Rav Moshe Sternbuch (2:642): Concerning one who has rejected religion it would seem that he does not require a Get from a civil marriage. This is according to the view of the Rogitshover who explains that in civil marriage there is a need for a get because she is considered a pilegesh. However it would seem that the case of civil marriage is not comparable to the case of pilegesh. That is because in the case of pilegesh the intent of the couple is to have a relationship according to the Torah. According to the Torah a pilegesh is exclusively for him and prohibited to others. This is not comparable to the modern irreligious people who have totally rejected the obligations of the Torah. In the case of a genuine pilegesh the woman is required to know that she is a pilegesh according to Torah law and that she is prohibited to others according to the Torah. In such a case she would be need a Get according to Torah law as is stated in the Bi’ur HaGra (260:26). In contrast in the case of someone who has rejected Torah and comes to us – my view is to be machmir l’chatchila only because of the reasons I mentioned above [that we are concerned for the minority view of Rav Huna that Chupa acquires]. However if insistence on a Get will create an aguna then there is no reason to be machmir as I stated previously
So the pilegesh relationship has all the disadavantages of marriage for the woman (like the need of a get, the exclusivity), but none of the advantages (like monogamy, ketuba, being provided for, man taking responsibility for children). So who in their right mind would agree to such a relationship, even if 1000 Rabbonim allow it to men?
ReplyDeleteAsk the pilegesh women that existed throughout history.
DeletePS: in this responsum, RAv Sternbuch creates a grey area for mamzerim. I am quite surprised...
ReplyDeleteNo he doesn't.
Deletethere is no grey area of mamzerim!
ReplyDelete"However if insistence on a Get will create an aguna then there is no reason to be machmir as I stated previously"
DeleteIt seems to me that this creates a grey zone. The reasoning is: I think a get is necessary, but if the woman wants to remarry and the man is not ready to give a get, no get is necessary... So why state that a get could be necessary in the first place? Or why agree to remarriage without a get if a get is necessary?
Another thought: In the same way he is lenient here on an issue that could create mamzerim, the issue of a "coerced get" could also be treated with leniency towards the wife, so that the get should be recognised in order to avoid creating mamzerim.
The daughter of a colleague of mine, in protesting the get issue, is choosing to marry as a pilegesh rather than a wife and to write their own relationship contract. The whole point is to avoid the need for a get (according to the sources below). Consequently R. Sternbuchs ruling that a pilegesh does need a get, will create safek mamzerim, if she, or those like her, divorce without a get, remarry, and have children.
ReplyDeleteInasmuch as a concubine does not acquire the personal status of a wife (eshet ish: Tur EH 26; Sh. Ar., EH 26:1), she has no ketubbah; therefore, in accordance with the rule providing that the "terms and conditions of the ketubbah [tena'ei ketubbah] follow the [prescribed] ketubbah" (Ket. 54b; Rashi ibid. S.V. tena'ei ketubbah) she does not acquire any of the wife's pecuniary rights – especially she is not entitled to maintenance – as all those rights stem from the ketubbah. Nor does living with a man as his concubine create a kinship as an impediment to marriage between herself and any of the man's relatives, or between the man and her relatives, as would be the case if she would be considered to be his wife (Rosh, Resp. no. 32:1; Oẓar ha-Posekim, EH 26, n. 3). For the same reason there is no need in principle for her to obtain a get (see *Divorce) in order to be permitted to marry any other man (Oẓar ha-Posekim, loc. cit.; Sefer ha-Tashbeẓ 3:47). However in the opinion of some of the posekim, for the sake of appearances, in view of the parties having lived together, the matter should be approached stringently and the woman should not be permitted to marry another man without obtaining a prior "get out of stringency" (get me ḥumrah) from the man with whom she has lived; but whenever the latter's refusal to grant her the get is likely to entail the risk of her becoming an *agunah, she may certainly be permitted to marry without getting such get (Oẓar ha-Posekim, EH 26, n. 3). Moreover, since the prohibition against concubinage is intended solely against the concubine's connection with her spouse, this fact alone and as such does not impair the personal status of children born of the union, nor their rights of inheritance according to law (Rashba, Resp. vol. 4, no. 314).
As you see, being a pilegesh does not save a woman from needing a Get to live with or marry someone else.
DeleteReply to Yakav Levado:
Delete"The daughter of a colleague of mine, in protesting the get issue, is choosing to marry as a pilegesh"
Today we're seeing an apparent widespread rejection of the traditional gittin laws among many modern Orthodox Jews, including the use of halachically bogus prenupt agreements causing pasul get meusa, all of which contribute to the increasing "shidduchim crisis".
As a solution to the above, why not utilize some type of rabbinically regulated pilegesh relationship contracts, which might avoid the need for a get if written properly?
If a relationship contract specifically stated that neither the man nor the woman have any intention of kiddushin, why should a get be needed to terminate such a relationship? After all, real kiddushin cannot be valid without the agreement of both husband and wife.
But Abe, that's not the whole story. As you see in the paragraph I quoted above there are many (if not most) opinions who rule that the pilegesh does NOT need a get. True that R.Sternbuch ruled otherwise but they are going to hold by the respectable poskim that rule that she doesn't need a get. So by ruling stringently R. Sternbuch creates safek mamzerim.
DeleteTo EmesLe Yaakov
DeleteYes, that is exactly her intention. At first I was very put off by the language of pilegesh, like she was selling herself short so to speak. But really, she/they have a point. The Ketuba is worth nothing if it comes down to a get dispute. And the obligation of the husband supporting, clothing , housing their wives doesn't happen most of the time in some communities and anyway their arrangement around those things is more fluid. And so she/they want to create a more egalitarian marriage with pooled resources and equal claim to them (like the tanaim state explicitly). They seek a monogamous union, with no fear of becoming an aguna or a victim of exortion) if G-d forbid the marriage should collapse. They can write their own "contract". It actually could work, although the stigma would be a problem.
Of course she must realize that if she is a pilegesh, her "husband" can take additional pilegesh's in addition to her.
DeleteReply to Yakov Levado:
DeleteYour arguments in favor of an "egalitarian pilegesh" relationship seem quite valid.
One other point - an "egalitarian pilegesh" relationship could be much fairer to Jewish men than the present blatantly feminist prenupt agreements being pushed by the RCA rabbis. For many men, an "egalitarian pilegesh" arrangement might be much preferable to the present situation where so many politicized "Orthodox" rabbis will jump through hoops to satisfy the demands of alleged "agunot" while ignoring the halachic rights of Jewish men.
There should be no stigma if rabbinically approved and regulated relationship contracts would be used.
I keep wondering. What about all the relationships without marriage? Is a get needed? What if a woman has two lovers in parallel? Will her children be considered mamzerim?
ReplyDeleteWhat if a pilegesh (with a formal pilegesh relationship) takes on a second lover and has children with him? will they be considered mamzerim?
(If the answer is negative for both cases, it might be a bad business for bnoth israel to marry in the first place)
Part of the problem with the halacha of Pilegesh is that the Rishonim had different versions of Sanhedrin 21a. Some therefore say a pilegesh simply doesn't have kesuba - which means the husband has no obligations to her but she does have kiddushin (and thus would require a get). But others have the version that she has neither kiddushin or kesuba. An additional problem is whether pilegeshi is only for kings as the Rambam states or all men can have a pilgesh - but that they shouldn't for moral reasons
ReplyDeleteשו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ד סימן צא
וכן משמע ממה שפירש"י בחומש פ' חיי שרה על פסוק דולבני הפילגשים פילגשים בלא כתובה כדאמרינן בסנהדרין בנשים ופילגשים דדוד הרי גורס בגמ' שם דף כ"א רק פילגשים בלא כתובה, וגם התם השיג עליו הרמב"ן שכתובה הוא מדברי סופרים אלא שהיא בלא קידושין והגירסא בסנהדרין פילגש בלא כתובה וקידושין, אבל פשוט שרש"י גרס בגמ' רק בלא כתובה ועיי"ש במש"כ הרא"מ.
(והמ"מ פ"א מאישות ה"ד הא כתב דאף להרמב"ם היתה הגירסא פילגשים קידושין בלא כתובה, ואף שהרמב"ם הא סובר דכתובה הוא מדרבנן בפ"י מאישות ה"ז ונמצא שלהמ"מ אין חלוק בין אשה לפילגש מן התורה, אולי סובר המ"מ שאין לה חיובי התורה לאשתו שאיכא להרמב"ם מן התורה דהוא מזונות וכסות, ואף שודאי היה דוד זן ומפרנס גם את פילגשיו וגם מסתבר דהיה חייב דלא גרעי משכיריו דכיון דהיו אצלו כל הזמן ולא היו נשכרין למלאכה לאחרים דפשוט דהיה אסור להן, מ"מ לא היה זה מחיוב מזונות דאשתו דצריך לזונה דוקא באופן כבוד וחשיבות דמלכה ובפילגשיו הוא כמזונות דשכיריו וכן הוא בכסות, ואולי אף בעונתה שחייב גם לפילגשיו כמפורש בסנהדרין דף ק"ז דאר"י אמר רב אפילו בשעת חליו של דוד קיים י"ח עונות שפרש"י לי"ח נשיו שלא לעגנן, ובכלל הי"ח נשים דלהרמב"ם היו גם הפילגשים בכלל כמפורש בפ"ג ממלכים ה"ב שכתב לא ירבה לו נשים מפי השמועה למדו שהוא לוקח עד י"ח נשים בין הנשים ופילגשים הכל י"ח היו, אולי ג"כ חילוקים לענין אופן העונה כגון לשמש הוא בבגדו והיא בבגדה דאר"ה יוציא ויתן כתובה בכתובות דף מ"ח ע"א וכדומה לא יתחייב זה לפילגשים. וזה מה שאיתא בירושלמי פרק אף על פי ה"ב לר' יהודה שאמר אחת זו ואחת זו יש לה כתובה אשה יש לה כתובה ותנאי כתובה פילגש יש לה כתובה ואין לה תנאי כתובה, והובא בהגמי"י פ"ד ממלכים ה"ד, ופי' הפ"מ מזונות ובנין דיכרין וכל אלו דחשיב בפירקין דלעיל, וכוונתו במזונות שנקט בחלוק דין דתורה הוא קודם שנתקנה כתובה דהיתה חשובה פילגש זו שאין לה תנאי כתובה, ומסתבר שלכוונה זו הביא הגמי"י ירושלמי זה משום שכתובה לא היה שייך קודם שנתקנה כתובה להרמב"ם שהוא מדרבנן לכן הביא הירושלמי שהוא בלא תנאי כתובה דהוא מחיובי התורה לאשה מזונות וכסות).
RDE: Can you please either translate or in a nutshell say what the Igros Moshe is saying, that you quoted? Thank You
DeleteIn terms of Rambam's assertion that only King's could have a piligesh, how does he assail the concubine of Giveah? The Levite in that story wasn't a king, a prince of a tribe, or even identified as an elder. m'Moshe l'Moshe ain k'moshe, but this one is hard to take.
ReplyDelete