Q&A: Immersion of an Unmarried Woman and the Permissibility of a Concubine
Immersion of an Unmarried Woman and the Permissibility of a Concubine
Question
Do you think that allowing unmarried women to immerse, in order to prevent the sin of intercourse while in niddah, is improper?
And if so, why? Is that considered institutionalizing promiscuity?
Answer
I never understood this strange question of whether to allow unmarried women to immerse. What exactly is the question here? Is there some prohibition against immersing for someone who wants to do so? Even a cat can immerse if it wants to, and so can a menstruating woman without seven clean days (except that she will not become purified through that). Would it enter your mind that if an unmarried woman immerses she would not become purified? So what does it mean not to allow her to immerse? To stop her by force? At most, one can ask whether it is permitted to have sexual relations with her after she has immersed, but that is simply the law regarding intercourse with an unmarried woman, and that too is not in my hands. The heavy-handedness of the rabbinate, which takes over the ritual baths and decides who may immerse and how, has no basis whatsoever in Jewish law.
Institutionalizing promiscuity is a different question, because there we are talking about women who designate themselves for promiscuity (and not for a relationship with one person). When the relationship is with one person and only kiddushin is lacking, we arrive at the law of a concubine (though of course this depends on different views).
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
And would you permit a concubine—if a woman is designated only for one man, without kiddushin and marriage?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
What do you mean, would I permit it? Am I a Sanhedrin? You can ask whether it is permitted according to Jewish law or not. As is known, the medieval authorities disagreed about this, and also about the definition of the concept of a concubine. I think it is not correct to rule in accordance with the permissive opinions, since this nullifies the positive commandment of kiddushin (of course, that is only aside from the non-halakhic problems created here).
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Finally, do you nevertheless see a moral problem in having relations without kiddushin? (Seemingly, if the woman designates herself only for one man, you do not have here the element that empties it of content.)
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I was talking about permissiveness. That empties sexual relations of content. Designating one fixed woman without kiddushin is a halakhic problem, not a moral one.
A concubine does not nullify the positive commandment of kiddushin any more than rabbinic law nullifies the commandment to be fruitful and multiply; that is, the two things are unrelated. There is a concept of concubinage in Jewish law, and it applies to a woman who chooses to have sexual relations with a particular man and be faithful to him without a ketubah and kiddushin. Exactly like any other halakhic definition that applies to an actual factual situation on the ground, and one definition cannot "nullify" another definition… and that is enough for the wise.