I wrote exactly the opposite of how you understood me.
I was not suggesting giving up on the relationship. Quite the opposite.

I wrote that nowadays, in order to preserve a relationship, there are those who allow men/women something called an “open relationship.”
That is, we are still in a relationship, but in order to deal with difficulties in the relationship one can allow whoever wants to meet for *sexual* purposes with other people.

In our modern times, there is more than one or two testimonies from couples who have said that precisely this sexual openness saved their relationship (if necessary I can attach sources).

So if according to Jewish law it is possible, at least for a man, to be with several women—
is it perhaps right to adopt such a thing as part of modernization?

If there is a man who says that his wife no longer really “does it for him,” and as a result there are problems in the relationship, maybe we should simply allow him to find someone else (with his wife’s knowledge, of course) for sexual purposes, in order to preserve his relationship with his wife.

So what do you say—should a “modern religious” person adopt something like this for the sake of preserving a value like partnership?

Your second question testified, in my view, about the first one. So I assume this is ongoing trolling. What is halakhically forbidden is forbidden for a modern religious person as well. I also disagree with you about what a relationship is and what preserves it, but I do not see any point in getting into that.

The restriction on multiple women creates attraction and strengthens the bond,
like many restrictions in Jewish law that are for the good,
as we bless: “Make Your creation joyful in the Garden of Eden of old” — when there were only Adam and Eve alone in the world.

To Michi and Uri,

But specifically nowadays, when a person’s happiness and freedom come before everything else (after all, we said one has to make room for modernity, right?), maybe there is in fact room to take this into account.
“The restriction on multiple women creates attraction” is something anachronistic. Nowadays there are countless testimonies that it is exactly the opposite. Maybe human nature has changed.

Now, from the standpoint of Jewish law (which Michi said is the barrier), precisely here, as I understand it, there is room to permit it. After all, as Michi argues in his writings, wherever it is possible to permit and allow things (for example on homosexuality or bills of divorce, etc.), then that is what should be done.

So if the values of modernity today show that a “free and open relationship” is something healthy for the relationship itself, and if there are ways to be lenient in Jewish law, then from what I have read so far I would actually have expected Michi to rule that a man may indeed have multiple women (an open relationship, with the wife’s knowledge of course).

I hope you are asking seriously and not just to provoke and mock. Even if so, it will help other readers too.
A. I did not understand what is of value in setting human beings against one another. It is violent and intensifies a dark and cruel urge that exists in repressed form in some people. By the way, I find it repulsive.

B. The Talmud teaches us that the sex drive works the opposite of what you wrote: “Satiate him and he is hungry; starve him and he is satisfied.” 2. The more a person does not incline toward other women—and here too there are levels, of thoughts and so on—his sexual bond and emotional attraction to his wife grow stronger. This is the view of Jewish law, and one can sense that it is true.

You wrote: moral and not halakhic.
Seemingly, something that is not halakhic is also not moral, because it is against Jewish law, and Jewish law is morality.

I have written in dozens of places my view, which does not accept this. Morality and Jewish law are two completely independent categories. There is no connection at all between morality and Jewish law. See, for example, Column 15 briefly, and many other places.
Note that in your words there is no argument, only repeating the same thing twice: something that is not halakhic is not moral because it is against Jewish law, and Jewish law is morality. Because Jewish law is morality, therefore what is not halakhic is not moral? That is a tautology. If so, at the very least the word “because” is out of place.

Morality must stem from absolute truth.
Morality that stems from the outlook of a certain society may be false and may be true. For example, the Nazis thought it was moral to kill Jews and immoral to harm their dog.
Therefore, assuming the Torah is true and Jewish law is from God, then Jewish law determines what is moral and what is not.
You wrote there that if there is a conflict, sometimes you would decide in favor of the moral side—but why..

Wow, I do not even know where to begin responding to this collection of strange claims, and to the strange inference that leads from them to your mistaken conclusion. Well then, I will start at the beginning.
1. It is not true that morality must stem from absolute truth. How is morality different from anything else? Nothing in the world is absolute, and morality is not either. Not every truth is absolute, and something does not need absoluteness in order to be true. On the contrary, no truth is absolute (except perhaps this one itself).
2. Morality that stems from a certain outlook indeed can be false. But that is true of any morality from any source. What can you do? We are all human beings and sometimes we make mistakes.
3. The Nazis thought it was moral to kill Jews, and they were wrong. The Jews also thought it was moral to murder the residents of Kafr Qasim, and they were wrong. The Muslims in ISIS think that God’s command is to behead infidels and anyone they do not like. So they too are wrong, even though they acted in accordance with a direct command of Allah through the caliph, may he live long. Christians thought one should burn heretics, and they too did so by direct command of God and His agents from the Inquisition. Everyone acts in the name of God and is wrong. So you too can be wrong. See the next section.
4. The assumption that the Torah is true is probably correct (at least in my view, though of course not absolutely and certainly true), but the assumption that Jewish law is from God is clearly mistaken. There are some basic laws and assumptions that were given by Him, and everything else is our interpretation. There is hardly any law that the Sadducees would agree with (that is explicit in Scripture). In fact, nothing is free of human interpretation. Even the claim that all this was given to us by God is your conclusion and mine as human beings who can err. See again ISIS and the Inquisition. They too thought that their instructions came from God.
5. And above all, I am astonished how from all this you arrived at the conclusion that Jewish law determines what is moral and what is not. That does not even follow logically from the unfounded premises you presented here (even if I were to accept them). Maybe there is another source that is absolute and is the source of morality, and not Jewish law? And maybe Jewish law, which is from God, does not say what morality is, and there is no other source, so there is no valid morality at all?
6. Your conclusion that there is an identity, or even a connection, between Jewish law and morality is mistaken, regardless of the route. Jewish law does not determine what is moral and what is not. Go and see that a significant part of Jewish law does not even deal with planes connected to morality. In my view, even the prohibitions of murder and theft, and the obligation to give charity and perform kindness, are not connected to morality and do not stem from it.

I see no point in entering this discussion here again, since it requires quite a few assumptions, arguments, and proofs. I have discussed it at great length in many places. If you are interested, you can look, for example, at my lecture series on Jewish law and morality, and at the beginning of the third book in the trilogy, and elsewhere. There I also explained how conflicts are decided.

To conclude, I cannot refrain from repeating what I have already told you more than once. You have a tendency to adopt common slogans as absolute truth and challenge things on their basis. Again I recommend that you examine your assumptions before building structures on top of them, and even more so, that you formulate for yourself precisely the logic that leads you from them to the conclusion. Tried and tested.

Definition of morality: an act that is not proper.
Therefore, assuming the Torah was given by the Creator, He knows what is proper and what is not proper, and therefore, in my understanding, there is a connection between Jewish law and morality.
Indeed there are acts that are improper because a person’s soul recoils from them, and one whose soul does not is deficient, in Maimonides’ language, and that too is a divine creation.
People can make mistakes regarding morality, and therefore it is relative.
God cannot make mistakes.
Jewish law was also derived by human beings, but the Torah gave instructions that God’s will is also these laws written by human beings according to certain Torah rules, sometimes even if they are against God’s intention, as is stated in the story of the Oven of Achnai.
I am indeed certain that the Torah is true by virtue of consciousness and more.
The fact that you write that I am making assumptions and building on them—that is not a logical claim, because how do you know? It is also not true..

Open marriage, “polyamory” in the foreign tongue, is the realization of the foundational values of freedom and love, and as the High Court of Justice taught us, a marriage contract that restricts the sexual freedom of either spouse is null and void like the dust of the earth.

Regards, Shemaber Ish Tzvuyim

Line 2
… and as the High Court of Justice taught us, a marriage contract that restricts…

I am truly at a loss. You are formulating an argument that does not get off the ground. This is not even a matter of position or debate. It is simply a mistake. That the Creator knows what is proper is certainly true. How do you infer from that that Jewish law determines morality?
People can make mistakes, and people interpreted what the Holy One commanded. So why should I care that He cannot make mistakes? I explained this above, and I am just repeating myself again. And the fact that the Torah was given with the sages’ decisions in mind is true, but that does not mean they cannot err; it means only that the Jewish law follows what they determined. And by the way, when it is clear that they are mistaken, it is not true that one must obey them. See the beginning of tractate Horayot, in the passage about one who errs in the commandment to heed the words of the sages.
As for consciousnesses and souls that lead you to certainty, I have nothing to say. I will only mention that the same is true of the Inquisition and ISIS, and the Nazis and all ideologues on earth.

If you agree that Jewish law is as they determined, that means it is God’s will, and they are part of the Torah. If it is God’s will, then that is what is proper to do. What is proper to do is morality.
Consciousness and soul are part of the Torah..
What does ISIS have to do with it? That is not the Torah we believe in..