6

I have some knowledge of Jewish law, but it seems ambiguous to me in some areas, either because there are differing opinions, or no one has really explained to me the reasons for the opinions to be favored over the opposing opinions.

We read in Deuteronomy 24, that a ספר כריתת must be given to a wife after a divorce. This implies, of course, that the couple is married. In fact, there is sufficient Rabbinical opinion that an unmarried female companion is a Pilegesh, or concubine, which is a separate legal status.

However, in the Mishnah (Kiddushin) it is specified right at the beginning that a wife may be acquired through money, a contract or sexual intercourse. Kiddushin seems to occur when the woman accepts the sexual intercourse and participates in it.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/marriage.htm

Now, it's true that rabbis today do not consider sexual intercourse a valid way of acquiring a wife, but I'm not sure what gives them the authority to take away something that is written in the Talmud.

If I have relations with my girlfriends, and then we break up, should I be giving them a bill of divorcement? If we're not risking that her future relationships will be adulterous, it's only because of rabbinical pronouncements. Obviously Orthodox rabbis today aren't too concerned with non-virgins marrying their husbands, and don't inquire too much about the get from all their sexual partners. But I am not sure how all this came about.

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
Gregory Magarshak
  • 955
  • 6
  • 17
  • 4
    You need witnesses to make Kiddushin happen. A ring given in private is no good, so too private consensual sex. – Double AA Nov 13 '14 at 06:10
  • 1
    Even when acquiring a wife through sexual intercourse? What about during http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yichud#Laws_of_yichud ? – Gregory Magarshak Nov 13 '14 at 06:12
  • Witnesses to a seclusion with the stated intent of intercourse for the purpose of Kiddushin count as witnesses to the intercourse. The principal is known as הן הן עדי יחוד הן הן עדי ביאה. – Double AA Nov 13 '14 at 06:15
  • OK, so there has to be a stated intent of intercourse for consummating the Kiddushin? But that doesn't make sense to me, because of another rabbinical law that a woman may not have sex between Kiddushin and Nisuin. So how could a man ever acquire a wife through sexual intercourse if he wasn't allowed to have sex with her in the first place? – Gregory Magarshak Nov 13 '14 at 06:16
  • 2
    dupe? http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/16102/759 – Double AA Nov 13 '14 at 06:18
  • I'm not aware of any such rabbinic law? I'm aware of one which strongly discourages effecting Kiddushin through intercourse. Money is strongly encouraged. – Double AA Nov 13 '14 at 06:19
  • http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/477321/jewish/Kiddushin-Betrothal.htm

    Kiddushin is commonly translated as betrothal, but actually renders the bride and groom full-fledged husband and wife. After this point, if, G‑d forbid, they decided to part ways, a "get" (Jewish divorce) would be required. However, the bride and groom are not permitted to live together as husband and wife until the second stage, the nisu'in, is completed.

     – Gregory Magarshak Nov 13 '14 at 06:22
  • 1
    So what? There is no rabbinic prohibition there. They aren't fully married enough to allow living together (or to allow her to sue him for food and clothing, etc.). There is even one opinion in Rishonim that if they had intercourse then without intending to effect Nisuin that they are both obligated in the death penalty for sleeping with a betrothed maiden. – Double AA Nov 13 '14 at 06:24
  • So that contradicts the idea that one can effect Kiddushin through sexual intercourse. But yet people have sexual intercourse without being married. Bottom line, see the title of the question :-P – Gregory Magarshak Nov 13 '14 at 06:26
  • Nothing is contradicted. I can effect Kiddushin through intercourse. Then I can't have any more intercourse until Nisuin (which might be effected by intercourse (or a presumption thereof) as well). Where is the contradiction? – Double AA Nov 13 '14 at 06:28
  • It would mean that the first time you have intercourse, you are now mekedesh/et, and the next time you have intercourse you are liable for the death penalty. Are you saying you need two witnesses to your first time sex, in order to be really married? If everyone knows you're having premarital sex, I think that falls under pilegesh, which is why I included the section you removed. – Gregory Magarshak Nov 13 '14 at 06:34
  • If a man seduces a virgin for whom the bride-price has not been paid (lo orasah לֹא־אֹרָשָׂה), and lies with her, he must make her his wife by payment of a bride-price (mahor yim’harenah 4117 מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה). 16 If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still weigh out silver in accordance with the bride-price (kamohar 4117 כְּ‍מֹהַר) for virgins. – Gregory Magarshak Nov 13 '14 at 06:36
  • I'm not sure what the problem is. Incidentally we don't rule that they would get the death penalty in the case described. Do you see any reason I shouldn't close this question as a dupe? – Double AA Nov 13 '14 at 06:41
  • I guess you can close it as a duplicate. I just think that all this is related: Pilegesh was the proper institution for this, but now that that part of the question has been eliminated it's become totally equivalent to the other one. – Gregory Magarshak Nov 13 '14 at 06:51
  • There is a discussion in the Talmud about relations causing marriage. It says that the relations need to be done with the intent to cause marriage. It also addresses what 'generic intent' is. And lastly, it also mentions that at times the Rabbis had the ability to 'change the intent' of the relations. Of course, given that this topic spans pages of the Talmud and I'm writing this in under 500 characters, this comment is bound to have a bit less detail than the original sources ;) – Salmononius2 Nov 13 '14 at 16:47
  • I think this question should be reopened because my original question was asked from the perspective of the woman's obligation, whereas this is asked as a man, and there may in fact be some discongruence in terms of specific responsibilities. – SAH Dec 09 '15 at 00:31
  • I remember a reading a Teshuva from Rav sternbuch shlita if a couple married via a civil marriage or reform marriage whether they needed a get...he seemed to imply the civil wasn't really an issue since they had not kavanah but the reform was more problematic and would probably require a get l'chumra. Kal v'chomer seems one wouldn't be required if there was no intent of any marriage http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/06/rav-sternbuch-get-for-civil-reform.html . Ask your LOR –  Jun 28 '19 at 14:38

0 Answers0