relationship the concubine is entitled to provision and protection and her children are to be considered legitimate heirs to the father’s assets. Interestingly and aside, the man would still need to provide for his wife’s conjugal needs (including regular sexual relations) while having a concubine.

Neither of these developed concepts are analogous to the open marriage conception studied in this paper. Simply put, the open marriage conception is one that is strictly sexual – a relationship where the man does not provide the woman provision or protection and where any children of such relations are not entitled to an inheritance from the married man. Moreover, a ban on polygamy and concubinage attributed to Rabbi Gershom in the 11^th century, barred these practices from European Jewish communities. Regardless, these frameworks are not practical for the analysis intended by this paper, as neither of these conceptions are directly analogous to the question presented, nor are they sufficiently analogous to allow conjecture. Therefore, I posit that to best understand the allowance or prohibition of open marriages we must look to marriage doctrine – primarily, the concept of shalom bayit.

Shalom Bayit 

The concept of shalom bayit – directly translated as “peace in the home” – has several sources in Jewish understanding. It is important to note that Shalom Bayit extends to the whole family unit, rather than simply to the husband-wife relationship (as discussed in Rashi’s commentary on Deuteronomy 5:16. The Biblical underpinnings from which this doctrine arises with regards to the husband-wife relationship include Genesis 2:18, Genesis 2:24, Proverbs 17:1, Malachi 2:16, and Numbers 5:11-3  (wherein, the practice of the Sotah ritual – one in which a husband suspicious of his wife’s infidelity brings her before the high priest where her fidelity is tested – is outlined. A necessary part of this practice, the erasure of God’s name, indicating the priority of shalom bayit over even divine honor). The importance of shalom bayit cannot be underscored. In the Arukh Hashulchan, a comprehensive digest of Jewish law, it is written “peace in the home takes precedence over everything.” Therein lies a discussion of whether, in the case where one only has the resources to light shabbat candles or hannukkah candles. The Arukh Hashulchan states that one should light shabbat candles as they are representative of shalom bayit, and that shalom bayit takes precedence over everything. Only after this answer, and only to bolster support for this answer, does the Arukh Hashulkhan later delve into the importance of following the Biblical commandment (lighting shabbat candles) over the Rabbinic commandment (lighting the hannukkah candles). The order of these arguments further cements the notion that shalom bayit take precedence over everything.

Does peace in the home truly take precedence over “everything” or was Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein, the drafter of the Arukh Hashulchan mentioned above, merely hyperbolic? In Talmud Shabbat 23b:3, it is written that one may obfuscate the requirement of kiddush for the precedence due to peace in one’s home. After all, Jewish law has included the lighting of shabbat candles as part of the shabbat ritual, the keeping of which is enshrined in the Ten Commandments, and accepted that shalom bayit takes precedence. Understood in conjunction with the gravitas attributed to the erasure of God’s name during the Sotah ritual, a ritual testing a woman’s faithfulness to her husband, and the repeated calls for peace and compromise in marriage throughout the Pentateuch, it is reasonable to conclude that shalom bayit would outweigh any restriction on infidelity. Surely, if one is permitted to erase, or destroy, God’s name—in direct contrast to the biblical prohibition against such an act in Deuteronomy 12:3-4—in furtherance of Shalom Bayit, certainly infidelity (which is not directly prohibited for men) would likewise by permitted in furtherance of Shalom Bayit.

Moreover, an attempt to argue that “spilling seed” operates as a wall to open sexual relations is directly refuted by the Tur, a 14th century legal code by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher, as noted in Shulkhan Arukh, Even HaEzer 25, the section of the most widely accepted code of Jewish law relating to family law, where it is written that one may even spill seed during times of “atypical intercourse” intended to please ones wife¹ The common translation of “atypical” is “anal,” but this definition seems merely an attempt to offer an example of an “atypical” relationship, and as such is an improper translation of the language. This paper assumes this translation is best read as “atypical.”. Similarly, if a husband’s sexual relationship with a woman outside of the couple’s marriage is pleasing to the wife, the relationship could cling to these similar protections.

Conclusion

As such, it seems at least possible that open relationships could work through introducing significant leniency to words that may not otherwise require such leniency. But, a one-sided open relationship for the purpose of bettering a marriage seems, on its face, improbable.

In practice, any attempt at an open marriage in accordance with Jewish law would need to: (1) be open for the man to pursue other women while the woman is restricted from doing the same; (2) be introduced into the relationship as a way of developing peace and compromise, thereby necessitating that both parties reach an agreement to this course of action, and; (3) the allowable extra-marital affairs would need to be kept to a minimum so as to not create a habit of it. Do there exist situations where such relationships exist? I hesitate to proffer an answer. However, in the cases where they do, a couple is obligated to maintain peace in their home. This obligation takes precedent over some of the Jewish people’s most cherished obligations – the lighting of Shabbat candles and the preservation of God’s name. If the importance of peace in the home is of such great weight, it must be understood as taking precedence over monogamy, so long as it fits within the confines stated above. Whether such a relationship would be permitted in other situations (e.g. where only two of the three factors are met) will not be addressed herein, but may be an interesting path of study. ♦

---

---

Recommended Citation

Malka, Atid. “Open Marriages: A Jewish Couple’s Solution?.” Canopy Forum, February 27, 2025. https://canopyforum.org/2025/02/27/open-marriages-a-jewish-couples-solution/.

Recent Posts