There are two separate prohibitions mentioned in Yevamos (24b) regarding the marriage of someone who has been living with a non-Jewish woman prior to conversion. 1) Conversion for the sake of marriage is prohibited l’chatchila – but according to most poskim today if there is a sincere acceptance of mitzvos it is permitted. 2) It is prohibited to allow a marriage to a convert who it is suspected was living with the Jewish man prior to conversion. Is it better or worse that they were living openly as husband and wife prior to conversion?
The issue of why we today ignore clearly stated prohibitions in the gemora is discussed at great length in the literature. It is too complex an issue for simple summary. Below is the gemora and following it is an excerpt from Rabbi Bleich. There is also an excellent discussion in Prof. Finkelstein’s book on geirus.
MISHNAH. IF A MAN IS SUSPECTED OF [INTERCOURSE] WITH A SLAVE WHO WAS LATER EMANCIPATED, OR WITH A HEATHEN WHO SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME A PROSELYTE, LO, HE MUST NOT MARRY HER. IF, HOWEVER, HE DID MARRY HER THEY NEED NOT BE PARTED. IF A MAN IS SUSPECTED OF INTERCOURSE WITH A MARRIED WOMAN WHO, [IN CONSEQUENCE,] WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HER HUSBAND, HE MUST LET HER GO EVEN THOUGH HE HAD MARRIED HER.
GEMARA. This implies that she may become a proper proselyte. But against this a contradiction is raised. Both a man who became a proselyte for the sake of a woman and a woman who became a proselyte for the sake of a man, and, similarly, a man who became a proselyte for the sake of a royal board, or for the sake of joining Solomon's servants,1are no proper proselytes. These are the words of R. Nehemiah, for R. Nehemiah used to Say: Neither lion-proselytes, nor dream-proselytes nor the proselytes of Mordecai and Esther are proper proselytes unless they become converted at the present time. How can it be said, ‘at the present time’?-Say ‘as at the present time’! -Surely concerning this it was stated that R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha said in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accordance with the opinion of him who maintained that they were all proper proselytes. If so, this should have been permitted altogether! - On account of [the reason given by] R. Assi. For R. Assi said, Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lip's etc.
Rabbi Bleich writes in his article Conversion for the Sake of Intermarriage
The vast majority of questionable conversions are performed in order to facilitate marriage with a Jewish spouse and quite often occur after a civil marriage has already taken place. However, such unions present a grave halakhic problem. Even when the conversion itself is entered into with the utmost sincerity and conviction, it is questionable whether a converted Jewess may marry a Jew with whom she consorted while still a gentile The Mishnah (Yevamos 24b) declares that one who is suspected of having cohabited with a gentile woman may not marry the woman in question subsequent to her conversion. The Mishnah adds, however, that if the marriage did take place the couple are not obliged to seek a divorce. Rashi explains that this prohibition was promulgated in order to safeguard the honor and reputation of the husband since marriage under such circumstances is likely to lend credence to rumors of previous immorality. On the basis of the explanation advanced by Rashi, some authorities" conclude that this prohibition does not encompass instances in which the couple have been living together publicly, since in such cases previous immoral conduct is an established verity."… Rabbi Feinstein asserts that even according to Rashba's interpretation, the prohibition against marriage following conversion is not applicable in cases where a civil marriage has already taken place. Since the couple have already established a permanent conjugal relationship, argues Rabbi Feinstein, there can be no grounds for the suspicion that conversion was insincerely sought merely for the sake of marriage. It would seem, however, that the numerous authorities cited in an earlier section, who maintain that the desire to legitimize the relationship and to contract a marriage which is valid in the eyes of Halakhah constitute an ulterior motive disqualifying the candidacy of a prospective proselyte, would also deem marriage subsequent to conversion to be forbidden, according to Rashba, on these self-same grounds. R. Yosef Sha'ul Nathanson expressly forbids the marriage of a Jew and a prospective convert despite the fact that they had been married in a civil ceremony and had sired children." Such marriages are also forbidden by R. Ya'akov Ettlinger t?- and R. Meir Arak.47b…
Whatever the final adjudication of the Halakhah with regard to this complex question may be in any particular case, it can be seen that the permissibility of marriage under such circumstances constitutes a matter requiring careful halakhic deliberation.
Rabbi Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this informative post. I was not aware of this issue, as was probably clear from my recent comments.
Although, according to R' Moshe Feinstein, the position I took was correct, it is appears from your post that their are major poskim who disagree.
It appears, in any case, that R' Moshe's position is seen as the dominant one, at least in America.
"It appears, in any case, that R' Moshe's position is seen as the dominant one, at least in America."
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe Feinstein, according to Agudah Dayan, Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, paskened that NCSY can proselytise Gentile children of Jewish fathers to participate in NCSY programs in hopes that they will seek to convert. Rav Moshe allegedly held that by not proselytizing these youngsters to convert they would none the less continue believing they were Jewish and seek to marry other Jews That would actually increase inter-marriage in Klal Yisroel.
Rav Moshe had also paskened the same with regard to Jewish Day schools seeking to enroll the Gentile children of Jewish biological fathers.
I wonder if Rav Moshe would rule the same today in light of the proliferation of "Orthodox" intermarriages being performed in the Rav's name?
Rav Moshe's position is viewed as the dominant one in America because no one makes a $100,000 donation to an Orthodox Rabbi who marries his son to a JEW!
Concerning R'Fuerst's report of R' Moshe Feinstein's view. R' Fuerst has criticized EJF for outreach in dealing with intermarried couples. He asserts that Rav Moshe allowed dealing with people with mistaken Jewish identity who come on their own to kiruv organization.
ReplyDeleteEJF in contrast deals with intermarried couples who know that they are sinning.
Furthermore Rav Moshe's suggestion for dealing with schools with populations of halachic non-Jews is similar. They are already involved in the school as Jews.
It is important to note that R' Tropper insists his organization is run according to the views of R' Moshe Feinstein - obviously one of them is wrong.
by not proselytizing these youngsters to convert they would none the less continue believing they were Jewish and seek to marry other Jews That would actually increase inter-marriage in Klal Yisroel
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Sounds like many Russians Olim ... except that they are Mamash Tinokos Shenishbu ...
Accepting intermarriage as necessary promoted by Edgar Bronfman
ReplyDeleteHis views and personal opinions are so riddled with distortions and lies, not to mention deviations and heresies from the point of view of Judaism, that he often sounds like a comical ignoramus am ha'aretz (in the Ha'aretz paper yet), but this is what the major secular leaders are thinking and preaching so it's worth taking note of their fantasies and how their ideas will wreck any shred of what's left of Yiddishkeit in America and the world, and they expect Israel to ok their weird expectations yet..
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1027412.html
"Bronfman: U.S. support for Israel hinges on recognition of mixed marriages
By Shlomo Shamir
NEW YORK - Edgar Bronfman, 79, still best known in the financial world as the owner for many years of Seagram's Whiskey and until a few years ago as president of the World Jewish Congress, recently published a book, "Hope, Not Fear." Over its 222 pages, Bronfman preaches for comprehensive reform of the content of Jewish life, and calls for changes in the conduct of its religious streams - particularly in the relationships between them.
In an interview with Haaretz yesterday, Bronfman said: "Judaism must open up and fully accept families where one of the parents is not Jewish. If a revolutionary change is not made in the present rejectionist attitude toward mixed couples, the Jewish community in America will shrink and lose its influence, and American support for Israel will be in danger."
In the midst of the financial crisis, Bronfman, who is considered a symbol of capitalism, says he is more worried about the future of Judaism and what the Jewish community may have to face because of what he defines as "narrow-mindedness and clinging to archaic Jewish values that are not in keeping with the needs and goals of the community in the 21st century."
According to generally-accepted statistics, intermarriage in the Jewish community stands at 48 percent. Bronfman stresses that he is not encouraging intermarriage, but the phenomenon exists and cannot be ignored. He warns that "if Judaism wants to keep its relevance, it must grow," and that will happen only "if Judaism welcomes men and women who have chosen to marry non-Jews.
"Abraham welcomed the three angels as his guests and did not ask who they were or what their religion was," Bronfman says.
As support for his argument, Bronfman presents a little-known statistic: "About half the students on U.S. campuses who identify themselves as Jews come from families where one of the parents is not Jewish," he says. This particular figure has meaning for Bronfman, who has for many years chaired the international board of governors of the Jewish campus organization Hillel.[...]