Q&A: Permission for a woman to return to her first husband
Permission for a woman to return to her first husband
Question
A woman came to me who got divorced and remarried, and after a few days got divorced a second time.
Now she and her first husband want to renew their former relationship.
But in the Torah portion we read in the synagogue it says that this is forbidden. Her daughter showed her the verse and explained that it’s hopeless.
Her claim is that the second husband bluffed the rabbi who arranged the kiddushin, and did not buy the ring. Rather, he found it among the possessions of his father, who is alive and fully functional, and took it without permission, and with that ring he betrothed her.
So in fact she was never married to him, and therefore she is not really divorced a second time and can return to her first husband.
The second husband has an interest in confirming what she says, that he bluffed, because he has his eye on the few coins he gave her at the time of the divorce. He would be happy to get them back if it turns out she is not his divorcee and in fact was never his wife, and please return the money. She is willing to return the money if they permit her to go back to her previous husband.
What does the Rabbi think?
Is there anything to pursue here?
Answer
In my opinion, without proof this will not help at all. This is one witness in a matter of forbidden sexual relationships and of money, and that is ineffective. Especially since there are biases and personal interests here, and it also runs against presumptions of status (such as the presumption of validity, and perhaps also the presumption of being a married woman).
Discussion on Answer
She does have evidence.
He betrothed her with an old ring,
and an ugly one (according to everyone, as she understands it),
and enormous, not fitting her finger.
She told him that she felt not married at all because it was an embarrassing ring, and after some time he went and bought her a new ring.
He admits that he took it from his father without permission.
Her second husband and her first husband are conducting negotiations (through her) over how much of the ketubah money she will return, because both sides understand that it wasn’t for real (?)
Should there be concern that she became excited through intercourse?
There were witnesses for the yichud room.
Sorry.
Betrothed through intercourse?
With God’s help, 19 Elul 5782
To the unreliability of the second husband in claiming that he betrothed her with a stolen ring, one must also add the presumption that a man does not render his intercourse promiscuous intercourse, and presumably the owner of the ring gave him the ring as a gift so that he could betroth a woman with it. Especially if the ring belonged to his father—what would have prevented him from asking his father to give it to him as a gift?
Even if we say that the father did not know that they were using his ring—which is not so logical, since he presumably invited his father to his wedding—there is still a strong rationale that the owner of the ring would be pleased that a commandment be performed with his property. And especially his father would be pleased that his son acquire the ring in order to betroth a woman with it, and presumably he would want his son to acquire the ring so he could betroth with it.
With blessings, M.B.T.
She was not betrothed through intercourse, because his intention was to betroth her with the ring.
Even if the father would be pleased that a commandment be performed with his property (kiddushin, plainly speaking, is not a commandment), the son did not necessarily intend to acquire it. And if the father would have been willing to give it to him, then why take it without permission?
I didn’t understand what evidence you saw here. And even if there were such evidence, it still would not be enough, because you need two witnesses.
The father is elderly and in a nursing home.
The son stole from the possessions of his father, who is mentally completely sound.
Maybe there is still room to make some sort of argument. After all, if it is true that the ring was not his, then she really was not betrothed to the second man. Everything here is just the laws of evidence, but there is no need for a legal act of annulling kiddushin by a religious court. The question is whether factually she was betrothed or not.
So if the woman and the first husband believe that she really was not betrothed to the second, they can marry each other and take the risk that maybe they are mistaken. If the truth is that they are not mistaken before Heaven, then I think there is no transgression here on their part, since factually she really was not married to the second man. And there is no prohibition against relying on one witness where two are required, except when we are dealing with judges in a religious court. But this still requires further consideration.