7

Supposing there are a Jewish man and woman who are the only survivors of a crash landing near a deserted island, and their respective families have written them off for dead. Over time as they struggle to survive, they fall in love. According to a previously answered question they cannot have a full Jewish marriage due to lack of witnesses.

This question asks: Can they contract any lesser type of marriage? Or does the Law strictly require the pair live chastely until they die of old age?

Community
  • 1
Andrew Jonathan
  • 81
  • 2
  • 2
    The halakhic answer is as noted at the answer above. I also want to point out that there is a well-known Jewish folktale, first found in a manuscript of Midrash Tanhuma, about a king (usually Solomon) who locks his daughter in a tower but her destined husband finds her and they marry with Gabriel and Michael (or heaven and earth, in other versions) as witnesses. There's also the Talmudic story (Ta'anit 8a) of a man and woman who are betrothed with a well and a weasel as witnesses. – Noam Sienna Oct 14 '13 at 01:19
  • 1
    I restated the question. Are there any forms of marriage which are less than fully halakhic that a stranded couple could be allowed to agreed to? – Andrew Jonathan Oct 14 '13 at 02:29
  • 2
    @NoamSienna I will restrain myself and simply say that you are getting the Gemara in Taanit WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. The Gemara is talking about making good on your word, and in that context mentions a story of a couple who pledged that they would in the future marry each other. "The weasel and the well" would testify about the pledge if either side denied it, but the binding force here is simply that of a vow, no different than if I promised not to eat potato chips -- no witnesses needed. They were NOT married at that point! Her crime was breaking a promise, not adultery. – Shalom Oct 15 '13 at 16:18
  • I re-edited the question, per respondent's answer. I don't think the answer is a bit silly. If the "Cast Away" scenario can happen to a single guy, it can also happen to a couple. Fortunately, marriage is not "required" to make children of an isolated Jewish couple, Jewish. So I suppose the couple could make the promise to each other and then throw themselves on G-d's mercy afterwards, as the respondent says. There would still be hope that one day (as civilization becomes more complex and covers more of the globe), that their child(ren) would be found eventually. – Andrew Jonathan Oct 15 '13 at 18:44
  • 1
    @AndrewJonathan FORGET THE PROMISE!!! There is no marriage here. Anything they would do is premarital relations. – Shalom Oct 15 '13 at 18:46
  • @Shalom: says you. Genesis has no witnesses to the first marriage made between two human beings, aside from G-d. A promise between a man and woman to be man and wife should be good everywhere. That definition of marriage dates from the dawn of humanity, and I don't see why the Talmud should supercede it. – Andrew Jonathan Oct 15 '13 at 18:52
  • 5
    @AndrewJonathan Shalom is telling you what Judaism says about this. If you want to make up on your own what you think God and the Bible say, you are more than welcome to do so to your heart's content on some other site. – Double AA Oct 15 '13 at 19:02
  • @DoubleAA, sticks and stones... etc. I am Jewish, Conservative level. My understanding oF Judaism is defined in layers: that the Talmud (Oral Law) supplements the Bible (Torah) but does not supercede it; and that the opinions of poseks supplement the Talmud but does not supercede it. A situation which cannot apply at a more refined level of interpretation has to yield to a more original source. If the rabbinical definition of marriage cannot apply then the situation must yield to a more basic definition. That is my thesis. – Andrew Jonathan Oct 15 '13 at 19:29
  • 1
    @AndrewJonathan My statement was not an insult and I'm not particularly interested who you are and what your thesis is. You are welcome to ask questions about Judaism here, but don't complain when someone tells you what Judaism says about an issue. – Double AA Oct 15 '13 at 19:31
  • @msh210 Why is this still not a dupe? The other question asks "Is there any way they can declare themselves married in God's eyes alone?" – Double AA Oct 15 '13 at 19:36
  • @DoubleAA that was a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman, who can't get married in any way no matter what the ceremony. – Shalom Oct 15 '13 at 19:56
  • @AndrewJonathan afraid that's not our view. Adam's laws were replaced by the Noahide laws (i.e. Adam wasn't allowed to eat meat, but I am), which were in turn replaced (for Jews) by the 613. – Shalom Oct 15 '13 at 19:58
  • @Shalom I appreciate your clarification although it certainly could have calmer in tone. Perhaps 'betrothed' was the wrong word: I was merely bringing the aggada in Ta'anit as an example of the folkloric motif of using non-human "witnesses" in the context of intent to marry — I did not mean to suggest that they were actually witnesses in the halakhic sense or that the couple had been halakhically married. – Noam Sienna Oct 15 '13 at 21:14
  • Someone on the other question said "Actually it may be permissible according to those who permit Pilegesh (provided she keeps Taharas Hamishpacha and is Jewish) see SAEven Hoezer 26:1. Any thoughts?" (If this makes a good answer to the question here, someone who knows more about it can post it as such.) – Annelise Oct 16 '13 at 01:42
  • 1
    Their families have "written them off for dead" - but their families are still alive, right? So does that not mean that it would be eishes ish for them to marry? – DonielF Apr 06 '17 at 02:15

2 Answers2

3

The question is silly, but I can help you reorient it a bit. The halachic definition of marriage needs two witnesses, and Noahides require that it be clearly known to society that she's his wife. Neither works here. Nor do I know or care why a "Noahide definition" or "Edenic definition" would matter here.

The wiser question is -- "would a couple in this situation be expected to observe the prohibition on non-marital relations"? From a technical legal standpoint is one question (e.g. if we don't follow Rambam's opinion it's a rabbinic prohibition, which has more leeway); in terms of how G-d would judge them is another.

Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • There is no reason Noahides on an island couldn't marry, but that wouldn't help for Jews – wfb Oct 15 '13 at 17:05
  • @Shalom Wouldn't the more relevant issue be the prohibition on relations with a niddah? That's a pretty severe one... – SAH Mar 21 '17 at 19:58
  • 2
    @SAH in theory yes; but then again, maybe their desert island is near the ocean so that could count as a mikvah ... it's a hypothetical, but yes, good point: nidah is a more severe prohibition than premarital relations. – Shalom Mar 21 '17 at 21:03
3

Several sources (listed here) namely:

רשב"א כתובות מ. ד"ה וניתי עשה, דן בדבריו המנחת חינוך א-ג [כב] ד"ה והנה אם אין מזדמן. וכן כתב גריפ"פ לא תעשה רסד, רצא. בדפיו ד"ה וביותר, וספר המקנה נו-א אות כא

Would say that the positive commandment of Being Fruitful and Multiplying may override the negative commandment of "marriage" without proper Kiddushin.

Note that there are several questions raised by this about how long, exactly, such permission would extend. For example, until after they have the required number of children (a boy and a girl), until she could no longer have children, etc.

Yishai
  • 31,937
  • 1
  • 62
  • 130
  • All of this is ignoring the simple fact that as described by the OP, the stranded couple would not be obliged beyond the kiddushin from "biah rishonah" with it's accompanying blessing like is found in Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1 and the accompanying Gemara. Their marriage would not be lesser in any way. – Yaacov Deane Nov 23 '15 at 16:29
  • 2
    @YaacovDeane ??? I'm really confused what you are trying to say, but it sounds a bit like you think Kiddushei Biah doesn't need witnesses, which is definitely false. – Double AA Nov 23 '15 at 16:32
  • 1
    @DoubleAA: First of all, remember that this is a theoretical question. But in the details originally posted the conditions are highly unusual and restrictive. The requirements under normal circumstances, like witnesses, etc., would not apply. They are simply not there to be had. In the end, remember that we are to choose life and that which leads to an increase in life, meaning children. On the simplest level, that requires husband and wife. The Mishnah is clear that acquiring a wife is accomplished in three ways. Under the conditions described, it would be a valid Jewish marriage. – Yaacov Deane Nov 23 '15 at 17:06
  • @YaacovDeane Nothing of what you just said was of any help for me in understanding your point. Please try again. Explain what about the given conditions allows for a marriage to happen, and in what manner the marriage is effectuated. If you want to claim that a certain standard requirement is obviated, please explain how you know that. – Double AA Nov 23 '15 at 17:08
  • @YaacovDeane, interesting rejection of the whole idea of עדי קיום. – Yishai Nov 23 '15 at 17:09
  • @Yishai: Like the Rebbe emphasizes in many places over many different subjects, it is called "Torat Chayim", the Torah of Life...That is the main principle. – Yaacov Deane Nov 23 '15 at 17:13
  • @YaacovDeane, except when it doesn't agree with our pre-conception of what the consequence of that principle should be. – Yishai Nov 23 '15 at 17:19
  • @Yishai: Here's an interesting comment sort of touching on the concept from Wikiyeshiva. Depending on the circumstances the witness requirements may change but it doesn't invalidate the marriage......לדוגמא, המקדש אשה בפני עד אחד בלבד - אין חוששין לקידושיו (קידושין סה.).

    החולק על דין זה הוא רב פפא, שסובר שהמקדש בעד אחד חוששין לקידושיו (קידושין סה:). ואין הלכה כמותו (שו"ע אה"ע מב-ב. אמנם הרמ"א שם הביא שיש מחמירים וחוששים לקידושיו).

     – Yaacov Deane Nov 23 '15 at 17:38
  • http://www.yeshiva.org.il/wiki/index.php?title=עדי_קיום – Yaacov Deane Nov 23 '15 at 17:39
  • @YaacovDeane, I have no idea how you see that from that concept. One witness = no marriage. However, some say that we have to be concerned maybe there was a marriage. What requirement changed, how are we not invalidated the marriage? – Yishai Nov 23 '15 at 17:43
  • In the quote, the normal requirement of two witness for kiddushin is being discussed in regard to contested and uncontested kiddushin. In the case of uncontested, the single witness was valid. And Shulchan Aruch holds that way even though it acknowledges there are those who are machmir about the subject. The witness requirements vary depending upon circumstance. In the OP, you have Jewish man & woman, sole survivors on deserted island and presumed by their families dead (according to halacha). They both want to enter into marriage. No witnesses are possible but there is no possible znut. – Yaacov Deane Nov 23 '15 at 18:07
  • @YaacovDeane, אין חוששין לקידושין means they are not married and there is nothing to worry about. – Yishai Nov 23 '15 at 19:01
  • @Yishai and how are you reading the Rav Papa and the Rema? That Rav Papa does accept the kiddushin? And those who are machmir say a single witness is valid? Either way, it indicates the general point I brought up. Namely that requirements for witnesses vary according to conditions. And that leads back to the conclusion that for the conditions from the OP, they would be married and should have children. Whether you disagree with the way I am stating it or not, your answer is in agreement with the conclusion. – Yaacov Deane Nov 23 '15 at 19:10
  • @YaacovDeane, Rav Papa and the Rema are not conditional - they say the same thing always. חוששין לקידושין would mean that we require Chumra actions that presume the Kiddushin worked. So if she wants to marry someone else she needs a Get. But they don't just go on and be married without redoing it. My answer is saying this is a circumstance where there is no marriage - and that's OK. – Yishai Nov 23 '15 at 19:26
  • @Yishai What if the man had already done his pru urvu mitzvah? (re: (the positive commandment of Being Fruitful and Multiplying may override the negative commandment of "marriage" without proper Kiddushin.)" – SAH Mar 21 '17 at 19:55
  • @SAH, that is what I was alluding to in my answer with "after they have the requisite number of children". Sure, there are many such extra circumstances which may change the actual conclusion. – Yishai Mar 21 '17 at 21:40