Prohibition of a man’s wife who has committed adultery

Greetings to Mr. Hope he is well. I don’t remember my article on the subject. What I found on my website now is a fairly short question and answer: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%9B%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%94-2/ On the surface, it is very difficult to permit in the rabbinical tradition. Indeed, some poskim wrote about a woman who committed fornication because she thought that it was not fornication (some rabbi seduced her by claiming that it was a mitzvah for the benefit of her marriage, etc., as in the case of Sheinberg of Safed, and now another such case has been published by Rahal). But this is because she herself did not think that there was anything superior in the woman here (and they shared some of the words of the rabbinical tradition there). But in the matter of Didan, the explanation that emerges is different: there is nothing superior here because he agrees. This is a new and good opinion, and it is difficult in my opinion to permit on its basis. On the surface, it is not a mitzvah that is strictly speaking a rabbinical tradition. But perhaps there is a place to examine the first kiddushin from the perspective of that same idea. If they were performed while both were far from the Tomah, and were performed with the intention that they would be “open” in principle, there is no kiddushin at all. If he does not dedicate it to himself and both of them knew that it would be “open”, it seems that they did not intend kiddushin as a demuy. And according to the well-known words of the Maharik regarding “ma’aleh ma’al ba’isha”, it seems that even if both of them thought that this was permissible, there is still no kiddushin here because these su’s are not kiddushin. It is true that one must discuss matters of the heart, but in the kiddushin of secular people, even so, everything is about matters of the heart, since the validity of the kiddushin is only because of those who in their hearts want to be sanctified as a demuy. And if it is clear in retrospect that it is not, then there is no kiddushin here. It should perhaps be added that when these things were done, they were rapists in their minds (like babies who were raped), and rape is accidental, and is not forbidden to the husband. Although this depends on whether they understood at the time that this was forbidden and their instincts were valid, or whether they denied the truth of the Torah in general and then became rapists. To Dina, the first reason is questionable in my opinion, and perhaps I should join the other two. In any case, combined with my reasons, there is room for allowing them to remarry because they were not married at all during the era of prostitution. Thus, there is room for discussing at least this situation so as not to close the door to those who return. But if the last two reasons do not exist in the N.D., I would not permit it, unfortunately. And I wrote it.