8

This question does a great job of explaining the concept of polygamy in Jewish law and normative practice, past and present.

My question is:

What if a married (let's say Ashkenazi) Jewish man, married a (heretofore) single Jewish woman?

What punishment(s) does he incur?

Community
  • 1

2 Answers2

7

He would be excommunicated per the Cheirem D'Rabbeinu Gershom.

Gershon Gold
  • 139,471
  • 12
  • 231
  • 553
  • 4
    Is that automatic: the cherem d'rabenu Gershom excommunicates him and all the lack of rights and privileges thereunto appertaining come into effect? Or does it merely give communities cause to excommunicate him? – msh210 Jan 29 '12 at 17:41
  • What is Cherem today? Synagogues won't count him in a minyan? Won't give him an aliyah l'torah? What is it? Is it at the discretion of each individual synagogue, nowadays when we don't have a Sanhedrin, or even a "rav ha ir" typically? –  Jan 29 '12 at 19:32
  • Furthermore: Rabbeinu Gershom lived from 960 - 1040 CE. It's not clear in exactly which year he made the decree. It's also not clear if its meant to expire "in a millenium", or "at the end of the millenium" (fifth millenium on the Jewish calendar, which ended in 1240 CE). Even according to the longer expiry date, if he made the decree earlier in his life, the ban has either expired or is about to expire. Given all of this, are synagogue rabbis REQUIRED to physically ban a Gershom decree violator from participation? –  Jan 29 '12 at 19:36
  • 2
    @Will, on your last point, Rabbeinu Tam is known to have reissued these decrees for all time (this fact is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Talmudis article on the Cherem - will have to see if I can find an online source). – Alex Jan 29 '12 at 20:08
  • @Alex Rashi was born the same year that Rabbeinu Gershom died - 1040 CE. His grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, was born in 1100 CE. Did he have the same rate of acceptance as THE preeminent Ashkenazi posek, a century earlier? We all know what happened with his tefillin dispute. –  Jan 29 '12 at 20:32
  • @Will: there is a difference between halachic opinions (in which Rabbeinu Tam might be one view among many) and takkanos (which were promulgated by the leaders of various communities at a meeting chaired by him, and so bear his name - lehavdil, the way that we attribute laws to the "administration of President so-and-so" even though there are lots of lawmakers and others involved). Rabbeinu Gershom's original takkanos were issued in the same way: they're not just on his own authority, great as he was, but on the authority of the contemporary rabbanim of Ashkenazic Jewry. – Alex Jan 29 '12 at 20:46
  • @Alex Those are Rabbeinu Gershom's takkanos - are you saying that Rabbeinu Tam's takkanos also had the full backing of all of his contemporaries? –  Jan 29 '12 at 20:58
  • @Will: I don't know if "all," but according to Maharam Rothenburg (cited here - I haven't yet been able to find the original in his teshuvos), the attendees at this conference included a real "Who's Who of French Jewry": Rabbeinu Tam, Rashbam, Raavan, and some 250 other rabbanim. – Alex Jan 30 '12 at 07:02
  • @Alex excellent research. I 100% agree that Rabbeinu Tam was among the "Who's who" back then. I'm just not sure if his 'extension' of Rabbeinu Gershom's takana obligates Jews today. If the original Rabbeinu Gershom takana has expired, perhaps the Jewish people can indeed have a serious discussion about the restitution of polygamy. The "shidduch crisis" is leaving many girls unmarried, and causing terrible emotional distress. I know it's not likely, but don't we owe it to the bnos yisrael to at least consider it? –  Jan 30 '12 at 08:16
  • @Will, I'm not really seeing any basis for an assumption that his extension isn't as binding as the original takkanah. Both of them were issued by the common consent of the leading rabbanim of their times. (Anyway: let's suppose that indeed we had the power to revoke this takkanah. What good would that do for the "shidduch crisis"? 99% of Jewry today live in countries where polygamy is illegal anyway, so dina d'malchusa dina applies.) – Alex Jan 30 '12 at 16:34
  • 1
    @Alex, AFAIK (IANAL), in the States, dina d'malchusa dina would outlaw polygamous legal marriages, not polygamous religious ones where no civil marriage is entered into. – msh210 Jan 30 '12 at 17:04
  • @Alex It's not about having the power to revoke a takanah. It's a rare thing to find a built-in expiration date. Maybe Rabbeinu Gershom had some kind of ruach hakodesh that we would need to reinstate polygamy some time after his decree? –  Jan 30 '12 at 17:18
  • @msh210 Great point - also, in places like Israel, secular laws can be changed to reflect the new reality in halacha. Israel already allows polygamous families married outside the country to remain married upon their entry / return. –  Jan 30 '12 at 17:21
  • 1
    @msh210: IANAL either, but it would be quite likely to be recognized as a common-law marriage. – Alex Jan 30 '12 at 21:38
  • @Alex, not in most states, apparently. – msh210 Jan 30 '12 at 21:41
  • 2
    @Will: it's not all that rare for there to be an expiration. See Pischei Teshuvah, Yoreh De'ah 1:19, who also cites several views that indeed there is no expiration date on it at all. (And, by the way, can you really be certain that in all that time we are the first generation to experience a "shidduch crisis" (not even getting into how much of a crisis it really is, ואכמ"ל)? I think that there must have been times that were far worse - times when unmarried girls were subject to the whims of local gentile rulers, for example.) – Alex Jan 30 '12 at 21:43
  • 1
    @Alex I didn't say that we are the first generation to experience a shidduch crisis. However, we ARE the first generation to experience a shidduch crisis since the time that Rabbeinu Gershom's ban expired (according to the longer expiry date). –  Jan 31 '12 at 06:41
-7

Nothing, because he wouldn't have done anything wrong according to Torah, halakha, nor any authoritative Jewish body which has any ability to rule any matter for any one of the major communities of the Jewish people. R Gershom ruled for the Jews of one city for a certain time. To try to say what he did has the apparent weight of the entire Sanhedrin is absolutely absurd and wrong.

Aman
  • 522
  • 3
  • 9
  • 1
    Why do you need the full weight of an entire Sanhedrin to put someone in Cherem? I'm pretty sure even any one Talmid Chacham can do it. – Double AA Mar 02 '12 at 13:51
  • 3
    Aside from @DoubleAA's objection to your answer, the ban was fully accepted by all of Ashkenazi Jewry - and even many parts of Sepharadi Jewry. It's codified. It's Halachah. It's a done deal. – Seth J Mar 02 '12 at 15:19
  • 1
    @SethJ while I agree that the one who wrote this answer is ignorant of the halachic process and disrespectful to it - see the extended discussion in the comments on Gershon Gold's answer re: "it's a done deal." –  Mar 02 '12 at 15:28
  • 2
    I'm not denying the fact that some people dispute its legitimacy, but there is no mainstream Ashkenazi Posek today of any stripe who will go so far as to sanction and officiate a polygamous marriage. – Seth J Mar 02 '12 at 15:43
  • @Will you didn't bring a single Ashkenazi posek saying that one could marry multiple wives. – Rabbi Yaakov Mar 02 '12 at 16:51
  • @RabbiYaakov I wasn't arguing for or against polygamy. Still, absence of a psak isn't proof of anything. –  Mar 02 '12 at 17:04
  • 1
    No one has to abide by R' Gershom's decree that was apparently "accepted by all". He can't make asur what is mutar by Torah/halakha, bar none. If a community wants to put someone in herem for it, go ahead. I never said they couldn't. That would just be absurd, that's all. – Aman Mar 03 '12 at 18:48
  • @Will there are no poskim that permit and almost (which speak about the subject) forbid. I think that is a done deal. – Rabbi Yaakov Mar 05 '12 at 04:27