0

Let's assume that we expound the reasoning behind the pesukim for the sake of this question, a matter which is a dispute between R' Shimon and R' Yehudah. Let's also assume that I don't get put in cheirem for asking this question.

Polyandry (also known as eishes ish) is forbidden as a capital crime, because it would be unclear who the father is, which can lead to all sorts of issues, such as Kibbud Av and arayos (Sefer HaChinuch Mitzvah 35).

Nowadays DNA testing is possible, and with a little swab of saliva it's possible to determine who your parents and ancestors are. With this technology, this reason is a moot point. According to R' Shimon, therefore, would eishes ish be permissible nowadays?

(This is all a theoretical question. I am not assuming that we pasken like R' Shimon. All I am asking is, given these assumptions, is my conclusion correct.)

Community
  • 1
DonielF
  • 34,262
  • 4
  • 40
  • 143

1 Answers1

4

Paskening like R' Shimon is not the issue. R' Shimon does not mention anywhere that the reason for the Torah's decree against adultery is simply to avoid issues of lineage, child support, or honoring parents. Nowhere in Shas or Poskim does such a suggestion exist. The Sefer HaChinuch (and the Moreh Nevuchim as well) may give certain reasons in logic for certain mitzvos. That does not mean that their Halachic stance was to espouse an opinion that the act would be permitted if those reasons no longer applied.

However, the Torah itself does in fact give one reason. Bamidbar 5:11-13 "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: Should any man's wife go astray and deal treacherously with him and a man lie with her carnally, but it was hidden from her husband's eyes, but she was secluded and she became defiled[with the suspected adulterer] and there was no witness against her, and she was not seized."

The Torah calls it "treachery" and "defiled". That seems to describe something a lot worse than confusing "Father's Day".

For instance, adultery is still a capital offense, even if the woman is pregnant, or cannot have children, or is not impregnated by the adulterous union. Hence, no question of lineage applies.

David Kenner
  • 10,768
  • 19
  • 33
  • "That does not mean that their Halachic stance was to espouse an opinion that the act would be permitted if those reasons no longer applied." None of this seems relevant. The OP asked a question according to certain assumptions. You can either answer according to those assumptions or demonstrate them to be spurious. You have done neither. Whether not Rambam would apply ta'ama dikra is irrelevant. The question wasn't about Ramabm, but R. Shimon. Nor is it relevant whether or not R. Shimon expresses the particular reason; the question seeks to apply his methodology. – mevaqesh Apr 09 '17 at 06:08
  • "The Torah calls it "treachery" and "defiled". That seems to describe something a lot worse than confusing "Father's Day"." There is no evidence whatsoever from any of this that these reasons precede the mitsvah. Whatever the reason for the misvah, after a woman's relationship with her husband has been defined as precluding a relationship with another man, she is betraying him by engaging in a relationship with another man! – mevaqesh Apr 09 '17 at 06:10
  • "For instance, adultery is still a capital offense, even if the woman is pregnant, or cannot have children, or is not impregnated by the adulterous union" Can you demonstrate that any of this is the case according to the opinions which the OP asked about? You seem to be ignoring the question. – mevaqesh Apr 09 '17 at 06:11
  • @mevaqesh The answer took into account the assumptions and demonstrates them to be spurious as well. You may be reading the answer incorrectly. The biggest proof R' Shimon's methodology does not apply here is because R' Shimon never mentions it. :) – David Kenner Apr 09 '17 at 08:34
  • Is there any reason to assume we have a record of every application of R. Shimon's methodology? If this is your "biggest proof" then it appears you are wanting for evidence. – mevaqesh Apr 09 '17 at 08:39
  • @mevaqesh You are mistaken. Betrayal applies if you are violating a personal trust or duty you owe to another. If the Torah simply forbade the relationship due to questions of lineage, it would not use the word "treachery". It would just show she violated a prohibition. So now, yes...treachery indicates an opposite taama d'kra, It is forbidden because it is a treachery. That reason precedes the mitzvah. – David Kenner Apr 09 '17 at 08:41
  • Remember to always include relevant information in posts themselves. – mevaqesh Apr 09 '17 at 08:42
  • @mevaqesh There is no want of evidence. It is called a valid argument from silence. If the Shas, Poskim, R' Shimon, and the Sefer HaChinuch (upon which the OP's assumption is based) fail to mention a change in Halachah,were the identity of the father guaranteed, then we know for a certainty that there is no use of R' Shimon's methodology here. Especially since the verse calls it betrayal and defilement. Again, that has nothing to do with lineage. No, you do not need a record of every application of R' Shimon's methodology. The argument from silence and alternate reasons in the verse are good. – David Kenner Apr 09 '17 at 08:49
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – mevaqesh Apr 09 '17 at 08:51
  • You seem confused on numerous counts. If nothing else, the OP emphasised that his question is according to a combination of views; not a practical halakhic question. There is no reason any specific halakhic source would address something that isn't according to halakha. Remember to always in include all relevant information in posts themselves. – mevaqesh Apr 09 '17 at 08:53
  • @mevaqesh Shas, R' Shimon, and the Sefer HaChinuch are not practical Halachic sources. So, Yes..we would in fact expect them to discuss theory in Halachah or "what if" scenarios within Halachah when explaining things. – David Kenner Apr 09 '17 at 09:45
  • +1 i can't believe people mark you down when you gave such a good answer which is right. people are only interested in an answer saying this atrocity is permissible – user15464 Oct 20 '17 at 13:00
  • @user15464 TY, much appreciated, Good Shabbos :) – David Kenner Oct 20 '17 at 17:36
  • What is badmibar? Also polyandry is NOT treacherous. All the guys know they're sharing. There is no treachery – user4951 Jul 24 '19 at 04:33
  • Nice answer. One point - the Maharik (maybe §100, I can't remember exactly) explains that this deal treacherously with him which causes her to be forbidden to her husband is not directly related to the prohibition to be adulterous. In specific cases (like אונס ורצון בהדדי הדדי), she transgressed no issur, but still acted in betrayal and will therefore be forbidden. Accordingly, there is no direct correlation. – chortkov2 Jul 24 '19 at 07:58
  • @user4951, it does say Bamidbar I believe. Thanks for the upvotes people. – David Kenner Jul 24 '19 at 18:43
  • @chortkov2 nice point from the Maharik, thanks – David Kenner Jul 24 '19 at 18:44
  • I am very confused. Adultery is treacherous. If my sugar baby or wife say the kid is mine and it's not, that's treacherous. If my sugar baby is willing to be mine and my bro, I do not see where the treachery. I know it's awkward and I think most people feel yach. However, there is nothing treacherous. – user4951 Jul 25 '19 at 08:01
  • I believe treachery is used similar to defiled. The Torah defines Torah marriage. It would be the act of treachery "against him" even if the husband is selling his wife on ebay. Why? Because its treachery vs. the institution of their marriage. In your case, both the man and the woman are treating it treacherously by even agreeing to such a thing. But if she commits adultery, even with his knowledge and permission, the Torah calls it that she was treacherous and the marriage is broken. The husband cannot continue as a husband like that, or he is just insane. – David Kenner Jul 25 '19 at 17:17