I recall reading that the biblical prohibition on adultery applies to sexual relations between a married woman and anyone other than her husband. If so, it would not seem to prohibit a married man from making use of a prostitute. Is this correct?
Also, I have heard that in fact it’s not uncommon for orthodox Jewish men to make use of prostitutes. Is that correct? And if so, is the practice frowned upon? How do their wives feel about it?
The Commandment “Thou Shalt not Commit Adultry” is stated in the male imperative; If it been intended only towards women, it would have been in the female. So to answer your first question, no.
As for Ultra-Orthodox men visiting prostitutes - it happens, and probably more than thye admit. It makes sense: the Haredim are, by and large, a sexually repressed society, with men and women marrying young (often without knowing each other well before the wedding), and have large families; prostitues are a common outlet for such people. Their society naturally doesn’t look that fondly at the practice, but they tend to be tight-knit and suspicious of outsiders, so they avoid “hanging their laundry in public.”
You just know this question had to be posted on Saturday 
I’m Christian, not Jewish, and I’ve always been intrigued by a story in the early Old Testament (can’t recall where, exactly, sorry) that touches on this.
A man’s married son died shortly after marrying and did not produce an heir. So the father, in accordance with custom/the law, promised his widowed daughter-in-law that his younger son would marry her. However, the father failed to make good on his promise. So the daughter-in-law disguised herself and posed as a prostitute and waited along a road she knew her father-in-law would be traveling. When he came along she seduced him, and when it turned out he wasn’t carrying any money she took his signet ring (or maybe his cloak or staff, I don’t remember) as a token of his promise to pay later.
Jump ahead a few months, when the daughter-in-law is visibly pregnant. The father’s friends/family/associates come to him and report that his daughter-in-law has “played the harlot” and is with child. She is brought before him and accused, whereupon she produces, in front of everybody, the token he had given her. She shows that he is the father of her child, and states exactly why she did what she did: he didn’t keep his promise to give her to his younger son, and so she did what she had to do to produce an heir for her late husband.
The father, convicted of his sin, then makes good on his original promise and marries her to his younger son.
Throughout the story, there is not a single word condemning the father for visiting what he believed to be a prostitute. Though, granted, the story may have been in Genesis, which would have placed it before the Mosaic Law was handed down, but again, I can’t recall where the story is found.
Regards,
Shodan
Thanks!
Here in Minnesota, even now the current law on adultery makes it a crime only a married woman can commit–married men can have sex with as many single women (or men) as they want without being guilt of adultery.
I noticed this when serving on a Legislative Commission intended to rewrite the non-felony statutes of Minnesota. We speculated that it was related to old notions of women as property – adultery is reducing the ‘value’ of a married woman, but that didn’t apply to a man.
Exactly.
You are correct that if it been intended only towards women, it would have been in the female, but Hebrew does not have any gender-neutral words, and so the male is used also for things which apply to both. For example, “Thou Shalt Not Steal” is also in the male imperative, but apllies to both.
The real answer to the OP is that other parts of the Torah teach that a woman may have only one husband, and that a man may have several wives. For a man to use a prostitute, however, would be an involvement with her illicit activity, which he is not allowed to do.
It’s to be noted here that many Old Testament stories report people doing bad things without condemning them, but that doesn’t mean that they condone them, either. The purpose of those stories isn’t to condemn nor condone, but simply to recount what happened. When a passage in the Old Testament is intended as an actual guide about how people should (as opposed to do) behave, it makes that very clear (thou shalt not, and all that).
I am a Jewish person, and I believe that would be the least of Judah’s problems in that situation. 