Q&A: Divorce for Noahides — Jerusalem Talmud
Divorce for Noahides — Jerusalem Talmud
Question
Hello Rabbi,
The Jerusalem Talmud at the beginning of tractate Kiddushin discusses divorce among Noahides and raises two possibilities: either there is no divorce for them at all (it doesn't matter right now whether that means the marriage cannot be dissolved, or only that there is no divorce by document), or there is mutual divorce. As proof for the view that they do not have divorce, it brings:
"As Rabbi Hiyya taught: If the son of a gentile divorced his wife, and she went and married another, and he divorced her, and afterward both of them converted, I do not apply to her the verse, 'her first husband who sent her away may not take her again to be his wife'; and it was likewise taught: an incident came before Rabbi, and he permitted it."
That is, since there is not really divorce there, or at least not divorce by document, they are not forbidden on account of taking back one's divorcée after she married another man. But this is not clear to me: seemingly there is no need for this, since a convert who converts is like a newborn child. So what would the initial assumption have been that there should be a prohibition?
Answer
It is indeed difficult. One would need to check the commentators on the Jerusalem Talmud. Perhaps the passage there does not accept the assumption that a convert who converts is like a newborn child. Or perhaps it is speaking about rabbinic prohibitions (because rabbinically we do in fact take such legal categories into account, even though a convert is like a newborn child).
Discussion on Answer
See Ben Aryeh's commentary on Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 9:8.
The only one I've seen who addressed it is Penei Moshe:
Penei Moshe on tractate Kiddushin, chapter 1, halakha 1
"And afterward both of them converted — I do not apply to her 'he may not' etc., for a convert who converts is like a newborn child, and their gentile divorce is not considered divorce."
But I don't see how he solved the problem; on the contrary, he brings the point that a convert is like a newborn child, but doesn't explain why that alone isn't enough to permit them. Really, maybe the issue is a rabbinic prohibition.