Conditions of marriage
Hello Rabbi. I heard the episode you did with female visitors to the rabbinate, and incidentally you said that there is no logic in claiming that a condition in a marriage that was done properly will not be valid.
At the time, when I studied the issue with Rabbi Moshe Lichtenstein, he claimed (as I believe in the name of Rabbi Soloveitchik) that ‘there are no conditions in marriage,’ meaning that it is impossible to impose conditions on marriage at all, because marriage is simply a reality – if a man and a woman live together – they are married, no matter what they say.
Is this interpretation not an acceptable or accepted interpretation?
9.3.2023, 17:45 – Michael Avraham: The condition is on the consecration
9.3.2023, 17:51 – Q: Of course, but if the above explanation is correct, and if we accept the method that the one who buys the child, then it will not help to stipulate the kiddushin.
9.3.2023, 17:52 – Michael Avraham: Why not? If we stipulated on the consecration, the condition is not met, the consecration is void.
9.3.2023, 17:54 – Q: But if a chuppah is bought, then even without a kiddushin, the marriage will be valid and a divorce is needed…
9.3.2023, 17:56 – Michael Avraham: I didn’t understand anything. A chuppah doesn’t buy, but rather grants a marriage at most (according to Halacha, not a ki’al as Rabbi Huna does in Kiddushin).
9.3.2023, 18:01 – S: Um… well – that’s an understandable argument if you do believe that there are no poskim like Rabbi Huna. I remember from my rabbinical studies that there are poskim who do fear him.
9.3.2023, 18:02 – Q: And that this is one of the reasons for those who require a divorce from a civil marriage
9.3.2023, 18:50 – Michael Avraham: This is an esoteric method, and all the pages of the teaching wrote that a woman is purchased in three ways. In any case, it is clear that whoever did perform a kiddushin did not intend to buy in the chuppah that follows them.
And even if the canopy buys, it goes to a method in which the canopy has a proprietary dimension and therefore can also be conditioned on it.
And to say that the stipulation was intended only for the Kiddushin and not for the wedding is ridiculous, certainly as a general statement. Perhaps in a particular case it can be argued based on specific indications that it was conditional only on the Kiddushin. But to derive from this a blanket rule that there is always no condition in marriage is absurd.
In short, no one would be afraid of something like this unless it was driven by an agenda. Doesn’t hold a drop of water.
9.3.2023, 19:04 – Q: I understood, as stated – according to Rabbi Soloveitchik’s explanation of the matter, in the opinion of Rabbi Huna, a chuppah is a purchase anyway and not by intention, but the words were said for reference and not according to halacha and I have no idea whether anyone is actually concerned about this in practice.
thanks!
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
