{"id":1566,"date":"2024-04-13T01:47:30","date_gmt":"2024-04-13T01:47:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/commonlawdictionary.com\/?post_type=glossary&p=1566"},"modified":"2026-08-10T06:48:18","modified_gmt":"2026-08-10T06:48:18","slug":"adultery","status":"publish","type":"glossary","link":"https:\/\/commonlawdictionary.com\/index.php\/glossary\/adultery\/","title":{"rendered":"Adultery"},"content":{"rendered":"

Adultery<\/em><\/p>\n


\n<\/p>\n

\"Adultery<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

Primary Definition<\/h2>\n

Adultery, in common modern terms, is not necessarily what many think it is. Under the biblical and Torah structure, adultery is defined principally by the status of the woman<\/a> and the actions and knowledge of the man<\/a>. The trespass occurs when a<\/a> woman<\/a> is already betrothed, covered, coveted, covenanted to, or spoken for within another man<\/a>’s<\/a> household, and another man<\/a> knowingly sexually takes that woman<\/a>. Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 specifically address the woman<\/a> belonging to another man<\/a>, while Deuteronomy 22:23–27 separately recognizes the protected status of a<\/a> betrothed woman<\/a>. A<\/a> man<\/a> should therefore inquire into a<\/a> woman<\/a>’s<\/a> status; where the woman<\/a> conceals or falsely represents an existing covenant<\/a>, the man<\/a>’s<\/a> knowledge and circumstances are materially different from knowingly trespassing upon another man<\/a>’s<\/a> household.<\/p>\n

A<\/a> woman<\/a> who is free, unattached, and not covered or covenanted to another man<\/a> presents a<\/a> different Torah circumstance. A<\/a> man<\/a> having an existing woman<\/a> does not, merely by taking another unattached woman<\/a>, establish adultery under the Torah<\/a> framework. The Torah<\/a> expressly regulates a<\/a> man<\/a> having more than one woman<\/a>: Exodus 21:10 speaks of taking “another wife [woman<\/a>],” while Deuteronomy 21:15–17 addresses a<\/a> man<\/a> having “two wives [women]” and regulates the inheritance of their sons. The biblical record also recognizes concubines and plural households. Therefore, polygyny<\/a> itself is not adultery under Torah. The man<\/a>’s<\/a> responsibilities toward each woman<\/a> remain governed by Torah covenant<\/a>, provision, inheritance, sexual obligations, and household law. Adultery arises from the unlawful trespass against an existing covenant<\/a> or another man<\/a>’s<\/a> household—not merely because a<\/a> man<\/a> has more than one woman<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The man<\/a>’s<\/a> covenantal responsibility is also important. Exodus 21:10–11 establishes that when a<\/a> man<\/a> takes another wife [woman<\/a>], he is not permitted to diminish the first woman<\/a>’s<\/a> food, clothing, or marital\/cohabitation duty. If he fails to provide these required things, the Torah<\/a> states that “she shall go out free without money.” Thus, being the man<\/a> who initially covered or covenanted with a<\/a> woman<\/a> does not give him unlimited authority to abandon her while continuing to claim<\/a> the benefits of that covenant<\/a>. If he stops providing the obligations required by Torah—particularly where the woman<\/a> has effectively been abandoned—the Torah<\/a> itself recognizes circumstances in which she goes free without payment. This is distinct from adultery itself but is essential to determining the woman<\/a>’s<\/a> actual covenantal status before accusing another man<\/a> of trespassing upon an existing household.<\/p>\n

The modern definition commonly treats adultery as sexual conduct outside a<\/a> so-called marriage, but marriage as presently defined through Western civil and marital institutions is not the controlling Torah framework. Within the terminology being distinguished here, “marriage” is treated as a<\/a> later Western, matriarchal term rather than the original Torah terminology for covenantal household relationships. The proposed association is with Latin mater, meaning “mother,” and with later Mother Mary<\/a>-centered religious<\/a> terminology. However, as a<\/a> matter of documented etymology, English marriage is ordinarily traced through Old French mariage from marier (“to marry”), ultimately associated with Latin maritus (“husband<\/a>\/married<\/a> man<\/a>”), rather than being historically derived from “Mother Mary<\/a>.” Therefore, the glossary can characterize “marriage” as a<\/a> so-called or later Western term within its Torah framework without presenting the Mother Mary<\/a> derivation as established linguistic fact.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Torah<\/a>-centered question in determining adultery is not merely whether a<\/a> man<\/a> has sexual relations with a<\/a> woman<\/a> other than his first woman<\/a>. The proper inquiry is whether the woman<\/a> was lawfully covered, betrothed, covenanted to, or spoken for by another man<\/a> at the time; whether that covenant<\/a> remained operative; whether the covering man<\/a> continued performing his Torah obligations toward her; and whether the other man<\/a> knowingly trespassed upon that existing household relationship. This places adultery within its biblical framework of covenant<\/a>, status, knowledge, obligation, and trespass, rather than automatically importing the modern Western definition of so-called marriage into the Torah<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The exact definition depends upon context. A<\/a> religious<\/a> community may define adultery more broadly than a<\/a> civil court. A<\/a> divorce<\/a> statute may employ a<\/a> narrower definition than ordinary speech, and military law may specify particular sexual acts while also requiring proof of harm to discipline or public<\/a> confidence. Adultery should therefore be distinguished from related terms:<\/p>\n