Q&A: The relationship between a divorce claim and the presumption of "better to dwell as two" and the concern of "perhaps she has set her eyes on another"
The relationship between a divorce claim and the presumption of "better to dwell as two" and the concern of "perhaps she has set her eyes on another"
Question
-
Hello Rabbi Michael,
What is the relationship between the presumption "better to dwell as two than to dwell as a widow" and a case where a woman files for divorce?
Does the presumption become rebutted with respect to that woman who is filing the claim, since she does not want this man and does not want any other man either?
Or is the presumption not rebutted with respect to that woman who is filing the claim, since she does not want this man but does want another man?
Answer
The presumption deals with the woman’s thoughts and wishes at the time of the betrothal, not afterward. Therefore the presumption is unrelated to a divorce claim (otherwise there could never be a divorce claim, because the betrothal would be void from the moment such a claim was filed). It is true that sometimes the grounds are so fundamental that one could raise a claim of "on that understanding"—meaning that if the woman had known in advance that this was the situation, she would not have agreed to be betrothed. But that is really only in extreme cases (and it is not agreed that this is even possible at all).
What does another man have to do with it? I did not understand the last questions.
Discussion on Answer
As I wrote, the mere fact that there is a divorce claim does not contradict the presumption, because the presumption is assessed according to her wishes at the time of the betrothal and not now. I do not see any connection to the question of whether she wants another man.
As I wrote in the title, in my opinion there is a connection between them and the concern of "perhaps she has set her eyes on another." That is, the existence of the concern of "perhaps she has set her eyes on another" and the presumption of "better to dwell as two" teaches that when filing for divorce the woman does not want her man (her husband) but does want another man.
In other words, applying the presumption of "better to dwell as two" teaches that when filing for divorce the woman does not want her man (her husband) but does want another man (and not that she does not want anyone else), and therefore the concern of "perhaps she has set her eyes on another" follows.
With all due respect, all this is Greek to me.
1. There is no presumption of "perhaps she has set her eyes on another." That is not a presumption but a concern.
2. A divorce claim does not prove that she wants someone else, only that she does not want him.
If you do not explain in greater detail and instead just repeat the same things again, then I probably still will not understand. If you want to ask something, please bring a source or explain the reasoning, and then maybe it can be discussed. I simply do not understand what you are asking.
Thank you very much for answering the first part of the question.
Does the presumption of "better to dwell as two" become rebutted with respect to a woman when she files for divorce, since her claim proves that the woman does not want her man (her husband) and does not want any other man either? Or is the presumption not rebutted with respect to her, since she does not want her man but does want another man?