The status of a concubine with kiddushin, but no ketubah, was as follows: Regarding adultery and incest, she was considered a wife; in financial matters, her consort’s responsibility was limited, and he was obligated for neither maintenance nor ransom, but, if he became tired of her, he had to divorce her(Adret Responsa V,#242).
A concubine actually needed no formal divorce(get), but some felt hat tor the sake of public appearance, she should have a get. If the man with whom she lived did not wish it, or had simply disappeared, she could remarry without a get(Shulhan Arukh, Even Ha-ezer 26, 26.1). The children of a concubine bore no blemish and possessed all the rights of other children, i.e., inheritances etc.(Adret, Responsa, vol. IV,#14, 315) A concubine who entered the relationship without kiddushin or ketubah needed no divorce when the relationship ended; in fact, a man could simply give her to his son(Asheri,#32.1; Ribash, #395). This woman was simply a mistress; she could not be charged with adultery, although she could be flogged for lewd conduct, and she had no legal or financial standing.
All this would show that two forms of concubinage have existed in Jewish tradition till the beginning of the 19th century. Both of them were accepted only reluctantly(bedi-avad). The practice of concubinage was rare in northern Europe and became infrequent even in the Mediterranean basin after the 16th century. It continued to be discussed in the codes and in occasional responsa.
This discussion has clearly shown us that Judaism sought to remove the practice of concubinage and various authorities prohibited
it. Only the Biblical example made it difficult to eliminate it entirely as
211