Q&A: A Law for Annulment of Marriage
A Law for Annulment of Marriage
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Two questions about the law for annulment of marriage that is on the Knesset table.
A. If a law for annulment of marriage in a case where no get was given is passed, will the annulment take effect fully retroactively, or will it take effect from now on, retroactively?
I thought that even if annulment of marriage by a religious court, by virtue of "whoever betroths does so subject to the rabbis," takes effect from now on, retroactively, in the case of the law it would take effect fully retroactively, based on the following reasoning:
"Whoever betroths does so subject to the rabbis" is essentially a marriage for a limited time. What is that time? As long as the rabbis' view supports the marriage. If the Sages inform me that they oppose the marriage because of some flaw, the time is up and the marriage lapses. Therefore, according to this understanding, the legal effect of annulment of marriage is from now on, retroactively. This is also why, as more time passes, it becomes harder for a religious court to annul a marriage, because an increasingly strong reason is needed to determine that the Sages are not satisfied with the marriage.
A law of marriage annulment works through a mechanism of confiscating the money of the betrothal. In that case, the marriage never took effect at all, because a man cannot betroth a woman with someone else's money. Therefore the annulment of the marriage would take effect fully retroactively. Here there is no question of time or of what it is reasonable to assume about intent. The state has the power to confiscate money even regarding the past, and even if a long time has passed, the marriage is null and void fully retroactively.
B. Would the annulment of marriage also apply to a marriage effected by document, or with a document can one effect marriage even without ownership of the document or monetary value to the document?
Y.D.
Answer
I see this is a family business (I only just now received an email about this from your relative, may she live long).
A. I do not know which law you are referring to. She wrote to me about declaring the betrothal money ownerless, and that applies retroactively. I do not understand why it matters whether this is from now on, retroactively, or truly retroactively. This is a conceptual Talmudic distinction, and simply speaking every retroactive effect is from now on, retroactively. The underlying assumption is that there is no such thing as truly retroactive.
B. As for your argument (I understood that you are speaking about declaring the money ownerless), it does not seem correct to me. The money too is declared ownerless from now on, retroactively.
C. Beyond that, a conditional marriage is not a marriage for a limited time.
D. In my opinion, "whoever betroths" is not a simple condition; rather, the concept of marriage depends on the consent of the public, not that the man marrying made a condition.
E. There are opinions that declaring the marriage ownerless is prospective, but these are isolated and strained opinions. I myself once wrote this, in light of what I wrote in section D.
F. If we are talking about declaring the money ownerless, then of course that does not help for a document or intercourse. The document itself need not be worth a perutah.