Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Pilegesh permitted by rav if wife is sterile

bhol   אב בית הדין הרבני בירושלים, הרב אליהו אברג'יל, בפסק הלכה חדשני: במקרים שבהם אין לגבר ילדים, אם אשתו אינה יכולה   ללדת ילדים, הוא רשאי לקחת פילגש.

בעיתון "ישראל היום" פורסמה הוראה שנכתבה בספרו החדש "דברות אליהו", שם כתב הרב: "הקמת משפחה זו מצווה חשובה.

"אישה שמסרבת או שאינה יכולה להביא ילדים לעולם, ולא מוכנה לתת גט לבעלה, מעכבת אותו מלבנות משפחה ולהמשיך את זרעו. במקרה שכזה הבעל רשאי לקחת לו פילגש ואין עם זה שום בעיה הלכתית. הדבר יסייע לאותם בעלים לקיים את מצוות פרו ורבו גם במחיר של לקיחת פילגש על בסיס קבוע. אותה פילגש יכולה גם לגור יחד עם בני הזוג", כך בספר.

12 comments :

  1. Have you checked this out or are you simply repeating a discredited news source(BeChadarei) which itself is quoting a free daily Tabloid(Israel HaYom) which itself is unreliable at best?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Asher Pihem Diber ShavJuly 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM

    Pilegesh..You got to be kidding me. Does she have to be jewish ? Is there anyway that I can just get a shiksa ?
    How about a shifcha cnaanis ? Come on Mr. Daas Torah. I have heard this over and over again from friends who were trying to be helpful. Here are a few more myths that some will try to get you to approve.

    1) A shiksa is not a nidah, and if it's not derech chasnos, and no yichud she is muttar. Even If she is married there is no eishes ish by goyim. Nshgz is only a takana.

    2) If she is a single jewish girl who went to the mikva where there is no nidah, she is muttar without chuppah and kiddushin.

    3) Cherem derabbeinu gershom doesn't apply in this millenium.

    4) Woman are halachically allowed to be with other women.

    All these are not true to those who know halacha.

    The reality is: the human condition is such that the senses control the mind. The same way a lazy man says there is a lion on the way. He believes it, because his personality flaw affects his judgement. He will find proofs from the torah that he is right. So too the impulse to lust and conquer, causes even some talmudists to find false reasons to approve that which is forbidden. Yes I said it forbidden. If you need sources just ask.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are wrong on several fronts.

      1. A shiksa is not nidah. The issur of shiksa does extend beyond chasnus, but is a Lav, not one which carries Chiyuv Misah. True - no aishes ish by goyim, but to a goy, there is aishes ish. That is relevant for sheva mitzvos bnei noach.

      2. You are reporting the halachos of pilegesh. See Raavad, Hilchos Ishus 1:4. Do not neglect the other condition - that this girl is meyuchedes to this man. If she is mufkeres, this is the zonah of the Torah and is forbidden.

      3. Cherem D'Rabenu Gershom expired, as the takana was set to end with the conclusion of the 4th millenium. However, it was accepted for continuation unanimously by the leaders of the Ashkenazic communities. It applies, just as custom, not as a takanah.

      4. SSR between women is proscribed, but as a perversion of normal relationship, not as an issur.

      Delete
  3. this raises an interesting question: is it allowed for a woman to become the "pilegesh" of a man? I understood that sex outside of marriage is not viewed as desirable within the jewish religion in general, ashkenazim and sefardim.

    So this psak would further what organisations like pilegesh.org preach: that pilegesh is legitimate...

    And of course, once "pilegesh" (to a married or non-married man) is legitimised, the question whether she needs a get begs for an answer too...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A pilegesh is a formal, legal, relationship under halacha.

      Delete
  4. As we know, many "modern Orthodox" women seek the right to arbitrarily divorce their husbands when the women so desire. In response to this demand, the modern Orthodox "rabbis" are promoting the brutally feminist halachic fraud of allowing a forced Get using a prenupt agreement which requires the husband to pay $150 per day to his wife anytime they are not living together, for any reason. According to these fraudulent prenupt agreements, the money is owed to the wife al pi halacha even if the wife throws the husband out of the house with a court order, and the husband has no right to the wife's earnings.

    Is it possible pilegesh might be a halachically preferable arrangement for modern Orthodox couples as opposed to allowing a pasul Get using financial coercion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What did he do so that court agrees to throw him out? A court order will not come about without a reason...

      Delete
    2. "daas torah" remains silent on the question whether contemporary halacha allows a woman to become a pilegesh of such a man...

      Delete
    3. Helas didn't you already posken on this issue?

      Historically the Rambam claimed that pilegesh was only for a king. Ramban disagreed and in fact pilegesh existed at least in Spain. Ramban however objected to its use because of the deleterious impact it had on society. Rav Yaakov Emden was supportive of the idea.

      So now we have a respected Torah scholar saying it is permitted. and we have the general disapproval or non use of the status. The first question is whether it is prohibited and the second one is whether it is desirable. That is not for me to say

      Delete
  5. Davidovici PatrickJuly 19, 2012 at 6:21 PM

    Only the truth ! And the truth is that there is a heter from Rav Yaacov Emden for Pileguesh ( Need 3 conditions ). To see the english translation from this pessak go to :
    http://pilegeshpersonals.com/Rabbi_Yaakov_Emden's_responsa_on_Pilegesh.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  6. This innovative rabbi is apparently either unaware or feels he's smarter than the Tshuvos Radvaz at 4:225.
    (See < http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1375&hilite=cc1a83f0-b7ee-430b-932c-ac0b62fec1fb&st=%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%A9&pgnum=129 >)

    ReplyDelete
  7. When one compares what the Ramban informed his students (don't tell people its permitted) to what they actually wrote (its forbidden) one could conclude there is not problem with piligesh in our days. In terms of the letter of the law, they would be correct. But in terms of ruakh haTorah I believe (and while I fancy myself a lamdan I am not a rav and have no communal responsibilities) chazal were deeply concerned with the status of women and did not want them to be treated as hefker. The harem d'rabbeinu gershom is expired, but its intent remains valid in our days. There may be exceptional circumstances where a piligesh might serve as a workable, healthy, and fair solution for those involved - but in most cases it won't. I can't say its assur - like the Ramban, I know its not - but I don't think the frum world should regard it as ruakh Torah, either.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.