Q&A: Until He Sees Her
Until He Sees Her
Question
Greetings Rabbi,
It is forbidden for a man to betroth his wife until he sees her (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin).
- What is the law in the case of a rapist or seducer who is obligated to marry her and may not divorce her, so that the concern that she may become repulsive to him and he will divorce her does not apply? Is there still an obligation to see her before betrothal? (In a case where he did not see her at the time of the rape.)
- Also, why is it permitted to betroth through an agent?
- What is the law regarding a blind person—may he have relations by candlelight?
- If the reason it is forbidden to have relations by candlelight is because she may become repulsive to him, can the woman or the man waive this concern?
- In the Shulchan Arukh it is brought that a woman is permitted to adorn herself even during her days of niddah, so that it should not lead to divorce. What is the law regarding a seducer or rapist, who in any case may not divorce her?
Answer
- I did not understand the question. After all, he is obligated to marry her, so what would be the point of requiring him to see her beforehand? Suppose she does not find favor in his eyes—would he then not marry her? Beyond that, he actually can divorce her; it is just forbidden for him to do so.
- Why not? Ideally there is an issue that he should see her, but after the fact the betrothal is certainly valid even if he did not see her. That is the Talmudic passage at the beginning of chapter 2 of Kiddushin.
- Why not?
- Not likely. “Lest she become repulsive” is not for her sake, but for the sake of the relationship, which is a value in itself.
- This is a Talmudic passage in Shabbat 64 (Rabbi Akiva’s novel ruling). This is not a permission to adorn oneself; rather, there is no prohibition here at all. The reasoning of “lest she become repulsive” is only the reason why there is no prohibition here, not a principle that overrides a prohibition. And once there is no prohibition, there is no prohibition.
Discussion on Answer
I heard that in certain Hasidic yeshivas they teach that “until he sees her” means just that:
one time is enough, a few seconds is enough, with the parents around is enough,
because it does not say “until he sees her, sees her, sees her, and again and again sees her.”
Does that seem right to the Rabbi?
What do you think my view would be?
But one has to distinguish between what, in my opinion, is proper to do, and the interpretation of the Talmudic phrase “until he sees her.” The inference is of course silly (as is common in Hasidic quips), but the interpretation is certainly possible. If he sees her, then he has seen her. The norms of how much seeing is needed depend on the circumstances and on the accepted norms in that society.
Regarding number 3, because there is also an issue of modesty…
The rationale is lest she become repulsive to him.
And one more note: the concern lest she become repulsive is not only because it may lead to divorce. Even if he does not divorce her, he lives with her while she is repulsive in his eyes, and that itself is problematic (like a “divorce of the heart”).