This is a dumb question. And an important one. I have searched the internet for the answer, with no luck. Perhaps it is too obvious.

A Jewish Couple marries in a Civil ceremony. They have a family. Then they have a Civil divorce.

By Jewish law, is there any chance that they were ever married? And if so, is there a chance that they could still be married, since they did not acquire a get?

Raybin,

If they were both Jews according to halacha and established a home and family, then they became Jewishly married too by default. So they WILL need a get. If they don't get one she will have problems with mamzerim if she gets remarried.

The Reform Movement will probably tell you they don't need a get but that's not halachically correct. It creates problems for subsequent children.

Thank you. I have been told that before by rabbis but somehow I didn't believe them. Now I do.

What if she can't bear children, so mamzerim would not be a problem. Would she still be an Agunah? I suppose she would since marriage in Judaism is not merely for reproduction, but for companionship. But then again, what if there is no companionship?

Yes, she'd still be an agunah.

So if she had a relationship with another man it would be considered adulterous?

Also,I think I was once told by a rabbi that a man cannot obtain a get if his wife is mentally ill because she wouldn't be able to take care of herself. Is that true?

If so, what if they found someone who would take care of her? Then would he be "off the hook"?

quote:

So if she had a relationship with another man it would be considered adulterous?

Yes!

quote:

I was once told by a rabbi that a man cannot obtain a get if his wife is mentally ill because she wouldn't be able to take care of herself. Is that true?

This is the realm of halachic experts. However, there is such a thing as a male equivalent of agunah....where a man can't divorce his wife because she is incapacitated. However, this may be one of those circumstances the rabbonim would allow him a second wife. In any case, this is halachically delicate and is the realm of gedolim. Perhaps David, Aryeh, Rav Chaim, Yisroel and others could tackle this one.

quote:

If so, what if they found someone who would take care of her? Then would he be "off the hook"?

If she found someone before he's given her a get?

Yes, because she couldn't take care of herself.

There is a problem. Though the civil ceremony is not binding. since they know that there is a religious definition to marriage, we have to worry that they lived together with intention to have a Kiddushin. (This is Rav Moshe's differentiates between a civil marriage and a non orthodox one, where the couple think they're married.)

quote:

Originally posted by Raybin:
Thank you. I have been told that before by rabbis but somehow I didn't believe them. Now I do.

Well, if the Rabbi was not Orthodox, then you are correct - you should question what is being said. However, if the Rabbi is Orthodox, try to understand why it is what the Rabbi says it is. And ask questions to help you understand.

They were Orthodox. And one of them knew the situation very well. But it made no sense to me since it was a civil marriage and there was another reason which I won't discuss. And there were no intentions of Kiddishon, if I understand that well enough. Maybe there were. According to Rav Chaim if there are no intentions, which I believe there weren't except for a ring and a broken glass, does that count? I know it is not kosher to engrave a ring but it was an heirloom and inside were the words To - with love forever. Does that count as a ketubah? They only had their baby at their ceremony as their sole witness, does that count as intentions for Kiddishon? Like I said I don't understand it, either. Well, love forever isn't much. Between them their children are Jewish. That is one good thing that came out of the deal.

The rabbi must have thought the marriage was legitimate if he advised her to stay with her husband and told her that he could not divorce her. And told her that she could not divorce her husband. And that he could not divorce her because she had mental illness.

quote:

a ring but it was an heirloom and inside were the words To - with love forever. Does that count as a ketubah?

I don't think this meets the definition of a ketubah contract - which has lots of special requirements, including witness signatures - by any stretch of imagination.

quote:

The rabbi must have thought the marriage was legitimate if he advised her to stay with her husband and told her that he could not divorce her. And told her that she could not divorce her husband. And that he could not divorce her because she had mental illness.

This may match the following principle:

Something real can come about through improper means... such as the case in the Torah where a man seduces a betrothed maiden - if she wants him to marry her, he cannot ever divorce her unless she wants that...

But the principle I wanted to mention was more of "beforehand" vs "after the fact".

If a couple gets married through less than ideal means beforehand, in a fashion that no rabbi would recommend getting started from, it could be that enough of a proper marriage essentials became accomplished, and thus the rules of how to dissolve a marriage, or when one may not dissolve a marriage, kick in, and beforehand cannot dissolve the marriage in such a way.

I have a question:

If one enters into a less than ideal marriage, which if one were to ask a rabbi about, would say that it effected a marriage...

And if one dissolves such a marriage through civil means only, without first asking any rabbi how or whether it can be dissolved...

IF this was a marriage that beforehand the rabbi would have said he cannot dissolve, but she accepted as being dissolved, would the rabbi be able to say that it was disolved beforehand, and thus it is permissible to properly disolve with a "get"?

For example, she accepted it as disolved through civil divorce, and even has a new potential husband to whom she is engaged.

And he accepted it as disolved, and is remarried.

If she had not yet received a get from the first marriage, she would have a big problem getting married a second time, and I presume a "get" would be needed.

However at the time of the civil divorce, she might not have been suitable to receive a "get", especially if against her will.

Is this a case of after the fact permitting a "get" where beforehand no get would have been permitted?

After the fact marriage is probably a more usual determination even in a case where beforehand it would not have been recommended to get married?

Rob,
I think living together as a family, bringing children into the world and being recognized my a Jewish community would make a strong case for "intent". In most cases a safek is created that would demand a get, anyway. So at the very least a get to remove the safek would be necessary.

What would be the mechanism that they would be halachically married (or the mechanism that the safek is that they were married)?

My first instinct is marriage through Biah. But if marriage is kedas Moshe visrael, and "moshe veisrael" no longer accept biah, than wouldn't even Deoraisa they not be married.

Marriage can be effected by biah or contract or gift expressing intent or any combination thereof. So in the case of a couple that created a family and produced children, one can be certain at least one of these three occurred. Further, a civil marriage can certainly be construed to express Jewish intent. The question is whether there were legitimate witnesses. If the couple is living in non-frum communities then the concept of a "kosher witness" gets to be tricky.

If a couple effected marriage simply through biah, there is no ketuba but there is marriage....or a "virtual ketuba", which will need to be cancelled by a get.....right? Are there any poskim who would recognize a marriage through biah today?

Quote "My first instinct is marriage through Biah. But if marriage is kedas Moshe visrael, and "moshe veisrael" no longer accept biah, than wouldn't even Deoraisa they not be married."

It's because of the Biah, and they never made it not work but that it was forbidden to do it that way, and he would be Lokeh. They never were Mafkiah the Kiddushin and made it a Bias Z'nus.

Rav Chaim,
Could you please clarify your last post so I could understand it too?

Sorry about that, I just try to answer in the same "language" that it was asked. Thus people who wouldn't follow the answer probably didn't get the question either.

I just said, though the Chachumim ordered us not to make Kiddushin with Biah, if someone did it, the marriage is still in affect and the Rabbis didn't cancel it.

About kosher witnesses, we say those who know that they live as husband and wife are witnessing on the Biah too (since we all know what's going on behind closed doors.) So, any kosher witnesses that know them as husband and wife would be counted as witnesses.)

There is a concept in the gemara called "Anan sahadi," we are witnesses. If a couple has been living together as many and wife for a while we are all witnesses that they are married. A common law marriage would have validity. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein still held that a Reform or non Orthodox wedding in which there were no kosher observant witnesses is not a valid kedushin and the couple are not halachically married. This psak would save many people from being mamzerim. I think the Satmar Rav didn't agree with Rav Moshe but Rav Moshe was recognized as the poseik hador.