The Tel Aviv Rabbinical Court accepted the woman’s claim that if she had known of her husband’s homosexual inclination, she would never have married him – and ruled that her agreement to marriage was meaningless and the marriage was a “Mekach Taus”, a mistaken transaction. Dayan Cohen said in his ruling that he would not have accepted such a claim in order to permit a married woman to marry someone else but since the woman had already received her divorce, the concept of Mekach Taus can be used to enable her to marry a Kohen.
Interesting. Did rav Moshe ever address this particular problem? ( homo / mekach /Cohen)?
ReplyDeletehe had a case of homosexuality that he didn't require a get
ReplyDeleteNot sure why this is a reason specifically for cohen
she already had the Gett from from the husband, so the issue was not eishes ish. The issue was whether she could marry a Cohen, being a divorcee. It is annulling the kiddushin, in order to say she was never married - hence presumably can marry the cohen.
ReplyDeleteDo you get this Halachic "logic"?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, Dayan Cohen said, that he would NOT have nullified the woman's marriage, on the basis of a claim of “Mekach Taus”, that if she had known of her husband’s homosexual inclination, she would never have married him.
I take that to mean, that evidently, he feels that such a “Mekach Taus” claim is NOT sufficient, to retroactively annul a marriage.
Yet, strangely, he's perfectly comfortable to employ this very same “Mekach Taus” claim, in order to enable her to marry a Kohen, by retroactively annulling her marriage, and declaring that her receipt of a Get was unnecessary.
Why would he be comfortable sanctioning a situation, which potentially involves a Torah prohibition every single time the couple is together?
He's being machmir on eishes ish.
ReplyDeleteAs I edited my comment, not sure if you saw what I quoted from r rakeffet. He says he's surveyed the Talmudic mentions of mekach taut, and that each time it comes with a Gett.
A Gett was already provided, so where is the problem with his annulment?
Is a kohen required to marry a betulah? Did the homo even fulfil his marital obligations? Are we required to know, or do we make a chazakah that he didn't?