Q&A: Relationships
Relationships
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’ve had a girlfriend for a few months. I love her very much.
A. Are all acts of intercourse between an unmarried couple, generally speaking, considered promiscuous intercourse because there is no formal marriage there? Or is the existence of a relationship enough, such that it counts as intercourse for the sake of betrothal?
B. My girlfriend is a non-Jew. Since we are dating, and many people know that we are together, is that considered public, so that having sexual relations with her falls under the category of “zealots may strike him”?
From the little I’ve looked into it, I understood that if I have relations with her in private, there is a dispute about it, and some halakhic decisors even argue that it is less severe than sexual relations with a Jewish woman during menstruation (there is no karet penalty for a menstruant, and in their view not even karet by prophetic tradition, though of course there are the “regular” prohibitions like wasting seed, etc.).
As I understand it, “in private” means relations in a room like normal people, regardless of the fact that many Jews are aware that we are a couple, but I’d be glad to hear your opinion.
C. If our acts of intercourse as an unmarried couple are not considered promiscuous intercourse, do I also violate “you shall not intermarry with them”?
Believe me, I know it’s strange that I’m dating a non-Jewish woman and asking for intricate halakhic distinctions and how to squeeze out as many leniencies as possible… I’m in a terrible conflict with myself.
Thank you.
Answer
As a matter of principle, I do not give advice on how to reduce the number of transgressions one commits (I wrote about this in articles on the Jewish law of Rabbi Ilai). Clearly, the whole thing is forbidden, period. Jewish law tells you to leave her.
I can answer halakhic questions, and you will choose your own path (though it requires further examination whether one may teach a student who is not worthy).
There is no intercourse for the sake of betrothal with a non-Jewish woman, because there is no betrothal with a non-Jewish woman.
Intercourse within a relationship is not intercourse for the sake of betrothal unless he intended it as betrothal.
In my opinion this definitely falls under the category of “zealots may strike him.” Pinchas too went in to stab Zimri in the chamber. It was not outside. The very witnesses to seclusion are the witnesses to intercourse.
The halakhic severity of relations with a non-Jewish woman is very unclear. Formally, it is certainly less severe than relations with a menstruant. But our tradition treats this as having an ideological severity that goes beyond the law itself. This is entirely promiscuous intercourse.
You do violate “you shall not intermarry with them.” After all, there is no betrothal with a non-Jewish woman, so it cannot be that the prohibition applies only to formal betrothal.
Discussion on Answer
In my opinion, because there is no marital bond and no betrothal with a non-Jewish woman, the acts of intercourse are promiscuity regardless of his intention.
What about this:
There are two different ways to understand the prohibition of “you shall not intermarry”: one is that the prohibition is meant to distance us from idolatry, and if so it may be limited only to the seven nations, and that is indeed how the Tur rules (Even HaEzer, section 16);
And I also saw in Maimonides’ Book of Commandments that it says this:
Negative commandment 52 — not to marry an idolater
He warned us against intermarrying with disbelievers, as He, may He be exalted, said: “You shall not intermarry with them” (Deuteronomy 7:3). And he explained what intermarriage is: “Your daughter you shall not give to his son.” And by way of explanation they said: The Torah prohibited it in the manner of marriage.
And one who violates this prohibition has a differentiated punishment: if one has intercourse with an Aramean woman publicly, then anyone who kills him while he is still attached in the act has thereby carried out the punishment, as Pinchas did to Zimri. And they said (Sanhedrin 81b): “One who has intercourse with an Aramean woman — zealots may strike him,” but under the conditions we mentioned, namely that he has relations with her publicly and during the act, as in the incident that occurred.
It sounds from here that only someone who has intercourse publicly falls under the category of “zealots may strike him,” no?
Indeed, it is possible that this was said only about the seven nations and out of concern that one might be led astray by them. In that case there would be no source here for a general prohibition of intermarriage with non-Jews at all (and perhaps there would also be a prohibition regarding a Jew who incites to idolatry, or just an idolater). In the plain sense of the Talmudic passage, it seems that in the conclusion it is a general prohibition, but among the halakhic authorities there really are different opinions. I was speaking about the prohibition against marrying a non-Jew, even if it is not based on this verse.
In Maimonides it really does sound like it is forbidden only if they live together in a marital way. But see Avnei Milu’im, section 15, for different opinions on this. Here it was described that they are known as a couple, and therefore it may be considered in the manner of marriage even according to Maimonides.
As for publicness, that is clear. The question is what “public” means. I showed from the case of Zimri that if they go around together publicly, then even if the actual intercourse takes place in private, it is considered public.
1) When you say that our tradition treats this as having an ideological severity beyond the law itself, do you mean the way people relate to the sin of wasting seed? Or some other kind of ideological severity?
You say that formally it is less severe than relations with a menstruant, and on the other hand today’s mainstream rabbinic world treats relations with a non-Jewish woman as the granddaddy of all prohibitions, with Torah lectures full of kabbalistic horror stories plus reincarnation as a black dog from the teachings of the Ari plus eternal Gehinnom plus special effects. Maybe the real move should be to start warning just as forcefully against relationships with Jewish women outside marriage.
2) Let’s say that non-Jewish woman’s last name is Cohen, and the public that sees them going out together doesn’t realize she’s non-Jewish — does that change anything for anyone?
Correction of the sloppy wording of question number 2:
Let’s say that non-Jewish woman’s last name is Cohen, and the public that sees them going out together doesn’t realize she’s non-Jewish — does that change the severity of the transgression?
I don’t understand the question. I wrote what the severity is, and it has nothing to do with appearances. Of course, a transgression done publicly is always more severe and more demonstrative.
Isn’t it a contradiction to say that this is both promiscuous intercourse and also a violation of “you shall not intermarry with them”? If it is in the manner of promiscuity, then it is promiscuous intercourse, but then “you shall not intermarry with them” would not apply. If it is in the manner of marriage, then “you shall not intermarry with them” applies, but it is not promiscuous intercourse. It can’t be both.