Q&A: Having relations with a married woman who lied that she was divorced
Having relations with a married woman who lied that she was divorced
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to know what the status is of a single man who met a woman who misled him and told him that she was divorced from her husband. That man had relations with that woman several times, and afterward she confessed to him that she was still married and not divorced as she had claimed. What is that man’s status? He did not know that she was married; he would have stayed away from her like fire. He regrets this to the depths of his soul, he is beside himself with grief. Is it considered that he sinned unintentionally? I would appreciate an answer.
Answer
It is clear that he is considered unintentional. However, there is also some prohibition even with an unmarried woman, and in that respect he acted intentionally.
Discussion on Answer
Repentance is defined in Jewish law as you described it (of course also abandoning the sin). Beyond that, I have nothing to add.
For the intentional part, he needs to repent as for an intentional sin, and for the unintentional part, he needs to repent as for an unintentional sin.
In principle that’s correct, but if she told him she was unmarried, then there is room to judge him as coerced.
"However, there is also some prohibition even with an unmarried woman."
What is the prohibition?
Search online. This is basic information. See for example here: https://www.etzion.org.il/he/halakha/even-haezer/marital-relations/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D6%BC%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9F
Hello Rabbi,
A case was just publicized in which a community used a person as a "Sabbath Gentile," and it turned out that he was Jewish. The rabbi ruled that whoever used him in accordance with Jewish law does not need atonement, but whoever used him not according to the laws of instructing a non-Jew needs atonement not only for violating the prohibition of instructing a non-Jew, but also for causing a Jew to desecrate the Sabbath, something like "its beginning was through negligence and its end through circumstances beyond his control." I’m attaching a link; I wasn’t able to find the source of this ruling.
Why shouldn’t we say here as well that the one who had relations with that woman violated the prohibition regarding an unmarried woman, and therefore he is negligent, and if so he should need atonement also for the prohibition of a married woman?
Here is the link:
https://www.jdn.co.il/j_world/2226602/
In my opinion that rabbi is mistaken. There is a Talmudic passage in Shevuot 18 that says that if a person violated the rabbinic laws of menstrual cycles and his wife saw blood during intercourse itself (which is a prohibition punishable by karet), he is considered unintentional and not coerced regarding the Torah-level prohibition (see also Rashba there). In Klei Chemdah he brought later authorities who learned from here like that rabbi, that anyone who intentionally violated a rabbinic prohibition and stumbled into a Torah-level prohibition is considered unintentional rather than coerced with respect to the Torah-level prohibition. But he argues, correctly, that this is not so. It applies only to menstrual-cycle laws, because the whole prohibition there is due to concern that the woman might see blood at that time. The entire rabbinic prohibition is nothing but a warning not to come to a Torah prohibition. In such a case, they warned him and he was not careful, and therefore he is not coerced with respect to the Torah-level prohibition. But with a rabbinic prohibition that is not connected to the Torah-level prohibition, we do not say this. And that is simple logic.
Beyond all that, in my opinion there is no prohibition of causing a Jew to stumble here if that Jew did not believe in any of it. His transgressions are not transgressions.
Many thanks.
Where is the Klei Chemdah?
I don’t remember anymore. You’d have to search.
There is something in Klei Chemdah on the festivals of the year (collected from the books Klei Chemdah and Chemdat Yisrael, various collections and books and manuscripts from our late rabbi, by David Avraham Mandelboim, Bnei Brak 2001), section 111.
It discusses someone who slept in the sukkah season outside the sukkah and, in his sleep, broke utensils that had been placed beside him after he fell asleep.
The question is whether, since sleeping outside the sukkah is a prohibition, he is therefore not considered fully under compulsion so as to be exempt from damages, and is liable.
Klei Chemdah writes there:
"Even one who sleeps outside the sukkah is under compulsion with respect to damages, since for this matter he is under complete compulsion. And it is not similar to being close to her expected menstrual time, for there the Sages said that at the time of her cycle one must be concerned that the period will come at its appointed time; therefore, with respect to intercourse he is in the category of negligence. Which is not the case here: although he did commit a prohibition by sleeping outside the sukkah, nevertheless with respect to damages he is in the category of complete compulsion."
That’s not the exact passage, but it’s the same principle.
Thank you, Rabbi, for the quick reply. So now should that person do the standard repentance of regret, confession, and resolution for the future? Or does he need to do something else? Some kind of self-affliction in proportion to the severity of the transgression? What is that person supposed to do from now on?