Quote "I'm saying the intent was valid a priori regardless of the validity of the final act of chupa."

So, L'maaseh, what does this intent do for him. What status does he gain?

quote:

Originally posted by Avi d'Israeli:
Rob,
Your example with conversion is different. We have a problem in that there is rabbinic marriage and there is Torah marriage.....and one may be in conflict with the other. Technically (according to Torah) if people cohabit with intent, then they are married, as long as there are kosher witnesses. This is regardless of whether they got a civil or reform marriage. What I don't understnad about Rav Moshe is that when a Reform chupa is illegitimate while the Torah union can be possible creates a conflict.
The example of conversion you raise doesn't have such a conflict.

I think that the Torah marriage is accomplished by the Rabbinic marriage as odd as that sounds. The chosson says: "harey at mekudeshes li etc. k'daas Moshe V'Yisrael." If it's not k'daas Moshe V'Yisrael it's not a legitimate halachic marriage. That would include a marriage in which the two eidim are not halachically observant Jews. In fact the gemara tells us that yesh koach l'chachamim l'akor... Chazal can annul a marriage if they have been defied. An example is if someone sends a get to his wife and then annuls it after the shaliach left. Chazal were opposed to this and they said that his original marriage to her is not valid if he does this.

If I may digress to the origional topic of whether civil marriage is valid, it is worth looking up Rav Moshe Feinstein's teshuva in Igros Moshe Even HaEzer 3:25. There he explains the difference between Reform marriage and civil marriage.
His conclusion is that both are totally invalid and would not require a get, render the children mamzerim or render the woman an aguna.

quote:

Chazal were opposed to this and they said that his original marriage to her is not valid if he does this.

Was there ever a problem in the Chazal's time of a woman separated from her husband but he refusing to give her a get so that she could marry another?

Apparently in such a situation Beis Din can convince a man to give a get by physical force...

Why couldn't Chazal similarly make a statement that if such thing were done, a Beis Din could annul the original marriage, taking away his ability to hold back her marrigiability, and deflating their need to beat him up over it?

quote:

His conclusion is that both are totally invalid and would not require a get, render the children mamzerim or render the woman an aguna.

Does he also rule as to whether should then have a first marriage (or whatever we call a marriage after an annuled marriage) to a Kohein?

Quote "His conclusion is that both are totally invalid and would not require a get, render the children mamzerim or render the woman an aguna."

He says that acivil marriage would L'Chatchila need a Get.

I stand corrected.
My point, however, was to emphasise that although the origional respondant who emphatically pronounced the children mamzerim is like the very respected opinion of HaRav Henkin zatzal, but Rav Moshe who was considered the final word in all weighty halachic issues did not agree. Furthermore, it is my understanding that HaRav Eliashiv shlita paskens like Reb Moshe's opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

Chazal were opposed to this and they said that his original marriage to her is not valid if he does this.

Was there ever a problem in the Chazal's time of a woman separated from her husband but he refusing to give her a get so that she could marry another?

Apparently in such a situation Beis Din can convince a man to give a get by physical force...

Why couldn't Chazal similarly make a statement that if such thing were done, a Beis Din could annul the original marriage, taking away his ability to hold back her marrigiability, and deflating their need to beat him up over it?

-

This has actually come up in recent times. There are those who would have modern Batei Dinim annul marriages if he refuses to give a get. There is a bais Din that actually does this. The Rabbi either posuls every witness or says that this groom is crazy and he must have been crazy when he got married and he hid it from us. Therefore the marriage wasn't valid at all. It's a mekach taus. The other thing they do is appoint themselves as agents to divorce the woman. No major posek has agreed with this mehalech and they believe that the woman is still an eishes ish, a married woman. Chazal only uprooted or undid a marriage in very specific circumstances and mesariev get wasn't one of them. I suspect that they didn't want to undo the sactity of marriage by nullifying a marriage by decree except in those very few circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by Sam K:
"...There are those who would have modern Batei Dinim annul marriages if he refuses to give a get. There is a bais Din that actually does this. The Rabbi either posuls every witness or says that this groom is crazy and he must have been crazy when he got married and he hid it from us. Therefore the marriage wasn't valid at all. It's a mekach taus. The other thing they do is appoint themselves as agents to divorce the woman. No major posek has agreed with this mehalech and they believe that the woman is still an eishes ish, a married woman. Chazal only uprooted or undid a marriage in very specific circumstances and mesariev get wasn't one of them. I suspect that they didn't want to undo the sactity of marriage by nullifying a marriage by decree except in those very few circumstances.

Yes, you are right, Rebbe Sam, about this matter. I cannot understand the rationale behind those who would assay to even "try" to annul a marriage retrospectively, simply because a man does not give a divorce to his wife! There are very limited guidelines in the Talmud when this is permitted to be done, if ever.

Although we do find a statement in the Talmud that says:
כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה

(Translated)

"Anyone who sanctifies [a woman in marriage], does so with the approbation of the Rabbis, and [therefore] the Rabbis can annul his marriage [retrospectively]."
(Ketubos 3a)

Even so, the Gemara (ibid.) gives the reason why, specifically, this statement was made, and it has nothing to do with ordinary marriages! Rather, the statement refers to where the Rabbis had first made an enactment for the public's good in order to prevent "mamzerim" (bastards) from multiplying in Israel. For example: A man gave his wife a divorce on the condition that it would be effective after twelve months if he did not return home from his journey. Meanwhile, the man changes his mind while abroad, and decides to return home within the alotted time of twelve months so as to render null and void the divorce which he gave to his wife. For some reason beyond his control, the man becomes "held-up," and is compelled to come home after the year had expired. When he eventually makes his way back home, he cannot make use of the alibi, "Well, I was compelled to come back late, but never really wanted to divorce my wife." In this case, the man's wife is divorced, and his alibi of "constraint" or "compulsion" does not hold-up as valid in a Jewish Court of law. This enactment made by Rabbis has the more popular phrase of:
אין אונס בגיטין
("There is no alibi of constraint when it concerns divorces.")

The reason for this enactment is clear, namely, to prevent a situation whereby the man's wife would think that she is no longer wanted, and so, runs off and gets married to another. Had the man's alibi stood-up in court, his wife would have still been married to him, and the children born from her second marriage would have all been "mamzerim" (bastards). So, as a preventive measure, the Rabbis (so-to-speak) have "annulled" that man's marriage, saying in effect that his bill of divorce was legal from the moment twelve months had expired (in accordance with his stipulation). The Rabbis NEVER meant to say by their enactment that the couple's marriage from the start was nullified. Saying so would be rendering injustice to the text in our most revered Gemara!

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

Even so, the Gemara (ibid.) gives the reason why, specifically, this statement was made, and it has nothing to do with ordinary marriages! Rather, the statement refers to where the Rabbis had first made an enactment for the public's good in order to prevent "mamzerim" (bastards) from multiplying in Israel. For example: A man gave his wife a divorce on the condition that it would be effective after twelve months if he did not return home from his journey. Meanwhile, the man changes his mind while abroad, and decides to return home within the alotted time of twelve months so as to render null and void the divorce which he gave to his wife. For some reason beyond his control, the man becomes "held-up," and is compelled to come home after the year had expired. When he eventually makes his way back home, he cannot make use of the alibi, "Well, I was compelled to come back late, but never really wanted to divorce my wife." In this case, the man's wife is divorced, and his alibi of "constraint" or "compulsion" does not hold-up as valid in a Jewish Court of law. This enactment made by Rabbis has the more popular phrase of:
אין אונס בגיטין
("There is no alibi of constraint when it concerns divorces.")

The reason for this enactment is clear, namely, to prevent a situation whereby the man's wife would think that she is no longer wanted, and so, runs off and gets married to another. Had the man's alibi stood-up in court, his wife would have still been married to him, and the children born from her second marriage would have all been "mamzerim" (bastards).

I think that it's not for the Mamzerim part, but because of the following from Kesuvos 3a paraphrased by Kolllel Iyun Hadaf.
(a) By Torah law, if a Tenai was fulfilled because of Ones, the Get is invalid.
1. Righteous women may refrain from remarrying, from concern that there was an Ones, and the Get is invalid.
2. Immoral women will deny that there was an Ones, even when they have heard or know that there was.
i. They will remarry; the children born from such a marriage are Mamzers (bastards, who cannot marry those of legitimate lineage.)
3. To solve both of these concerns, Chazal decreed that in a case of Ones, the Get is valid.

But for regular people they didn't need it, since Ones is not commom, unless they know about it, they need not to suspect it. That's why we're worried of the righteous woman would refrain from remarrying when she doesn't have to, as Tosfos points out.

B"H
Actually, Rav Chaim, the Gemara brings down two reasons why the Rabbis needed to make this enactment אין אונס בגיטין. One, is the reason that you stated (inadvertently left out by me), namely: Lest a woman who awaits her husband thinks that he still loves her, but has been constrained, and therefore she refuses to marry in hopes that he will return. In this case, she does a great disservice to herself.

The second reason is that which I stated in my previous post, namely, lest she should run-off to get married to another when, in actuality, she was still married to her first husband who had been constrained when wanting to return home.

So, in fact, there were two factors involved in the making of this enactment.

David

quote:

The second reason is that which I stated in my previous post, namely, lest she should run-off to get married to another when, in actually, she was still married to her first husband who had been constrained when wanting to return home.

Yes, but that's only by Preitzos that found out t was an Ones. But regularly we don't need to worry that it will be an Ones

B"H
My dear Rav Chaim,

I'm not following your logic here. If the Gemara mentions both reasons, then the Rabbis were obviously concerned about both reasons. The subject of "mamzerim" should not be treated lightly, specifically if the Torah makes "constraint" a valid excuse for cancelling the bill of divorce!

David

R' Dovid,
yoou are right, but the GEmarah says specifically of Prutzos (immoral woman.) on the contrary, for Tznuos, we have to be careful the other way. To allow them to remarry when they are stoppping from marrying for no reason. So it would seem before the Gezarah they wanted people to get remarried without worrying about an Ones.

B"H
Rav Chaim,

The Gemara (Ketubos 2b) uses the words "Prutzos" (immoral women) and "Tznuos" (modest women), respectively. In Ketubos 3a, it explains what was meant by the word "Prutzos." It says:

ומשום פרוצות דאי אמרת לא ליהוי גיטא זימנין דאניס ואמרה לא אניס ואזלא ומינסבא ונמצא גט בטל ובניה ממזרים

(Translation)
"And for sake of immoral women: For if you say that it is not a valid bill of divorce, occasionally it happens that he is constrained, and she thinks within herself that he is not constrained, and so she goes away and marries [another]. In this case, the bill of divorce is cancelled and her children are bastards."

David

Before the gezarah, what would be the Halacha. The time is up and he didn't return, is she allowed to get remarried?

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Before the gezarah, what would be the Halacha. The time is up and he didn't return, is she allowed to get remarried?

Rav Chaim,

Before the "Gezarah," if the alotted time had expired and she went ahead and got married again, the bill of divorce would have been cancelled by her first husband's claim of "constraint." In retrospect, her second marriage was never legal, and her children are bastards. She would then be forbidden unto both men, namely: Her first husband, and the man whom she thought she married.

David

I meant without knowing his situation. She goes to a Rabbi and asks him "Can I get married?" What should the Rabbi answer?

quote:

forbidden unto both men, namely: Her first husband, and the man whom she thought she married.

Why would she then become prohibitted to the one she thought she married as a second marriage?

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

forbidden unto both men, namely: Her first husband, and the man whom she thought she married.

Why would she then become prohibitted to the one she thought she married as a second marriage?

Rob,

She is forbidden unto that man she thought she married since the "get" (bill of divorce) given to her by her first husband was not valid, and therefore she is still legally married to the first. To continue with the second man would be an adulterous relationship.

David