Several years ago I wrote an
article in a journal produced by a distinguished Beis Medrash in London, which
touched upon the issue of civil and non-Orthodox marriage and whether they have
any halachic significance. As it wasn’t the main topic then I didn’t do it full
justice, and my viewpoint has also changed since then. So now I will attempt to
explain the issues involved in depth.
Firstly, we need to explain the
assumption that a civil, non-Jewish or non-Orthodox wedding ceremony almost
always will not be halachically valid when standing alone.
The kiddushin (betrothal), the
first stage of the marriage, consists of the man giving something of certain
worth (traditionally a ring) to his prospective wife, and declaring that he is
betrothing her to him with it (obviously this only works if she consents).[1] Although
this might happen even in a non-Orthodox ceremony, if it is not done in front
of kosher witnesses it is worthless.[2] Defining
who exactly is a kosher witness can be complicated, but a bare minimum is
belief in the truth of the Torah (Written and Oral) and our obligation to it.[3]
With an Orthodox wedding, even if
it turns out that one of the designated witnesses is invalid, some significant
authorities rule that we can rely on the presence of other kosher witnesses.
Even if they don’t see exactly what is happening under the chuppa, they know
what is going on and this is enough.[4] When
it comes to a non-Orthodox wedding, this is not the case. Even if the reality
is that the kiddushin was performed according to halacha, witnesses in the
background cannot know for sure that this was the case.[5]
Despite this, three different
reasons have been proposed to require a get (halachic divorce document) if a
couple married civilly wish to split up. We need to analyse these reasons
independently.
Kiddushei Bi’ah
Although nowadays kiddushin is
almost exclusively done in the way described above, the truth is that there are
two other ways that it can be done. A man could also give his prospective wife
a document stating that he is betrothing her (not to be confused with the
kesuva, which sets out monetary obligations during and after marriage). The
third way is strongly discouraged, but if done it is a hundred per cent valid.
Marital relations themselves can effectuate kiddushin.[6]
Furthermore, there are times when
even if no intent of kiddushin was declared, we assume that a couple do not
want their relationship to be mere promiscuity, and they are married. One
explicit example is after a person stipulated that kiddushin (performed in the
normal way) should only take effect under certain conditions. Even if the
conditions were not met, if the marriage was consummated we assume either that
the stipulation was forgone or that new kiddushin was performed.[7]
How far we extend this principle
is debatable. The Rambam strongly rejected applying it outside of the examples
in the gemara,[8] and this is
the generally accepted opinion.[9]
However, one could argue that the case of a couple who we know want to be
married, and have stated this explicitly in a ceremony (albeit an invalid one)
is no different to the case of kiddushin invalidated due to a stipulation not
being met.
The Rivash (1326-1408, Spain then
Algeria) ruled that the opposite is true when it comes to a non-Jewish marriage
ceremony. Even those who extend the principle that ‘one does not make his
relationship promiscuity’ would agree that it cannot be applied here. Getting
married in a non-Jewish ceremony is a declaration that the couple do not
want a marriage valid according to the Torah.[10]
Despite this precedent, R’ Yosef
Eliyahu Henkin (1881-1973, Russia then America) ruled that a couple married
civilly do require a get in order to terminate their marriage. He claims that
the Rivash spoke only of a case where the decision to marry in church was
evidence of immoral intention (to allow adultery). When this is not the case,
as the couple do intend to be married, their marital relations act as kiddushin
even if there is no thought of religious marriage.[11]
R’ Moshe Feinstein strongly
rejects this reading of the ruling of the Rivash. He points out that the case
the Rivash ruled on involved a Marrano community where many did keep mitzvos in
private. Despite this, the intention for kiddushin could not be assumed as many
members of the community were not particular about the laws of family purity or
even about relationships with non-Jews.[12]
Marriage for non-Jews
The Rogatchover (R’ Yosef Rosen,
1858-1936) claimed that a get is required for another reason. Among non-Jews, neither
kiddushin nor chuppa have any halachic significance. A couple are only
considered married once marital relations have taken place.[13] As
there is no significant religious ceremony, it is clear that they after marital
relations the couple are married even without any religious intent.
This being the case, the
Rogatchover argues that although Jews have a higher level of marriage, if they
choose not to do what is required for this higher level they still have the
‘non-Jewish level’ of marriage. As long as they live together as man and wife, one
who commits ‘adultery’ with the wife transgresses the positive command “He
shall cling to his wife” given to all human beings.[14]
The problem with this view is
that even if we accept the concept of two tiers of marriage for Jews, it is
unclear why the lower tier requires a get. The Rambam writes explicitly that no
get is required to end a non-Jewish marriage, and either partner can terminate
it unilaterally by walking out of the marital home (permanently) or evicting
the spouse.[15]
What changed when the Torah
was given?
The third possibility
incorporates elements of the previous two. R’ Henkin’s view, that kiddushin can
be achieved without any religious intent, is perhaps counter-intuitive. As the
whole concept of kiddushin only has significance for Jews, and only after the
Torah was given, the simple understanding is that it can only be valid as a
religious act. As the Rambam writes:
קודם מתן תורה היה אדם פוגע אשה בשוק, אם רצה הוא והיא לישא
אותה מכניסה לביתו ובועלה בינו לבין עצמו ותהיה לו לאשה. כיון שנתנה תורה, נצטוו
ישראל שאם ירצה האיש לישא אשה יקנה אותה תחלה בפני עדים, ואחר כך תהיה לו לאשה.
הלכות אישות פרק א הלכה א
Before the giving of the Torah, a
man could meet a woman on the street and if both wanted to get married he would
bring her into his house and have marital relations in private, in order that
she should become his wife. Once the Torah was given, (the people of) Israel
were commanded that if a man wants to marry a woman, he must ‘acquire’ her
first in front of witnesses. Subsequently she can become his wife.
Hilchos Ishus 1:1
However, the kiddushin is merely
the preliminary stage that Jews were commanded to do. Marriage is only complete
after nissuin, the second stage. This stage is not unique to Jews, although for
Jews nissuin can be achieved by chuppa alone.[16] It
makes sense to say that no religious intent is required to achieve nissuin.
The question is what happens if Jews
do nissuin without kiddushin. Although we were commanded to do kiddushin first,
what happens when a couple decide to ignore this? The generally accepted view
is that after the Torah was given, for Jews there is no validity to nissuin
without kiddushin. This is the clear assumption of the Rivash in his ruling
quoted above.[17]
However, as was pointed out to me
by a close friend, this is far from explicit in the words of the Rambam above. Although
it is explicit in the gemara that chuppa only works after kiddushin,[18] it
could well be that once a man and woman live together fully and view themselves
as married, they are.
This argument was made explicitly
by R’ Avraham Aharon Price (1900-1973, Toronto). He goes at length to prove the
point, rebutting the arguments of R’ Yechezkel Abramsky.[19] One
of his sources is the wording of the Rambam above. I would like to discuss two more
sources that he does not mention.
The Talmud Yerushalmi says that
if an unknown couple arrive from abroad claiming to be married, we cannot be
sure that this is true until they live together in their new place for thirty
days.[20] This
ruling is quoted by the Rambam[21] and
the Shulchan Aruch.[22] The
question is, as we cannot believe the couple immediately, what changes after
thirty days?
The Beis Shmuel explains that the
thirty day period is only necessary in order to make it known to all that the
couple is married (and in fact we do believe them straight away). Until then,
one who commits adultery with the woman can claim that he didn’t know that she
was married.[23]
If we assume that a couple who
live together as man and wife are automatically married, there is no need for
the (forced) explanation of the Beis Shmuel. Without witnesses we cannot just
believe the couple that they are already married, but if they subsequently live
together for thirty days it doesn’t matter. Even if they weren’t married, they
have now demonstrated that they wish to live together as a married couple.
The problem with this approach is
the gemara that we mentioned above, that discusses kiddushin that was
invalidated due to a stipulation not being met. Even after the marriage was consummated,
the gemara only raises the possibility of the stipulation being forgone, or of
new kiddushin through marital relations. If we accept the position of R’ Price,
we must assume that that gemara discusses a couple who do not continue to live
together after having relations.
In my mind this question remains
open. As always, if anyone has anything to contribute I would be grateful.
[1] See
Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 27 for details.
[2] See
Kiddushin 65a-b, Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 42:2-5.
[4] Responsa of
the Chasam Sofer 3:100. See also Pischei Teshuva Even Haezer 42:11
[5] For
example, in many such ceremonies rings are exchanged, making it unclear who is
performing the kiddushin. See Igros Moshe Even Haezer 1:76.
[6] Mishna
Kiddushin 2a.
[7] See Kesuvos
73a
[8] Hilchos
Geirushin 10:19
[9] See
Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer 149:5
[10]
Responsa of the Rivash, siman 6. This ruling is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch
in Even Haezer 149:6.
[11] Pirushei
Ivra siman 4
[12] Igros
Moshe Even Haezer 1:76
[13] Sanhedrin
57b, Rambam Melachim 9:7
[14] See
Responsa Dvar Avraham 3:29 who brings the words of the Rogatchover (amongst the
writings of many other poskim, who ruled leniently almost unanimously).
[15]
Hilchos Melachim 9:8. R’ Yisrael Meir Lau (Yachel Yisrael siman 94) points out
that the Rashba disagrees, saying that non-Jews who marry are bound forever and
have no way of terminating the marriage (new volume of Responsa, siman 36).
This would explain the need for a get in the case of Jews, although it is
highly unlikely that the Rogatchover was aware of this recently published
source.
[16]
There is much debate about what exactly chuppa is. Some say that it is what we
call the chuppa (the canopy), others say that it is only when the chassan and
kalla go into the yichud room afterwards. For non-Jews, only marital relations
achieve nissuin as mentioned earlier.
[17] Otherwise
the fact that a couple who married in a non-Jewish marriage did not do
kiddushin would not have much significance.
[18] Kiddushin
5b
[19] Mishnas
Avraham siman 10, starting from page 102b/204.
[20] Kiddushin
4:10
[21] Hilchos
Issurei Biyah 1:21
[22] Even
Haezer 19:2
[23] Ibid. 3
No comments:
Post a Comment