text:
Marriage in Ancient Israel
Blaine Robison, M.A.
Published 16 July 2012; Revised 14 January 2013
Sources: Unless otherwise indicated Scripture quotations are taken from the NASB Updated Edition (1995). Click here for the online Soncino Babylonian Talmud. Click here for Talmud Tractate Abbreviations.
Grammar: The meaning of Greek words is from F.W. Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (2009), and the meaning of Hebrew words is from The New Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (1981), abbreviated as "BDB."
Terminology: In order to emphasize the Jewish nature of the apostolic writings and message I use the terms Yeshua (Jesus), Messiah (Christ), Tanakh (Old Testament), and Besekh (New Testament) and incorporate other appropriate Hebrew and Jewish terms. (See the glossary.)
In the beginning God not only created the heavens and the earth, but He also created marriage. The first social institution began with the creation of Adam, then the woman whom God gave to him. The first two chapters of Genesis set forth the principles by which God intended marriage to be governed. For the foundational principles of marriage see my article Marriage By Design.
The early peoples quickly developed procedures to facilitate marriage. One of the characteristics of the antediluvian world was "marrying and giving in marriage" (Matt 24:38). The principles given to Adam would have guided the marriage institution into patriarchal times and then with the covenant with Israel, these principles would be expanded and refined with more definitive procedures. The purpose of this article is to explore the process of marriage among ancient Hebrew and Jewish people, the prohibitions God mandated in the covenant with Israel and the provisions God made for special situations.
The process of getting married in Jewish culture may be pieced together from various stories in the Bible and the Apocrypha, and instructions found in the Talmud. The Ketubot (Marriage Agreements) and Kiddushin (Betrothal) tractates in the Nashim ("women" or "wives") portion of the Mishnah contain the most definitive information on laws that governed Jewish marriage. The Mishnah (c. 200 A.D.) is the written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law and is generally assumed to represent the beliefs and customs of Jews in the first century. Nevertheless, while there were essential elements in all the marriages, the biblical stories illustrate that no two weddings were exactly alike, since the process was controlled by the parents - not priests, rabbis or government.
Marriage began with match-making, called shiddukhin or a "marriage proposal." The initial proposal could come from the prospective groom (Heb. chatan) or the father of the groom. All the specific arrangements were handled by the parents of the bride (Heb. kallah) and groom (e.g., Gen 21:21; 24:2-5; 27:46 - 28:1; 34:3-6; 38:6; Jer. 29:6). A marriage would not take place without the consent of the bride (Gen 24:58; cf. 1 Cor 7:39). Romance could be, but was not necessarily, a factor in the match (Gen 29:20; Judg 14:1-2; 1 Sam 18:20).
Many Christians have fallen prey to the Western romantic myth that assumes there is one right mate for every person selected by God. Jewish culture has a similar belief that matches are made in heaven. The unequal balance of men and women in the world should have disproved this idea, but it persists. While God's sovereign involvement may be evident in the marriages of those in the Messianic line, there is no evidence of God's direct involvement in other marriages. In Scripture God never directed any man to marry a specific woman, but He did give guidance on the selection of mates. In reality God gives His people freedom to choose (cf. 1 Cor 7:39).
Under Torah an Israelite man could marry any woman he wished (except to those listed in the Prohibitions section below) and even have more than one wife. (See the section Special Provisions below.) He was free to choose with one other proviso. For all Israelites God required that no marriage cause property to transfer from one tribe to another, as illustrated in the ruling given for the daughters of Zelophehad (Num 36:6-9). The reason was simple. The land of Israel had been apportioned among the tribes and then within each tribe further apportioned to the clans. Marriage wasn't just about romance but maintaining the tribal name and the land associated with the name.
By the first century Jewish marriage was firmly established as a two ceremony process. If the marriage proposal was accepted then the groom would perform erusin (from the verb aras "to betroth," BDB 76; Ex 22:16; Deut 20:7; 22:23, 25, 28; 28:30; 2 Sam 3:14). Prior to Moses a man would take a wife at will by obtaining her consent and then taking her into his tent or house and having intercourse in private. From that point on she was his wife (e.g., Gen 25:1; 38:1-3; Ex 2:1). With the introduction of erusin a man would acquire the bride of his choice in the presence of witnesses (cf. Ruth 4:9-11). According to the Mishnah (Kidd. 1:1), a woman could be acquired [in marriage] in three ways: by money or its equivalent (Gen 29:18; 34:12; Ex 21:11; 22:16), by deed (Gen 24:3-4; Judg 14:2; Ruth 4:9-10), or by intercourse (Deut 22:28-29). A deed was almost always involved because marriage included a transfer of property.
Jewish betrothal is not like the Gentile concept of engagement, which is only a promise of marriage. The erusin stage was also called kiddushin, "sanctification," and meant that from that point the woman belonged to the man. The word kiddushin comes from the same root word as kadosh ("holy"). Just as kodesh (holy things) are forbidden to all but those for whom they are designated, so too does this woman become forbidden to all men but to whom she has now been designated. Erusin-Kiddushin made the woman a legal wife and her status could only be changed by divorce or death. Erusin was usually accomplished by the groom giving a coin or ring to the prospective bride and her acceptance of the token accomplished kiddushin.
By the first century tradition had standardized the betrothal period to not exceed twelve months for a virgin or thirty days for a widow (Ket. 5:2). (Jacob and Rachel waited seven years.) The betrothal period was one of preparation. The bride would prepare her marriage "outfit," which included her clothing, jewels and ornaments. The groom would make arrangements for the wedding dinner and prepare the bridal chamber (the huppah). Sometimes this would require actually adding on a room to the house of the groom's father. The bridal chamber would have to be decorated appropriately to be suitable for the bride. The groom's father was the one to decide when the bridal chamber was ready for the bride.
There was always a risk that during a long period of separation, the woman would discover that she wanted to marry another man, or the man would disappear, leaving the woman in the awkward state of being married but without a husband. On the other hand, the couple might decide they didn't want to wait a year in order to live together. So, in the Middle Ages Jews began conducting the two ceremonies together rather than a year apart.
There were two other important goals to accomplish during the betrothal period: the preparation and giving of gifts and preparation of the ketubah, the marriage contract.
Gift-giving was an integral part of marriages in Bible times. Three types of gifts might be made, depending on the ability of the parties: mohar, mattan and shiluhim.
Mohar. The mohar, sometimes called "bride-price," was a payment from the groom or the father of the groom to the bride's father. (See Gen 34:12, "bridal payment.") The mohar was an obligation of custom, and later incorporated in the Torah (Ex 22:16-17). The mohar helped to cement the bond between the families, gave the husband authority over his wife, and made the contract binding on both parties. The mohar also served as a means of compensating the family for the financial liability of raising a daughter as well as being an expression of the young man's love for his bride.
Prior to Torah there was no customary value of the mohar. It could be whatever the father of the bride demanded (cf. Gen 34:12). The Torah prescribed a minimum mohar of 50 shekels (Ex 22:15-16; Deut 22:29). The mohar could be paid by other means than currency, such as "precious things" (Gen 24:53), labor (Gen 29:20), real estate (Josh 15:16-17), service to the nation (1 Sam 18:25) or grain (Hos 3:3).
Mattan. The mattan was a voluntary offering of a gift or gifts from the groom to the bride. (See Gen 34:12, "gift.") Social custom made the mattan expected, but it was never considered a legal obligation. The value of the mattan could vary greatly depending on the prosperity of the groom. Biblical examples may be found in Genesis 24:22, where Eliezer gives "articles of silver and articles of gold, and garments," to Rebekah and Genesis 34:12, where Shechem offers any amount of mattan for Dinah that her family would demand.
Shiluhim. The shiluhim (lit., "parting gifts") were gifts given to the bride by her father and taken when she left for her new home. Shiluhim corresponds to the traditional dowry. These gifts were often considered a daughter's share of inheritance in her father's possessions and were intended to help equip the bride for her new life. Examples of these type of paternal gifts may be found in the stories of Rebekah (Gen 24:59-61; 29:24, 29), Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:24, 29), Achsah, daughter of Caleb (Josh 15:18f; Judges 1:14f), an Egyptian princess who married Solomon (1 Kin 9:16), and Sarah in the Book of Tobit (8:21).
Prior to the actual taking of the bride (nisuin) the groom had to prepare and present a completed ketubah (lit. "document" or marriage contract) to his wife. Unlike a betrothal deed that might only specify the mohar and shiluhim, the ketubah specified the bride's dowry and contained a number of clauses that has traditionally outlined a husband's obligation towards his wife, including clothing and conjugal rights. The word "ketubah" comes from the root kaf-tav-bet, meaning writing. References to these obligations can be found in Exodus 21:10-11, although no mention is made of a document. The intertestament Book of Tobit, however, mentions a scroll that was prepared at the marriage ceremony of Tobias and Sarah by the bride's father Raguel (Tobit 7:14).
The origin of the ketubah is unknown, but by the first century it was a standard feature of marriage. In effect, the ketubah replaced the mohar due to the reality that many bridegrooms could not raise the bride-price at the time needed. The ketubah was a mechanism to delay payment of the mohar when the wife would need it most and the husband had the means. The settlement amount, specified in the Mishnah and payable on the husband's death or divorce, was 200 zuzim (Hebrew silver coins) for a virgin bride or 100 zuzim for a widow (Ket. 1:2). This amount was the equivalent of financial support for a year. The ketubah became a lien against his property and security for the wife. Often the ketubah was prepared by a rabbi.
The ketubah would be read aloud in the company of witnesses before nisuin takes place, just as Moses did with the Torah at Mt. Sinai (Ex 24:3). The signing of the ketubah shows that the bride and groom see marriage as more than a physical and emotional joining, but as a legal and moral commitment according to biblical law and customs. The acceptance of the ketubah by the bride signaled her readiness to proceed with the second stage of the marriage process.
Nisuin completed the kiddushin of marriage by the groom taking the bride into a room (huppah) or his house for consummation. The Hebrew word nisuin ("elevation") comes from a verb that means to lift up, to carry or to take. The wife has left her father's authority and now belongs fully to her husband, just as Eve belonged to Adam when God presented her to him. In biblical accounts a wife never takes a husband, but a husband takes a wife (e.g., Gen 4:19; 6:2; 11:29; 1 Sam 25:39; Hos 1:2).
The wedding ceremony, if there was one, might have consisted of sharing a cup of wine and presenting the ketubah. Local custom and the wishes of the parents often dictated the elements to the ceremony. Rabbis did not officiate at weddings nor was there an exchange of vows. The father of the bride would simply place his daughter's hand in the hand of the groom and declare she was his to take.
A feast was normally held to celebrate the nuptials (Gen 29:22; Judg 14:10; Matt 22:2; Luke 12:36; 14:8; John 2:1-2). By custom the wedding feast would generally last a week, while the bridal days extended over a full month in order to receive gifts.
Before Israel entered the Promised Land God decreed that Israelites were not to intermarry with the seven indigenous tribes (Deut 7:3; Josh 23:12). The restriction on kings to avoid multiplying wives (Deut 17:15-17) was primarily directed at multiplying wives of the wrong type, that is, women that practiced idolatry. The pagan tribes were to be destroyed, but Israel failed in its mission and intermarriage with idolatrous people succeeded in fostering rebellion against God. Israelite men could marry foreign women if they identified with the God of Israel and cast their lot with God's people, such as the Cushite woman Moses married (Num 12:1), Rahab (Josh 6:23-25; Matt 1:5; Heb 11:31) and Ruth (Ruth 1:16; Matt 1:5).
Prior to the commandments given to Moses there were no restrictions on marriage for God's people. The first generation of men after the creation of Adam obviously married their sisters and then cousins. Abraham married his paternal half-sister (Gen 20:12-13). Lot was intimate with his daughters and fathered their sons (Gen 19:30). Jacob married two sisters, both of whom were his cousins (Gen 29:10, 21-28). Judah had relations with his daughter-in-law (Gen 38:6-26). Amram married his aunt (Ex 6:20) and that union produced Moses. Other cultures at the time of Moses permitted similar unions between close relatives. In Egypt it was lawful to marry sisters and half-sisters. With the Persians, Medians, Indians, Ethiopians and Assyrians, marriage was allowed with mother, daughter and sister. The Greeks and Romans abhorred all such marriages.
The Torah laws against incest are introduced in Leviticus 18:6 with the general prohibition, "None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness." "Blood relative of his" literally means "flesh of his flesh," i.e., what is of your body (as illustrated in the specific prohibition of Lev 18:10). The primary intention of the statutes that follow, all directed to men, is to prohibit marriage to the named women since in the Torah sexual intercourse creates marriage obligations. (See also Leviticus 20:11-21; Deuteronomy 22:30; 27:20-23).
The general prohibition forbids father-daughter relations. The Leviticus commandments go on to prohibit sexual relations with the following specific women: (1) mother, (2) father's wife, (3) sister, whether father's daughter or mother's daughter, (4) son's daughter, (5) daughter's daughter, (6) daughter of father's wife, (7) father's sister, (8) mother's sister, (9) wife of father's brother, (10) son's wife, (11) brother's wife [except when yibbum applies; see section below], (12) a woman and their daughter together, (13) daughter of wife's son, (14) daughter of wife's daughter, or (15) a woman and her sister as a rival [while both living].
In order to enforce these marriage restrictions God also decreed that any children of such unions, as well as adulterous unions, would be prohibited from ever entering the assembly of the Lord (Deut 23:2). Under the New Covenant the accident of one's birth plays no role in determining participation in the Kingdom of God (John 1:11-13). The specific prohibitions were necessary because of the allowance for polygamy. In contrast to the marriage restrictions of many states, the Bible does not forbid a man to marry his first cousin (e.g., 1 Chron 23:22), step-sister (no blood parent in common) or niece.
Injunctions for Priests
Descendants of Aaron, particularly the High Priest, were given specific guidance as to whom they could not marry and whom to marry. A common priest might marry a widow, but could not marry a harlot or a divorced woman (Lev 21:7). A high priest was forbidden to marry a widow, divorced woman, a harlot or a foreign woman. The high priest was specifically required to marry a virgin of his own people (Lev 21:13-14).
The purpose of such stringent rules for the high priest was to prevent defilement for those who would represent the people before God. Violating these rules by any priest would result in loss of priestly privileges. While a Levite might have more than one wife (cf. Ex 2:21; Num 12:1; Judg 19:1; 1 Sam 1:1-2), the high priest was forbidden to perform yibbum (Yeb. 6:5).
Special Provisions
Besides the general expectation of marriage set forth in God's instructions to Adam (Gen 1:28) and Noah (Gen 9:1), the Torah imposed marriage obligations in three specific situations.
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins" (Ex 22:16-17; cf. 1 Cor 7:36).
"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days" (Deut 22:28-29).
Since by biblical principle and practice sexual intercourse is one of the means of acquiring a wife and constitutes the marriage ceremony, the concept of premarital sex is a contradiction in terms. If a dating or engaged couple (by modern definition) have sex before their wedding, they are in fact married in God's sight from the moment of their union.
However, God established justice guidelines in the event that a man seduced a woman rather than contracting marriage in the customary manner or forced a woman to have sex against her will. A woman subjected to intercourse in an open field was presumed to have been violated unless witnesses could testify she gave consent. A woman subjected to intercourse in the city was presumed to have been seduced, inasmuch as she did not cry out, unless witnesses testified she had indeed been violated (cf. Deut 22:23-27).
Since no woman could be compelled into the marriage against her will the woman could refuse marriage to the seducer or the violator. In either situation the offender had to pay an amount of money to the father. For seduction the amount would be the customary amount of a dowry the bride brought into the marriage, thus relieving her family of this responsibility. For rape, the offender had to pay the specific fine of 50 shekels of silver for the loss of virginity. If there were other injuries the offender could be fined and beaten as punishment (cf. Lev 24:19-20; Deut 25:1-3).
If the woman was still living under her father's authority, the father could refuse to give her in marriage to the man in either situation. However, in neither case could the man refuse to marry the woman he had taken advantage of if she and her father agreed to the marriage. In other words, the offender could be made to take on lifetime responsibility for the woman and any child conceived from the union.
God gave this law to insure justice for the woman in a culture where men only wanted to marry virgins. Since the basis of the law is that the woman was unmarried at the time of being seduced, the same marriage obligation would exist for seducing a widow or divorced woman, except there would be no need of a father's consent. David's marriage to the widow Bathsheba is an example of following the spirit of this law out of a sense of responsibility for his child she bore (2 Sam 11:27). Ironically, God chose their son, Solomon, to succeed David to the throne.
Yibbum (Levirate Marriage)
"When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, `My husband's brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me." (Deut 25:5-7)
Yibbum, commonly known as levirate marriage, refers to the duty of a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother in the event his brother had produced no male heir. The term levirate comes from the Latin levir meaning "husband's brother" and translates the Hebrew word yabam ("brother-in-law"), which occurs in the Deuteronomy passage. Yibbum is a divine-ordained custom practiced in antiquity, long before God issued the regulation to Moses concerning the practice.
The conditions necessitating the marriage only applied when the deceased brother had no male heir. The first son born to the marriage of the widow and her brother-in-law would be given the name of the son's legal father, making the biological father a surrogate. Every other child born to the union would be his. The primary purpose of the yibbum law was to preserve the dead man's name in Israel and thereby insure that assets belonging to him and the widow remained in the family to be passed on to the son. Caring for the widows and assuring their security is a continual theme throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. God insisted that the family shoulder the responsibility of its widows rather than burdening the community as is common in modern times. It may be that the constant prophetic theme of doing justice for widows in the Tanakh occurred because of the failure of men to do their lawful duty.
The act of assuming the marriage responsibility for the deceased brother is a serious Torah requirement. If the brother-in-law refused to perform the duty of marrying the widow in order to produce an heir for his deceased brother, then the widow had to perform the ceremony of chalitza and publicly disgrace her brother-in-law by removing his shoe before the village elders and spitting in his face. From that moment on, he would be known throughout Israel as "the house of him who has his shoe loosed." Failure to perform the duty did not result in any judicial punishment or require atonement, but he would have to live with the social disgrace.
For more information and background on this subject see my web article Levirate Marriage.
"If a fellow countryman of yours becomes so poor he has to sell part of his property, then his nearest kinsman is to come and buy back what his relative has sold" (Lev 25:25; cf. Ruth 2:1; 3:2; 4:14).
The marriage of Ruth and Boaz followed the process of yibbum, but the purpose was not merely to carry on the name of Elimelech. The primary concern was to insure Ruth's security by buying Elimelech's property, which was the duty of a go'el, meaning next of kin and therefore redeemer. In ancient Israel any duty which a man could not perform by himself had to be taken up by his next of kin. The go'el duty was applied especially to parcels of land which any Israelite found necessary to sell (Lev. 25:25). Another duty of the go'el was to produce offspring for his kinsman if he happened to die without any. The relative nearness of kin is not very definitely determined in the Hebrew Scriptures. The brother would be the nearest of all, after whom comes the uncle or uncle's son (Lev 25:48-49; Num 36:11).
Boaz was Ruth's kinsman by marriage. He wasn't her brother-in-law since Naomi had only two sons and both died in Moab. Boaz was a member of Elimelech's clan, probably a cousin. After Naomi's arrival home Boaz takes Ruth under his protection. Naomi inherited property from her dead husband since they had no children and this property represented her security. However, Naomi wanted Ruth to have a husband and security, and since Ruth had essentially become a Jewish proselyte, then she would have to marry someone in Naomi's tribe. Naomi devised an ingenious plan. She decides to sell the inherited property knowing that one of her male relatives must buy it in order to keep it in the clan. Whoever redeems the property must take responsibility for her and Ruth. So, in this story the law of property redemption and yibbum become intertwined.
When Boaz discovers Naomi's plan, he realizes there is a relative closer in consanguinity to Ruth than him. The other relative elects not to marry Ruth, probably because he did not have a son and did not want to risk investing capital in property he would gain no benefit from and be forced to bequeath his own inheritance to the first-born of a Moabite. Boaz was then free to acquire Naomi's property and Ruth. Boaz's unselfishness and willingness to invest in the future for Ruth's sake makes him a giant of a man in the annals of Scripture.
There is irony in the story. If only one of Naomi's sons had died the other son would have had to marry Ruth and they might never have left Moab and Ruth would not have been in the genealogy of Yeshua.
Polygamy was sanctioned by Torah and commonly practiced among ancient Israelites and Jews in the apostolic era (Sanh. 2:4; Yeb. 44a; Josephus, Ant. XVII, 1:2; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, §134). See my article on Polygamy. Scripture sometimes identifies mates of polygamous men as concubines (Heb. pilegesh). The normal Hebrew word for wife is ishshah. In Jewish society a pilegesh was a legitimate wife, though of lower rank than the principal wife, which is indicated by the references to a pilegesh as wife (Gen 25:1; 30:4; 35:22; 2 Sam 12:11; 16:22; 1 Chron 1:32), a pilegesh's husband (Judg 19:3), the pilegesh's "father-in-law" (Judg 19:4), and the pilegesh's "son-in-law" (Judg 19:5). In Israelite culture a pilegesh did not cohabit with a man unless married to him.
Because of her status a pilegesh was entitled to the same care and respect accorded any wife (Gen 16:3; 30:4, 9). In fact, King David was so moved by the maternal love of Rizpah, the pilegesh of Saul, that he had her children buried in the family sepulcher (2 Sam 3:7; 21:8-14). In Gentile nations a concubine was at best a kept mistress and at worst a sex-slave that could be hired out to friends or brothels by her owner. However, an Israelite pilegesh was not to be violated or harmed by another man. Thus Jacob never forgave his eldest son for violating Bilhah (Gen. 35:22, 49:4). According to the story of Gibeah (Judges 20) 25,000 warriors of the tribe of Benjamin lost their lives on account of the abuse and death of a pilegesh. To engage in intercourse with the king's pilegesh was tantamount to usurpation of the throne, as Abner did with Rizpah (2 Sam 3:7) and Absalom did with his father David's concubines (2 Sam 16:21-22).
The real difference between a pilegesh and the principal wife in ancient times had to do with property. A man did not have to pay a bride-price for a pilegesh nor did she have a dowry. Rabbinic law later determined that a man was not required to provide a pilegesh a formal betrothal (kiddushin) or a ketubah (marriage contract) (Sanh. 21a). The practical effect of not having a marriage contract is that the pilegesh was not assured of an amount to be settled on her should her husband die or divorce her. In modern times a pilegesh might be likened to a common-law wife.
The divinely created institution of marriage is the foundation of society. While some of the marriage practices in Israelite culture may seem strange or even archaic, they strongly influence the instruction on marriage given by Yeshua and the apostles. The example of the patriarchs and the instruction of the Torah still provide important guidance for living in a biblically faithful manner. The command to "be fruitful and multiply" has not been rescinded.
Copyright © 2012 Blaine Robison. All rights reserved.


text:
Howard Stern's sidekick Artie Lange was hospitalized last week with an unknown illness. But Page 6 is reporting that Artie Lange attempted suicide by stabbing himself nine times! Read more on Artie Lange below.
We reported that Artie Lange had been hospitalized last week but there was no word on the reason for his hospitalization.
The troubled comics publicist had confirmed he was in the hospital but did not elaborate. Now we see why!
The Post's Page 6 reports that Artie had stabbed himself nine times in an attempted suicide and was found by his poor mother!
Lange's mother called 911 on Saturday after she went to his Hoboken apartment and found her son all bloody. Artie sustained six "hesitation wounds" and three deep plunges.
Artie seems like a great guy and Howard Stern talked about Artie this week on the a ir. "We all have our demons," Stern said of his friend. "Artie has given this show tremendous moments of great comedy. He's a tremendous contributor. He is a good man. Don't forget how great he is."
Artie, 42, had been gone from the Stern show for over a month, but Stern said Lange isn't leaving the show and said he is "a tremendous contributor."
Let's all send Artie our best wishes to get better!
Click thumbnails for larger pictures
images: wenn.com
You might also like

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Almost one in three people who voted Conservative at the last election are ready to back the UK Independence Party, or have switched already, according to a devastating new opinion poll revealing the danger posed to David Cameron by a growing anti-Europe sentiment across Britain.
Ten per cent of 2010′s Tory voters say they have already decided to back Ukip, while 26 per cent of those who still support the Conservatives are "seriously considering" switching to support the Eurosceptic fringe party. Nigel Farage, its leader, has sought to capitalise on the economic crisis gripping the eurozone.
Forty-six per cent of people polled say they would vote for Britain to leave the European Union, with just 30 per cent saying they want to continue membership. If the 23 per cent who responded "don't know" were removed, such a referendum would see Britain leave the EU on a 3:2 split.
The results will heap pressure on Mr Cameron, who faces demands from his backbenchers and ministers for a referendum on continued membership in the next Tory manifesto. But a more strident anti-European stance will do little to improve the Prime Minister's international standing. Yesterday, he joined world leaders for talks at Camp David, where efforts were being made at the G8 to encourage growth as well as austerity.
With little sign of a breakthrough in efforts to rescue the Greek economy – and, with it, the eurozone – Mr Cameron again resorted to hyperbolic rhetoric to reassure increasingly sceptical voters back home that he was having some impact on the world stage. Speaking after holding bilateral talks with President Barack Obama yesterday morning, Mr Cameron declared: "There is a growing sense of urgency that action needs to be taken, contingency plans need to be put in place and the strengthening of banks, governance, firewalls, all of those things, need to take place very fast."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's agenda for Europe, demanding ruthless austerity to tackle national deficits, was under assault. The new French President, François Hollande, allied himself to President Obama's policy of investing to stimulate economic growth. "All of us," Mr Obama said, "are absolutely committed to making sure that both growth and stability, and fiscal consolidation, are part of an overall package to achieve the prosperity for our citizens we all are looking for."
Ms Merkel was on the back foot even before arriving at Camp David, as patience with the tough-love German approach ebbed away. It was this tactic that had helped fuel a voter rebellion in Greece and set the stage for the political transition in France, where President Hollande took power on a pledge to put new emphasis on stimulative economic measures.
There was a sense of alarm among leaders of the G8 nations – the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia – that the renewed strains in Europe are threatening to bring back a fresh period of recession that could quickly infect all of their economies.
More: > Here
Recent Posts
- Perception & Sensuality
- What Happens When We All Live to 100?
- Child Curses Like a Bootlegger – His Purported Past-Life Incarnation
- Jeff Rense – Shadow Government Theater
- That Dog Just Loves The Wind
- …and Your Blond Women Too!
- 2 Billion People Have Zinc Deficiency
- What's In Your Medicine Cabinet?
- The Science of Tears
- The Origins of Alchemy
- iBreathe – Run Rabbit Run
- Transcending The Extra Sensory Perception – Rewired


text: Whoa, I thought I told you to not hover. Oh well. I'm gonna be SEMI-HIATUS for the rest of the Summer 'cause of work. I'll ~try~ to set up a queue and it's gonna be tagged as q. Also, I'll try to watch every Sunday every new episode and liveblog & fangirl about them.


text:
High-performance amps featuring a 5-speaker stereo design, Bluetooth® streaming, iOS app and cloud connection. + Learn More
Jump to content
Use this feature to let a friend know about this topic!
I thought you might be interested in reading this web page: http://line6.com/support/page/kb/_/legacy-products/effects-and-controllers/studio-modelers-am4/studio-modelers-faq-r465
Community Forum Software by IP.BoardLicensed to: Line 6, Inc.


text:
Oh, you thought Alex Rodriguez was done juicing? Might wanna think again
1/29/13 in MLB | Pat | 5233 respect
Alex Rodriguez, Gio Gonzalez, Bartolo Colon, Melky Cabrera, Yasmani Grandal, and Nelson Cruz are among the names mentioned in a report about a Miami clinic that has been distributing various performance enhancing drugs to athletes in several sports.
The Miami New Times broke the story about Biogenesis, an "anti-aging clinic" that closed up show last month. An employee handed over records to the New Times before Biogenesis closed, revealing that their real business was in selling performance enhancing drugs to various athletes under code names like Al Capone, Samurai, Felix Cat, and many others.
Anthony Bosch, the clinic chief, has been tied to other players who have tested positive for PEDs in the past, like Manny Ramirez.
The clinic's records reference sales of things like anabolic steroids, HGH, and artificial testosterone.
Big surprise: Players are still cheating.
For the next few months, we'll see a bunch more self-righteous writers use this to justify snubbing EVERYONE in the Hall of Fame voting, and we'll see MLB try to justify this latest batch of egg on their face.
Is it time to just say forget it, and just let MLB players take whatever they want? Or is the MLB's war on performance enhancing drugs worth the time and money?


text:
Wish List Contributions
Thank you to everyone who supports our teens with in-kind and volunteer donations! Donating items from our wish list is an easy way to help us off-set our costs. Perfect for individuals, families and groups who want to give back to their community. Donations may be dropped off Tuesday - Sunday from 12:00 - 6:00 at our Runaway and Homeless Youth Shelter at 3080 Broadway. You can download the wish list here.
Visit our wish list on amazon.com to view specific items we need and have them shipped directly to Attention Homes.
General Wish List
- Activities:
- Tickets for summer activities: Elitch Gardens, Denver Museum, Denver Zoo, etc.
- Xbox or Xbox 360 and games (football/college football/racing)
- Ice skating vouchers
- Movie tickets
- Local activity passes
- Acoustic guitar
- Keyboard
- Bike helmets
- Bike locks
- Ear buds/headphones
- Mp3 players
- Food:
- Canned beans (black, refried, pinto and baked) and chili
- Canned tomatoes and other vegetables
- Easy to make sides (rice, pasta, mashed potatoes, stuffing)
- Broth
- Granola bars
- Individually packaged snacks
- PB & J supplies
- Boxed cereal
- Bulk soup
- Gift Cards:
- $10-$20 gift cards (Target, Subway, McDonald's, Starbucks, Walmart, iTunes, etc.)
- Home supplies:
- Rubbermaid storage bins
- Reusable tall plastic cups
- Iron and ironing board
- Toiled paper and paper towels
- Laundry and dish detergent
- Boxes of latex gloves
- First aid kits
- Sewing kits
- Hygiene Items (cannot state "Keep out of reach of children"):
- Deodorant
- Soap and body wash
- Shampoo and conditioner
- Disposable razors for boys and girls, shaving cream
- Toothbrushes
- Combs
- Elastic hair ties, hair dryers, curling irons
- Shower caddies
- Loofahs
- Chap stick and make-up
- Small mesh toiletry bags
- Sack lunch supplies:
- Styrofoam cups
- Napkins
- Plastic sandwich and snack bags
- Paper lunch sacks
- Non-alcohol towelette wipes
- New water bottles
- Teen-appropriate clothing & gear:
- New boys boxers, t-shirts and tanks
- New girls underpants and camisoles
- Tube socks
- Backpacks
- Camping gear (tents, sleeping bags, tarps)
We no longer accept used clothing donations (except for a few specific items). We have developed a partnership with A Precious Child's clothing bank where we can collect just the items our kids need.
We are seeking individuals and groups to help fulfill Wish List needs and/or assemble items. Volunteers are also needed to help prepare and serve meals during the day when our drop-in is open and to work on the streets with our Street Outreach Team.
If you can help we ask that you contact us at 303.447.1206 or email@example.com. Please ensure Wish List items are still needed prior to hosting a collection drive or delivering them to Attention Homes.


text:
MOUNT VERNON — Barbara "Barb" A. Laug, 54, passed away peacefully Thursday, Jan. 20, 2011, after a short illness.
She was born Oct. 28, 1956, in Mansfield to Donald F. and Ruth C. (Nusbaum) Laug. She was a graduate of Mansfield St. Peter's High School and College of Mount Saint Joseph in Cincinnati. Barb retired from the Ohio Adult Parole Authority.
She is survived by her partner of 19 years, Diane Rice; mother, Ruth C. Laug; sisters, Deborah (Leonard) Kutney, Lyndia (Kendric) Whisler and Carla (David) Kulka; three nieces; one nephew; two great-nieces; and many dear friends.
She was preceded in death by her father.
Family and friends may visit Sunday, Jan. 23, from 2 to 4 p.m. at the Ontario Home of Wappner Funeral Directors, 100 S. Lexington-Springmill Road. Mass of Christian Burial will be in St. Peter's Catholic Church, 104 W. First St., on Monday, Jan. 24, at 11 a.m.
In lieu of flowers, the family suggests memorial contributions be made to the Catholic Relief Services or College of Mount Saint Joseph. Online guest registry at www.wappner.com.


text:
Skip to this page's content
Inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888
Learn More »
Search by:
Dancing in the Zocalo
Thank you 4 the canvass!
The beautiful colours of Mexico
Heading Home
Bailando en Mexico
A day of celebration
Buddhist Temple, Singapore
Sunday at Mitla
© 1996-2014 National Geographic Society. All rights reserved.


text:
From Justin Bieber to Bruno Mars, find out the chart-topping artists your kids are listening to
(16 Photos)
Sona Charaipotra
Aug 17, 2011 at 12:44AM
Shirlaine Forrest/WireImage
Bieber Fever has gripped the nation: parents, kids and celebs (like one Selena Gomez) alike are smitten. And Justin Bieber, 17, who's built his success on smash singles like "One Time," "Baby" and "One Less Lonely Girl" (from his hit debut, My World 2.0), is as known as much for his smooth style -- that hair, those eyes -- as for his music. In fact, the Usher protégé's 3D concert film, Never Say Never (released in February) took in more than $30 million at the box office. How's that for the first bona-fide YouTube phenomenon?
Yummy recipes, DIY projects, home decor, fashion and more curated by iVillage staffers.
The very dirty truth about fashion internships... DUN DUN @srslytheshow http://t.co/wfewf
Behind-the-scenes pics from iVillage.


text:
Man denies trespass chargeSeptember 13,2013Local man denies
a trespass charge
A Castleton man with a burglary conviction denied breaking into his grandfathers home.
Christopher Dodge, 24, returned to Rutland jail after pleading innocent Thursday in Rutland criminal court to a felony charge of unlawful trespass.
Police said Dodge was found in the Castleton home of his grandfather in June. Affidavits state the grandfather had left the home and asked another grandson to watch the place because he feared Dodge would rob the place.
The grandson found Dodge in the house and called police, affidavits said. Dodge was on probation after serving one year in prison following a conviction for burglarizing a different Castleton home in 2011, records show.
Immediately after the June incident, Dodges probation officer ordered a drug test. Dodge tested positive for cocaine, heroin and marijuana and he was jailed, records state.MORE IN This Just InBy Josh O'Gorman Full StoryBy Gordon Dritschilo Full StoryCASTLETON - Police have released a picture of a man who robbed a convenience store Monday night. Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: Dutch father of microbiology Antonie van Leeuwenhoek discovers the existence of one-celled organisms; in 1967, The Doors are booked to play the Ed Sullivan show; in 1858, freedom fighter Dred Scott dies on this day in St. Louis.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: No money this year for western rail project, Lola Aiken memorialized in Montpelier, Supreme Court Castleton murder suspect will remain in jail, Shaftbury man fires shots from his AK-47 into neighbor's home.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1959, Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev arrives in U.S. for historic 13-day visit; in 1987, Secretary of State George Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze sign nuclear reduction agreement.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: City celebrates completion of its newest mural, on West Street opposite the post office, more than $2 million in federal grants will bolster Vermont's health centers, Patrick McArdle reports on pending sale of Vermont papers.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: Henry Hudson sails up the Hudson River as far as present-day Albany, Leo Szilard has epiphany waiting for the light to change, 3 kids report a West Virginia close encounter in 1952.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: Who will run for mayor in Rutland next year? Has Bennington overcome its fear of twerking? Documentary 'Hungry Heart' packs the Paramount, and the city's Creek Path scores another million-plus dollars.


text:
"Brand New" Pharrell Ft. Justin Timberlake
Upload Audio - Download Music - World Perimere Brand New - Pharrell Ft. Justin Timberlake
Upload Audio - Download Music - World Perimere Brand New - Pharrell Ft. Justin Timberlake
"I was like, 'You won. Why are you posting your text messages? Just chill. Take your W, and if you feel you didn't deserve it, go get better – make better music.' Why do that? Why feel guilt?" - "You think those guys would pay homage to you if they won? This is how the world works: He made a brand of music that appealed to more people than me, Hov, Kanye and Kendrick. Whether people wanna say it's racial, or whether it's just the fact that he tapped into something we can't tap into. That's just how the cards fall. Own your sh*t." - Drizzy
Top 3 favorite gospel songs of all time.
Marshawn is an IDGAF type of guy. Love it. GO HAWKS.
This was my screenesaver way back when. Been rocking with this guy since Freshman year. #HappyBirthday @realcoleworld.
So, here's my 2014 GRAMMY Awards post…
*Note* I have listened to every album and song in each category that I've referenced. In other words, I'm not just talking out of my a**.
Most big stories from last nights 56th Annual GRAMMY Awards revolved around Kendrick Lamar. The Compton bred rapper was nominated for a total of seven awards, and didn't win one. Was he snubbed? For sure. What I took away from last night was that KDot is the people's champ, and unfortunately, not the Academy's. The lyrical value on Good Kid, M.A.A.D City alone should have been enough to receive at least ONE award. All this said, I do believe that Macklemore & Ryan Lewis had a brilliant year, and I don't think that they shouldn't have been represented in the rap categories, I just don't think that matched up to the competition in a few of the award categories.
I consider myself to be a true member of the Beyhive, so I'm going to keep it real. I was very disappointed with her performance last night. Not only was it kind of boring, she didn't seem on her game (missing beats, etc.). Especially as the show opener, I expected more out of her performance. Also, why was Jay wearing his tux? Just strange…
All night Bey just seemed out of. Must've been what she was sippin' on. Her dress was amazing though.
Hopefully next year, when's she's nominated for a million GRAMMYs (if the Academy doesn't fail us again), she'll be on point in true Bey fashion.
J. Cole
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why Born Sinner wasn't nominated for Rap Album of the year?! Nice move Academy (sarcasm). Just because Kanye is a "rapper" doesn't mean that Yeezus is a rap album! Born Sinner should have taken that spot.
His album was amazing, and 2013 was a great year for him. Why he wasn't nominated for more awards baffles me. Can't spend too much time on this one, or I'll get more upset.
Lana Del Rey
While I wasn't the biggest fan of The Great Gatsby, Young and Beautiful is AMAZING. I love you Adele, but I think that Lana got you on this one.
He won, Producer of the Year. YES. The hat was strange, but I ignored it considering he's so friggin' brilliant.
While I think that someone should/should've explained the importance of not placing nearly 400 years of blame and aggression on her white instructors, this 8th grader is on to something. It's a shame that instructors at her school fought to have her kicked out based on her interpretation of the given reading material, and her findings about the current state of education in the united states. I pray that she continues to think, write AND ACT on her ideals.
Today is our take your sissy to work day! She even got her own cubicle :) #shesonwinterbreak #mybosssaidputhertowork (at Colorado Center)
Kendrick Lamar and TDE body the Cypher. Season 2013 (10/15/2013)
Love her.
(via thatclassicprep)
Source: designsponge.com
Thank you # Snowmageddon.
My flight has been cancelled :( (at Novi, MI)
loading photos…
Tracey Lincoln, 2014 - 2020.