Question on love affairs and illegitimate children.
Jordi Sod
I have a hypothetical question:
A single Sephardic (Damascus) woman has an affair with an Ashkenazi married
man who has children. According to the Sephardic interpretation of halacha:
- Is she married to the guy? If so, what kind of marriage is it? If she
dumps the guy, can she get married to somebody else later on?
- What is the status of any children resulting from the affair? Are they
mamzerim?
Thanks,
Jordi Sod,
single Ashkenazi guy without children.
Binyamin Dissen
On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:22:46 -0700 Jordi Sod <jo...@mail.internet.com.mx>
wrote:
:>I have a hypothetical question:
:>
:>A single Sephardic (Damascus) woman has an affair with an Ashkenazi married
:>man who has children. According to the Sephardic interpretation of halacha:
There is no difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazi views on this.
:>
:>- Is she married to the guy? If so, what kind of marriage is it? If she
:>dumps the guy, can she get married to somebody else later on?
She is not married unless there is a Kesuva (Both A & S).
No Kesuva, no marriage. Kesuva, marriage (both A & S).
If there was a Kesuva after the Get. Otherwise, Yes (both A & S).
:>- What is the status of any children resulting from the affair? Are they
:>mamzerim?
Regular Jews whos Yichus follows the father. Not mamzerim. The marital
state that the male portion of the "affair" is irrelevant for all the
questions.
The differences between both cases may be that the A wife would be able to
insist on a Get and to receive the Kesuva as a standard condition of a A
marriage is that the husband will not take any more wifes. I am not sure
about S kesuvas.
:>
:>Thanks,
:>
:>Jordi Sod,
:>single Ashkenazi guy without children.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Jonathan Kamens
In article <31804F...@mail.internet.com.mx>, Jordi Sod <jo...@mail.internet.com.mx> writes:
|> A single Sephardic (Damascus) woman has an affair with an Ashkenazi married
|> man who has children. According to the Sephardic interpretation of halacha:
I'm not sure that there is much of a difference between the Ashkenazic and
Sephardic halacha in this particular case.
|> - Is she married to the guy?
Although bi'a (that is, sleeping together) can cause a man and woman to become
married to each other, that is the result only when both the man and the woman
are performing the sexual act *with the intent of it making them married*. If
they do not both have that intent, then it doesn't make them married.
I believe that some would also say that it can't make them married unless
there are witnesses to it (not to the actual sexual act, but rather to the man
and woman entering a private room together in a manner which makes it clear to
the witnesses that they intend to have sex).
|> If so, what kind of marriage is it?
I suspect that even if they're not actually married because of the sex, for
the reasons I outlined above, most halachic authorities would say that they
should still get a get (i.e., a ritual divorce) before the woman has relations
with any other men, to remove all doubt that whatever fragments of a marriage
existed have been removed. This is even more true if the affair is over a
long period of time, as opposed to a "one-night stand" when it is totally
clear that the man and woman haven't made any sort of commitment to each other.
|> If she
|> dumps the guy, can she get married to somebody else later on?
See above.
|> - What is the status of any children resulting from the affair? Are they
|> mamzerim?
No, since mamzerim can only result from a marriage that is prohibited by Torah
law, and even then from only some such marriages (e.g., I believe that the
children of a union between a Kohen and a divorcee are not mamzerim). Since
Torah law permits the man to have multiple wives, under Torah law he could
marry the woman with whom he had the affair, so any children of that union are
not mamzerim.
On the other hand, if she cohabited on a long-term basis with *another* man
before the man mentioned here, then some authorities might say that she had
established a marriage of sorts with that previous lover, in which case if she
did not get a get from him when she left him, any children of the affair being
described here *would* be mamzerim, because she in essence committed adultery
against the previous lover.
(Standard disclaimer.... I am not a posek. Always consult a real posek if you
want a real p'sak. Poskim don't waste their time answering Usenet postings. :-)
Warren Burstein
>I have a hypothetical question:
>A single Sephardic (Damascus) woman has an affair with an Ashkenazi married
>man who has children. According to the Sephardic interpretation of halacha:
>- Is she married to the guy? If so, what kind of marriage is it? If she
>dumps the guy, can she get married to somebody else later on?
I have heard of some cases in which a couple living together were
considered by some authorities (I don't know if they were A or S) to
possibly be considered to be married. I have not heard of any case
where an affair was considered as such.
>- What is the status of any children resulting from the affair? Are they
>mamzerim?
A mamzer results when
1) at least one of the parents is a mamzer
2) the mother is married to a man other than the father
3) the relationship is incestuous
If it is the father that is married to another woman, there is no
question of mamzerut. This does not differ between A and S.
--
Jonathan Kamens
In article <31831568...@news.netvision.net.il>, bdi...@netvision.net.il (Binyamin Dissen) writes:
|> On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:22:46 -0700 Jordi Sod <jo...@mail.internet.com.mx>
|> wrote:
|>
|>
|> No Kesuva, no marriage. Kesuva, marriage (both A & S).
|> If there was a Kesuva after the Get. Otherwise, Yes (both A & S).
Either (a) you're wrong, or (b) you're employing imprecise language.
There are three ways to become married in Jewish law: cohabitation (i.e.,
sexual relations), payment ("kinyan") and contract (the ketuba). In ancient
law, any one of the three was sufficient and acceptable. Nowadays,
lechatchila, the rabbis require that all three be done, and that they be done
in the proper order (i.e., ketuba, then kinyan, then cohabitation).
Nevertheless, even today, if any one of the three of them is done with the
intent of both parties that it should result in marriage, *the two parties are
married* according to Torah law, and they must get a get before either of them
can remarry (unless the husband is Sefardic and lives in a community where
Sefardim are still allowed to take multiple wives). If they want to stay
married, they're supposed to do the other two in order to make the marriage
"kosher" from all points of view, but they've gone too far to claim that
they're "not married."
Even in cases where there is some doubt if the intent of marriage existed in
both parties, the rabbis might demand that they get divorced with a get, since
there is a safek that they may be married according to Torah law and therefore
it is best to issue a get to remove all doubt and therefore remove any chance
that the woman's future children might be mamzerim.
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <31804F...@mail.internet.com.mx>, Jordi Sod <jo...@mail.internet.com.mx> writes:
> I have a hypothetical question:
>
> A single Sephardic (Damascus) woman has an affair with an Ashkenazi married
> man who has children. According to the Sephardic interpretation of halacha:
>
> dumps the guy, can she get married to somebody else later on?
> mamzerim?
>
>
> Jordi Sod,
> single Ashkenazi guy without children.
I don't know enough to answer you question. I just want to correct a
fallacy you stated. You write "According to the Sephardic interpretation
of halacha". It is not a matter of _interpretation_. Sephardic halacha
is the same as Ashkenazi. What has happened over the centuries, is
that different communities have developed different "minhagim"
(customs). Or, some communities have accepted certain stringencies
upon themselves. Rice on Pesach is a good example. Taking more than
one wife (which you refer to) is another.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Eli D. Clark
Jordi Sod <jo...@mail.internet.com.mx> wrote:
>I have a hypothetical question:
>
>A single Sephardic (Damascus) woman has an affair with an Ashkenazi married
>man who has children. According to the Sephardic interpretation of halacha:
>
>- Is she married to the guy? If so, what kind of marriage is it? If she
>dumps the guy, can she get married to somebody else later on?
>- What is the status of any children resulting from the affair? Are they
>mamzerim?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jordi Sod,
>single Ashkenazi guy without children.
Dear Jordi:
The halakhic answer to this question is not appreciably different for
Ashkenazim as opposed to Sephardim. The only potential difference that I
know of involves the decree of R. Gershom (10th c.), but this may not
apply in any case. Otherwise, the rules are pretty much the same.
Although the Talmud provides that intercourse is one manner in which a
marriage can be accomplished, there would be no marriage unless there
was intent on the man's part. Given that you describe this as an
affair, it would appear that there was no intent to marry the
Ashkenazic woman. Hence, no marriage. (For this reason, even if the
man were also Ashkenazic, he would probably not be violating R.
Gershom's decree against being married to more than one wife.)
The number (and severity) of transgressions involved in the affair
depends on a number of variables. If the woman were in a state of Niddah
(i.e., a menstruant who did not thereafter immerse in a mikveh), the
liason would be biblically prohibited and any progeny would be a
mamzer. Otherwise, the prohibitions involved would be rabbinic, and the
progeny would not be a mamzer. However, according to Maimonides, an
unmarried person who sleeps with someone violates the biblical injuction
against being a kedeshah (variously translated as prostitute or immoral
woman).
Regards,
Eli
Jonathan Kamens
In article <4m2ngd$i...@ari.ari.net>, "Eli D. Clark" <ecl...@gkmg.com> writes:
|> If the woman were in a state of Niddah
|> (i.e., a menstruant who did not thereafter immerse in a mikveh), the
|> liason would be biblically prohibited and any progeny would be a
|> mamzer.
I believe that this is incorrect.
As someone else has pointed out in another message in this thread, a mamzer
results if (a) either (or both) of his parents was/were a mamzer; (b) the
union which produced the child was adulterous (i.e., a married woman slept
with someone other than her husband); or (c) the union which produced the
child was incestuous (i.e., it fell into one of the "thou shalt not uncover
the nakedness of..." categories mentioned in the Torah). These are the *only*
cases which result in a mamzer.
If a man sleeps with a woman in niddah, he has certainly violated a Torah law
and is liable for the appropriate punishment (and the woman is as well, unless
she was forced into the sexual act), but the child of such a union is not a
mamzer.
Harry Weiss
Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
: In article <31831568...@news.netvision.net.il>, bdi...@netvision.net.il (Binyamin Dissen) writes:
: |> On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:22:46 -0700 Jordi Sod <jo...@mail.internet.com.mx>
: |> wrote:
: |>
: |> She is not married unless there is a Kesuva (Both A & S).
: |> No Kesuva, no marriage. Kesuva, marriage (both A & S).
: |> If there was a Kesuva after the Get. Otherwise, Yes (both A & S).
: Either (a) you're wrong, or (b) you're employing imprecise language.
: There are three ways to become married in Jewish law: cohabitation (i.e.,
: sexual relations), payment ("kinyan") and contract (the ketuba). In ancient
: law, any one of the three was sufficient and acceptable. Nowadays,
: lechatchila, the rabbis require that all three be done, and that they be done
: in the proper order (i.e., ketuba, then kinyan, then cohabitation).
: Nevertheless, even today, if any one of the three of them is done with the
: intent of both parties that it should result in marriage, *the two parties are
: married* according to Torah law, and they must get a get before either of them
: can remarry (unless the husband is Sefardic and lives in a community where
: Sefardim are still allowed to take multiple wives). If they want to stay
: married, they're supposed to do the other two in order to make the marriage
: "kosher" from all points of view, but they've gone too far to claim that
: they're "not married."
: Even in cases where there is some doubt if the intent of marriage existed in
: both parties, the rabbis might demand that they get divorced with a get, since
: there is a safek that they may be married according to Torah law and therefore
: it is best to issue a get to remove all doubt and therefore remove any chance
: that the woman's future children might be mamzerim.
The Ketuvah is not the contract (shtar) referred to. There is a totally
separate contract that could be used for kiddushin. AFAIK it is not used
at all now days.
As far as Yichud is concerned. It is primraly ceremonial. I think
everyone realizes that interecourse never (though maybe someone will have
heard of an exception) takes place during the Yichud.
Harry
Remember to Count the Omer
Jonathan Kamens
In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com>, hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
|> The Ketuvah is not the contract (shtar) referred to. There is a totally
|> separate contract that could be used for kiddushin. AFAIK it is not used
|> at all now days.
This is not what I was taught in yeshiva.
As far as I know, the ketuba serves the place of the "shtar" referred to in
the Mishna and Talmud. In fact, considering that mesechet ketubot, which is
where the three methods by which a woman can be married are listed, expounds
at length about what does or does not need to be present in that "shtar", and
the clauses examined are clauses that are present in one form or another in
the ketuba we use today, it seems that the ketuba *is* the "shtar" referred to.
Telushkin claims in "Jewish Literacy" that the ketuba we currently used was
written in the 2nd century B.C.E., well before the codifiction of the Mishna
that mentions "shtar".
|> As far as Yichud is concerned. It is primraly ceremonial. I think
|> everyone realizes that interecourse never (though maybe someone will have
|> heard of an exception) takes place during the Yichud.
1) Who was talking about yichud? The original poster asked if a man and woman
become married if they have an affair. Both the modern and traditional
halacha in that regard are that if a man and woman have intercourse with the
intent of marriage, they *are* married according to Torah law, and they need a
get if they want to separate.
2) I personally know numerous religious Jewish men who will not allow
themselves ever to be alone in a closed room with a woman. It seems clear
that they take the restrictions of yichud very seriously. I'm sure there are
rabbis who would rule that if a man and a woman entered yichud, in the
presence of witnesses, with the intent of their act signifying marriage, they
*would* be married enough to require a get, regardless of whether or not they
actually had sex in the room.
Lisa Aaronson
In article <4m31pj$v...@jik.israel.net> j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com
(Jonathan Kamens) writes:
Jonathan is correct. Relations with a niddah are the only relations that have
a punishment of karet ("cutting off") and in which the issue is not a mamzer.
See the 4th perek of Kiddushin for details.
Lisa
-------------------------------------
I still believe in all my dreams
And all that I can be
I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
To make it eventually
'Cause I still believe in me.
- from the TV show "Fame"
MorlanRogers
hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) wrote:
>
>As far as Yichud is concerned. It is primraly ceremonial. I think
>everyone realizes that interecourse never (though maybe someone will have
>heard of an exception) takes place during the Yichud.
>
It seems that my fiancee's second cousin was such an exception.
Colin Rosenthal
On 29 Apr 1996 15:33:33 GMT, "Eli D. Clark" <ecl...@gkmg.com> wrote:
>
>The number (and severity) of transgressions involved in the affair
>liason would be biblically prohibited and any progeny would be a
>progeny would not be a mamzer. However, according to Maimonides, an
>unmarried person who sleeps with someone violates the biblical injuction
>against being a kedeshah (variously translated as prostitute or immoral
>woman).
Many properly-married Jewish couples do not keep the laws of niddah -
are their children also mamzerim?
--Colin Rosenthal | ``Don't smell the flowers -
--rose...@obs.aau.dk | They're an evil drug -
--http://www.obs.aau.dk/~rosentha | To make you lose your mind''-
--Aarhus University, Denmark | Ronnie James Dio, 1983 -
Harry Weiss
Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
: In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com>, hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
: |> The Ketuvah is not the contract (shtar) referred to. There is a totally
: |> separate contract that could be used for kiddushin. AFAIK it is not used
: |> at all now days.
: This is not what I was taught in yeshiva.
: As far as I know, the ketuba serves the place of the "shtar" referred to in
: the Mishna and Talmud. In fact, considering that mesechet ketubot, which is
: where the three methods by which a woman can be married are listed, expounds
: at length about what does or does not need to be present in that "shtar", and
: the clauses examined are clauses that are present in one form or another in
: the ketuba we use today, it seems that the ketuba *is* the "shtar" referred to.
You may wish to check with your Rabbi. The ketuvah and the shtar
kiddusing are two separate documents. Messectet Ketuvot even lists the
wording for a Ketuvah. The wording for a shtar of Kiddushin says very
specifically that with this Shtrar the kiddushin of so and so and so and
so is effectuated. The ketuvah is strictly a financial document.
(though one is prohibited from living with his wife if it is lost.)
: Telushkin claims in "Jewish Literacy" that the ketuba we currently used was
: written in the 2nd century B.C.E., well before the codifiction of the Mishna
: that mentions "shtar".
: |> As far as Yichud is concerned. It is primraly ceremonial. I think
: |> everyone realizes that interecourse never (though maybe someone will have
: |> heard of an exception) takes place during the Yichud.
: 1) Who was talking about yichud? The original poster asked if a man and woman
: become married if they have an affair. Both the modern and traditional
: halacha in that regard are that if a man and woman have intercourse with the
: intent of marriage, they *are* married according to Torah law, and they need a
: get if they want to separate.
This posting I was referring to was one that said now it is customary to
use all three methods of kiddushin. My point was and still remains is
that now days the kiddushin is effectued through money e.g. the ring.
The other parts of the weeding ceremony are not for kiddushin. One other
thing I forgot to mention in my original post was that the yichud also
could not be for purposes of kiddushin becauase it is after Chupa
(nissuin).
Harry
Remember to Count the Omer
: 2) I personally know numerous religious Jewish men who will not allow
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <4m1jl6$3...@jik.israel.net>, j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com
(Jonathan Kamens) writes:
> In article <31831568...@news.netvision.net.il>,
bdi...@netvision.net.il (Binyamin Dissen) writes:
> |> On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:22:46 -0700 Jordi Sod
> <jo...@mail.internet.com.mx wrote:
> |>
> |> :>- Is she married to the guy? If so, what kind of marriage is it? If
> |> :>she dumps the guy, can she get married to somebody else later on?
> |>
> |> She is not married unless there is a Kesuva (Both A & S).
> |> No Kesuva, no marriage. Kesuva, marriage (both A & S).
> |> If there was a Kesuva after the Get. Otherwise, Yes (both A & S).
>
> Either (a) you're wrong, or (b) you're employing imprecise language.
>
> There are three ways to become married in Jewish law: cohabitation (i.e.,
> sexual relations), payment ("kinyan") and contract (the ketuba).
Sorry Jonathan, that is not precise either. The "contract" which can
be used for marriage is NOT the ketuba. Rather it is similar to a get
in that it would state "Behold you are consecrated to me, by this
document...". It would need to be written liShmah. I don't know if
anyone ever actually used this method but it exists. OTOH the ketuba
is a financial undertaking by the groom guaranteeing his compliance
with his monetary responsibility towards his wife, both during the
marriage and afterwoods if they are divorced or she is widowed G"F.
> In ancient
> law, any one of the three was sufficient and acceptable. Nowadays,
> lechatchila, the rabbis require that all three be done, and that they
> be done in the proper order (i.e., ketuba, then kinyan, then cohabitation).
Again, not precise.
I begin to think that we are going slightly overboard in our answers.
>
> Nevertheless, even today, if any one of the three of them is done with the
> intent of both parties that it should result in marriage, *the two parties are
> married* according to Torah law, and they must get a get before either of them
> can remarry (unless the husband is Sefardic and lives in a community where
> Sefardim are still allowed to take multiple wives). If they want to stay
> married, they're supposed to do the other two in order to make the marriage
> "kosher" from all points of view, but they've gone too far to claim that
> they're "not married."
>
> Even in cases where there is some doubt if the intent of marriage existed in
> both parties, the rabbis might demand that they get divorced with a get, since
> there is a safek that they may be married according to Torah law and therefore
> it is best to issue a get to remove all doubt and therefore remove any chance
> that the woman's future children might be mamzerim.
This last line is the best. We should remember that Judaism puts a
very high value on family life. Marriage is a sacred and important
institution. An "affair" as described by the original poster has no
place in Judaism. It is not difficult to understand why the situation
is not clearly defined.
Jonathan Kamens
One more thing....
I've also been taught that if a wedding ceremony is interrupted immediately
after the ketuba is handed to the bride, the marriage has gone "far enough"
that a get is required if the bride and groom wish to separate at that point.
I don't see how that can be the case if the ketuba cannot act as the "shtar"
referred to in the Mishna.
Jonathan Kamens
(Bogus "Distribution: world" removed.)
In article <1996May1...@vms.huji.ac.il>, mos...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
|> Sorry Jonathan, that is not precise either. The "contract" which can
|> be used for marriage is NOT the ketuba. Rather it is similar to a get
|> in that it would state "Behold you are consecrated to me, by this
|> document...".
I don't know about your ketuba, but mine says right near the top, "So-and-so
(the groom) said to so-and-so (the bride), `Be to me for a wife according to
the law of Moses and Israel'" ("Havi li lanto, kedat moshe veyisrael"; I hope
I'm translating it correctly). Is that not the clause you say should be there?
I have been taught multiple times that the rabbis decreed that marriages
should be enacted through all three of the methods listed in Kedoshin 1:1 (I
think I said in an earlier posting that it was in Ketubot; if I did, I
apologize, because that was an error), and that the ketuba represents the
"shtar" item on that list.
Furthermore, part of the marriage ceremony is the handing of the ketuba to the
bride by the groom. It says the right words, and it is transferred to the
right person, so why isn't it the "shtar"?
|> It would need to be written liShmah.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?
In any case, all of this is pretty much irrelevant to the main point of my
posting, which was to object to the claim "no ketuba, no marriage," which
simply isn't true, since both sexual intercourse and a gift of something
valuable from the man to the woman, if either is done with the intent of
marriage, can result in a marriage according to both Torah law and rabbinic
law. Even if I'm wrong about the ketuba, which is certainly possible, the
fact remains that "no ketuba, no marriage" isn't true.
|> > In ancient
|> > law, any one of the three was sufficient and acceptable. Nowadays,
|> > lechatchila, the rabbis require that all three be done, and that they
|> > be done in the proper order (i.e., ketuba, then kinyan, then cohabitation).
|> Again, not precise.
Well, then, please clarify what I've gotten wrong.
Warren Burstein
In <1996May1...@vms.huji.ac.il> mos...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>Sorry Jonathan, that is not precise either. The "contract" which can
>be used for marriage is NOT the ketuba. Rather it is similar to a get
>in that it would state "Behold you are consecrated to me, by this
>document...". It would need to be written liShmah.
Where is a source for the last detail - the need for the document to
be written for this particular marriage (as opposed to using a
previously written document). Kiddushin by money only requires that
the money be given with intent, and I don't recall that a document is
different. But I might have forgotten, which is why I ask for a source.
--
Debra Fran Baker
In <lisa.2151...@interport.net> li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) writes:
>In article <4m31pj$v...@jik.israel.net> j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com
>(Jonathan Kamens) writes:
>>In article <4m2ngd$i...@ari.ari.net>, "Eli D. Clark" <ecl...@gkmg.com> writes:
>>|> If the woman were in a state of Niddah
>>|> (i.e., a menstruant who did not thereafter immerse in a mikveh), the
>>|> liason would be biblically prohibited and any progeny would be a
>>|> mamzer.
>>I believe that this is incorrect.
>>As someone else has pointed out in another message in this thread, a mamzer
>>results if (a) either (or both) of his parents was/were a mamzer; (b) the
>>union which produced the child was adulterous (i.e., a married woman slept
>>with someone other than her husband); or (c) the union which produced the
>>child was incestuous (i.e., it fell into one of the "thou shalt not uncover
>>the nakedness of..." categories mentioned in the Torah). These are the *only*
>>cases which result in a mamzer.
>>If a man sleeps with a woman in niddah, he has certainly violated a Torah law
>>and is liable for the appropriate punishment (and the woman is as well, unless
>>she was forced into the sexual act), but the child of such a union is not a
>>mamzer.
>Jonathan is correct. Relations with a niddah are the only relations that have
>a punishment of karet ("cutting off") and in which the issue is not a mamzer.
Those of us with non-observant parents (my mother never even *heard* of
mikveh until I got married) have reason to be grateful for this.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
* For its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace. *
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Debra Fran Baker dfb...@panix.com
Art Kamlet
In article <4m4gh3$6...@jik.israel.net>,
Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> wrote:
>In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com>, hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
>Telushkin claims in "Jewish Literacy" that the ketuba we currently used was
>written in the 2nd century B.C.E., well before the codifiction of the Mishna
>that mentions "shtar".
Rabbi Simcha Roth is conducting an on-line class of Kiddushin, and
he has an interesting speculation as to why the ketuba, with its
guarantees to the woman, emerges during that time:
....
All this was (basically) stage one in the development of the
Ketubah, and it is all that we need to know to understand the
reference to it in our mishnah. (I would like to add one point
which is pure speculation on my part and completely
unsubstantiated. I mentioned that Shimon ben-Shatach, President
of the Sanhedrin in mid 1st century BCE, is traditionally
associated with the introduction of the Ketubah. His sister,
Shlomzion Alexandra, was the ruling monarch in Judea [76 - 67 BCE]
at the time. As far as I can recall Salome Alexandra was the only
woman until Golda Meir z"l to rule in Eretz-Israel in her own
right with full powers (i.e. not merely as her husband's spouse).
Is it pure co-incidence that a far-reaching step such as the
Ketubah was initiated during her rule by her brother?)
--
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kam...@infinet.com
Binyamin Dissen
On 29 Apr 1996 05:21:22 GMT j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan
Kamens) wrote:
:>In article <31831568...@news.netvision.net.il>, bdi...@netvision.net.il (Binyamin Dissen) writes:
:>|> On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:22:46 -0700 Jordi Sod <jo...@mail.internet.com.mx>
:>|> wrote:
:>|>
:>|> :>- Is she married to the guy? If so, what kind of marriage is it? If she
:>|> :>dumps the guy, can she get married to somebody else later on?
:>|>
:>|> She is not married unless there is a Kesuva (Both A & S).
:>|> No Kesuva, no marriage. Kesuva, marriage (both A & S).
:>|> If there was a Kesuva after the Get. Otherwise, Yes (both A & S).
:>
:>Either (a) you're wrong, or (b) you're employing imprecise language.
:>
:>There are three ways to become married in Jewish law: cohabitation (i.e.,
:>sexual relations), payment ("kinyan") and contract (the ketuba). In ancient
:>law, any one of the three was sufficient and acceptable. Nowadays,
:>lechatchila, the rabbis require that all three be done, and that they be done
:>in the proper order (i.e., ketuba, then kinyan, then cohabitation).
:>
:>Nevertheless, even today, if any one of the three of them is done with the
:>intent of both parties that it should result in marriage, *the two parties are
:>married* according to Torah law, and they must get a get before either of them
:>can remarry (unless the husband is Sefardic and lives in a community where
:>Sefardim are still allowed to take multiple wives). If they want to stay
:>married, they're supposed to do the other two in order to make the marriage
:>"kosher" from all points of view, but they've gone too far to claim that
:>they're "not married."
As they case specified that they 'were having an affair', without a kesuvah
there is no indication of an intent to be married.
Even A men can marry second wives and the marriage is valid. The first wife
would then have an option to force a divorce and receive her kesuvah.
:>
:>Even in cases where there is some doubt if the intent of marriage existed in
:>both parties, the rabbis might demand that they get divorced with a get, since
:>there is a safek that they may be married according to Torah law and therefore
:>it is best to issue a get to remove all doubt and therefore remove any chance
:>that the woman's future children might be mamzerim.
It can't hurt but unless there is some indication that they lived as
married people I don't think it is required. I am not a Posek. Contact your
LOR.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <Dqq7K...@itex.jct.ac.il>, war...@itex.jct.ac.il
learn "shtar" (for purpose of marriage) from "shtar" (for purpose of
divorce) Therefore, all the special laws of "shtar get" as oppossed to
"shtar stam" apply. One of them is liShma. Another is "mochiach
mitocho" which is why I said "...by _this_ document".
Harry Weiss
Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
: One more thing....
The ring is given before the Ketubah. One of the pruposes for the
reading of the Ketuvah is have some separation between the ring
(kiddushin) and the Chupa.
The Ketuvah only mentions that since x was mekadish y the follwing
financial arrangments are made.
The Ketuvah is defnitely not a shtar Kiddushin.
Jonathan Kamens
OK, OK, you've convinced me :-).
Warren Burstein
ms = mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
wb = war...@itex.jct.ac.il
wb: Where is a source for the last detail - the need for the document to
wb: be written for this particular marriage
ms: Good question. It's somewhere in Kiddushin.
I hope you'll forgive me if I mark this one down as "I don't know the
answer" until I find it in Shulchan Aruch, I'm not such a lamdan that
I can learn halacha from the Gemara.
--
Eli D. Clark
li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) wrote:
>In article <4m31pj$v...@jik.israel.net> j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com
>(Jonathan Kamens) writes:
>
>>In article <4m2ngd$i...@ari.ari.net>, "Eli D. Clark" <ecl...@gkmg.com> writes:
>>> If the woman were in a state of Niddah
>>> (i.e., a menstruant who did not thereafter immerse in a mikveh), the
>>> liason would be biblically prohibited and any progeny would be a
>>> mamzer.
>
>>I believe that this is incorrect.
>
>>As someone else has pointed out in another message in this thread, a mamzer
married woman slept >>with someone other than her husband); or (c) the union which produced the>>child was incestuous (i.e., it fell=
into one of the "thou shalt not uncover
>>the nakedness of..." categories mentioned in the Torah). These are the *only* cases which result in a mamzer.
>Jonathan is correct. Relations with a niddah are the only relations that have
>a punishment of karet ("cutting off") and in which the issue is not a mamzer.
>
>See the 4th perek of Kiddushin for details.
>
>Lisa
>
Dear Jonathan and Lisa:
Thank you for correcting my misstatement. I was writing the rule and not
the exception, which bo'el niddah (one who sleeps with a mentruant) is.
It is my own fault for typing hastily and not proofreading my letters. i
thank you both for the correction and apologize to anyone I inadvertently
miseld.
Regards,
Eli
Harry Weiss
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
: In article <Dqq7K...@itex.jct.ac.il>, war...@itex.jct.ac.il
: (Warren Burstein) writes:
: > In <1996May1...@vms.huji.ac.il> mos...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
: >
: >>Sorry Jonathan, that is not precise either. The "contract" which can
: >>be used for marriage is NOT the ketuba. Rather it is similar to a get
: >>in that it would state "Behold you are consecrated to me, by this
: >>document...". It would need to be written liShmah.
: > previously written document). Kiddushin by money only requires that
: > the money be given with intent, and I don't recall that a document is
: > different. But I might have forgotten, which is why I ask for a source.
: > --
: learn "shtar" (for purpose of marriage) from "shtar" (for purpose of
: divorce) Therefore, all the special laws of "shtar get" as oppossed to
: "shtar stam" apply. One of them is liShma. Another is "mochiach
: mitocho" which is why I said "...by _this_ document".
: Moshe Schorr
: It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Actually a Ketuva does NOT have to be written lishmo. If so, all of the
fill in the blank ketuvot would not be valid. It has to be handed over
lishmah for a kinyan to take place and for it to be valid.
Jonathan Kamens
|> : Good question. It's somewhere in Kiddushin. The point is that we
|> : learn "shtar" (for purpose of marriage) from "shtar" (for purpose of
|> : divorce) Therefore, all the special laws of "shtar get" as oppossed to
|> : "shtar stam" apply. One of them is liShma. Another is "mochiach
|> : mitocho" which is why I said "...by _this_ document".
|>
|> fill in the blank ketuvot would not be valid. It has to be handed over
|> lishmah for a kinyan to take place and for it to be valid.
You should read more carefully.
No one claimed that a ketuba had to be written lishma. They claimed that the
"shtar" referred to in chapter 1 of kedoshin has to be written lishma, and
that a ketuba *cannot serve as such as "shtar"*.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <4m4gh3$6...@jik.israel.net>, j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
> In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com>, hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
> |> separate contract that could be used for kiddushin. AFAIK it is not used
> |> at all now days.
>
> This is not what I was taught in yeshiva.
>
> the Mishna and Talmud. In fact, considering that mesechet ketubot, which is
This isn't correct. The KETUBAH was instituted for the purpose of
protecting the woman so that her husband wouldn't be able to divorce her
so easily (see: Rambam, HILCHOT ISHUT, perek yud). It has absolutely
nothing to do with SHTAR (deed), one of the 3 ways of marrying in
Jewish law. For laws of SHTAR as a way of KEDUSHIN (which, incidentally,
is *not* NESUIN (which is the act of bringing the bride to the groom
under the CHUPA before 2 witnesses; the halachic ramification of
the CHUPA being the YICHUD (being alone in a room for a set period
of time), see the Shulchan Aruch EVEN HA'EZER siman 32). The KETUBAH,
on the other hand, is given to the bride *after* the KIDDUSHIN (which
nowadays is carried out by SHAVEH KESEF (e.g. ring).
> where the three methods by which a woman can be married are listed, expounds
> at length about what does or does not need to be present in that "shtar", and
> the clauses examined are clauses that are present in one form or another in
> the ketuba we use today, it seems that the ketuba *is* the "shtar" referred to.
>
> Telushkin claims in "Jewish Literacy" that the ketuba we currently used was
> written in the 2nd century B.C.E., well before the codifiction of the Mishna
> that mentions "shtar".
>
Telushkin doesn't know what he's talking about. Or as we say in Chinese,
he doesn't know his TUCHES from his elbow :-)
> |> As far as Yichud is concerned. It is primraly ceremonial. I think
> |> everyone realizes that interecourse never (though maybe someone will have
> |> heard of an exception) takes place during the Yichud.
>
> 1) Who was talking about yichud? The original poster asked if a man and woman
> become married if they have an affair. Both the modern and traditional
> halacha in that regard are that if a man and woman have intercourse with the
> intent of marriage, they *are* married according to Torah law, and they need a
> get if they want to separate.
>
> 2) I personally know numerous religious Jewish men who will not allow
> themselves ever to be alone in a closed room with a woman. It seems clear
> that they take the restrictions of yichud very seriously. I'm sure there are
> rabbis who would rule that if a man and a woman entered yichud, in the
> presence of witnesses, with the intent of their act signifying marriage, they
> *would* be married enough to require a get, regardless of whether or not they
> actually had sex in the room.
Heather/Chana Luntz
In article <4m4gh3$6...@jik.israel.net>, Jonathan Kamens <jik@annex-1-
slip-jik.cam.ov.com> writes
>
>2) I personally know numerous religious Jewish men who will not allow
>themselves ever to be alone in a closed room with a woman. It seems clear
>that they take the restrictions of yichud very seriously.
Yes, but there is an independant averah of being in yichud together, so
if you are careful about mitzvos you will be careful about this - this
does not mean that if one was in yichud with somebody they are
considered married (in fact, the classic case of yichud, ie the one from
the Torah is yichud of a man with a married woman - where clearly
marriage is impossible).
> I'm sure there are
>rabbis who would rule that if a man and a woman entered yichud, in the
>presence of witnesses, with the intent of their act signifying marriage, they
>*would* be married enough to require a get, regardless of whether or not they
>actually had sex in the room.
Yes, I think this is true. But I doubt very much that the case being
suggested involved this kind of yichud. Remember it was an Ashkenazi
married man, so the witnesses would have had to be witnesses to him
flagrantly disobeying the rulings of the rabbis, - if they agreed to be
witnesses in such a case, they render themselves possul by doing so, -
so it would have to be a situation in which they were trapped into
witnessing it, in which case, on being told of the intent, they should
have run the other way. So you need a scenario that they both knew of
the intent, and yet were helpless to stop witnessing - basically you
need to strap them down (maybe even prevent them covering their eyes?).
So, assuming an Ashkenazi married man and a Sephardi woman strap down
two kosher witnesses, announce their intent of going into seclusion for
the purposes of marriage, and then do so, yes, they would probably need
a get, regardless of what they actually got up to in that room. But
somehow i think that what was being referred to was a plain affair (and
the furtive nature of that would seem to rule out any likelyhood of it
being considered a marriage).
Regards
Chana
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
> hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
> |> The Ketuvah is not the contract (shtar) referred to. There is a
> |> totally separate contract that could be used for kiddushin.
> |> AFAIK it is not used at all now days.
>
> This is not what I was taught in yeshiva.
>
> As far as I know, the ketuba serves the place of the "shtar" referred
> to in the Mishna and Talmud. In fact, considering that mesechet
> married are listed,
Jonathan, It's more than 20 years that I learned in yeshiva so my
memory might be rusty, BUT... The "three methods by which a woman can
be married" are discussed in mesechet KIDDUSHIN and NOT in Ketubot.
Part of the confusion may be due to the fact that nowadays we DON'T
perform 2 different ceremonies, one for "kiddushin" which would
probably be translated as "betrothal" and one for "nissuin" which
would be "marriage". Rather we perform _both_ ceremonies at the same
time. To be specific, giving the ring, is "kiddushin". The ring is a
"shaveh kesef" in lieu of money. This part of the ceremony is what is
discussed in mesechet Kiddushin and has three _options_ (kesef, shtar,
biah). The reading of the Ketubah is to seperate the two parts of the
ceremony. The standing under the chuppa, the leaving it together to
go to the "Yichud room", the reciting of the "sheva brachos" - seven
benedictions are all part of the "nissuin". The ketubah is the
contract of the nissuin, NOT the "shtar" of the kiddushin.
> expounds at length about what does or does not need to be present
> in that "shtar", and the clauses examined are clauses that are
> present in one form or another in the ketuba we use today,
Exactly, It is the "ketubah", the "marriage contract". The language
for a "shtar" kiddushin would be entirely different. It would state
something to the effect: "Behold thou art consecreated to me, by this
document..." It would need to be written "liShmah", for this specific
man/woman and could NOT be pre-printed, as our ketubot are.
> it seems that the ketuba *is* the "shtar" referred to.
Incorrect. Faulty premise.
>
> Telushkin claims in "Jewish Literacy" that the ketuba we currently
> used was written in the 2nd century B.C.E., well before the
> codifiction of the Mishna that mentions "shtar".
I don't understand your point here. The requirement of a "ketuba" may
well have been mandated then. The option of "shtar" is _biblical_.
>
[discussion of "Yichud" both the ceremony and the prohibition snipped]
Heather/Chana Luntz
In article <Dqq7K...@itex.jct.ac.il>, Warren Burstein
<war...@itex.jct.ac.il> writes
>In <1996May1...@vms.huji.ac.il> mos...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>>Sorry Jonathan, that is not precise either. The "contract" which can
>>be used for marriage is NOT the ketuba. Rather it is similar to a get
>>document...". It would need to be written liShmah.
>
>Where is a source for the last detail - the need for the document to
>be written for this particular marriage (as opposed to using a
>previously written document). Kiddushin by money only requires that
>the money be given with intent, and I don't recall that a document is
>different. But I might have forgotten, which is why I ask for a source.
I think it is because of the whole derivation for shtar for kiddushin,
which is learnt by reference to get (cf Kiddushin 5a). Ie the idea is
that just as one can go out with a shtar one can come in with a shtar.
And this is learnt by hekesh, and (one of the ways) the hekesh is learnt
is from the pasuk 'write for her' (Devarim 24:1), now the 'her' involved
in writing for her, is the bit that they learn lishma from in relation
to get (see eg Gitten 20a).
Have I made any sense at all (it is getting a bit late)?
Regards
Chana