Q&A: Better to Live as Two Than to Sit Alone
Better to Live as Two Than to Sit Alone
Question
<span;>Rabbi, in the lectures on Jewish law and morality you said that the claim of “better to live as two” needs to be reexamined through surveys rather than by following the Talmudic formulation.
<span;>Where does this claim begin?
<span;>In the case of someone who sells his house with the intention of moving to the Land of Israel, the Talmud says that the sale is void. Tosafot ask: since no condition was stated, why don’t we say that the act stands and the condition is void? They answer that this condition is in his heart and in the heart of every person.
<span;>My claim is that it is not enough that it is obvious to us that he would have agreed to this future condition. Rather, there must be positive knowledge in the heart of every person about the reason for the sale. Then we view that knowledge as a condition: if that reason is not fulfilled, he does not sell. So here there is a condition that begins with defining the positive reason for the sale, and continues with a negative definition: if this reason is not realized, then the act also does not take effect.
<span;>But if we invent a future possibility in which he would not agree, then since this possibility does not arise in the mind of every person as the positive factor behind the sale, but rather he sold for his hidden reason without our knowing what it was, we would not say that there was a condition here on the basis of that knowledge—that if it is not fulfilled, he would not consent. Because a merely negative condition is not enough to void the act, since the entire act was not dependent on that reason.
<span;>Even if we point to the absence of the reason and agree that he would not have wanted the act, if we cannot identify the reason as a positive explanation causing the act, and it is only a negative reason for annulling it, then there is no complete condition in the heart of every person.
<span;>Therefore, regarding a woman, in a future case where she would fall to a man whose brother is a leper and she would need to enter levirate marriage with him, or if he were disabled, or if he were discovered to be a violent man, we should not view this state as a condition, but only as an existing obstacle on the basis of which she would want to cancel the act in this case, where the condition is void.
<span;>Therefore, the reason that says it is better to sit as two than to be alone is not a statement saying that a woman would agree to marry in any case. Rather, one cannot simply assume that the woman’s positive reason for marrying is independent of the man’s family situation. On the contrary, the factor in marriage is with regard to herself—that she does not want to be alone. Because that is not the first thing that enters the woman’s system of positive considerations. Only if they discover the man’s condition might she not have wanted it, but that is a negative reason and not a positive one. So we do not have here a positive condition in the heart of every person and in her heart. And the condition that is in the heart of every person is void, because it begins with a negative future possibility, and such a condition has no power to cancel the validity of the act.
Answer
I did not understand your claim. The wording is long-winded and cumbersome.
I will only say that I do not see any connection at all to the topic of unspoken intentions. These presumptions are based on an assessment of reality, and today that assessment of reality is incorrect. What does this have to do with a sale made with the intention of moving to the Land of Israel?
Discussion on Answer
Now I understand. But I do not agree. From Babylonian Talmud Bava Kamma 110 we see otherwise, since from its perspective, were it not for the presumption of “better to live as two,” we would annul the betrothal because of the levirate marriage. And this is also what appears in Tosafot on Ketubot 46. I discussed this at length in a court ruling that deals with this.
Sorry for the unclear wording. I’ll be clearer.
Someone who sells with the intention of moving to the Land of Israel did not make an explicit condition. And according to Jewish law, if they did not stipulate the condition properly, the condition does not affect the sale.
And nevertheless, not only did the person moving upward not state the positive reason through which the sale takes effect before the reason for canceling the sale (“If I go up to the Land of Israel, the sale stands, and if not, the sale is void”), but more than that—he did not say the condition at all!!
And the Talmud says that if he does not go up, the sale is void!!
Tosafot note that the reason we say in this case as though the condition had been stated explicitly is because it is obvious in his heart and in the heart of every person that he is selling on this condition!
I am claiming that it is not enough that we know this person would not have agreed in such-and-such a case, because that is only enough to treat it as though the condition had been said explicitly.
Another criterion is needed in order for us to say that the condition is valid. And that is: that the condition be regarded as having been said in the proper form as well—the positive condition before the negative one.
And in the case of the person moving to the Land of Israel, that is indeed what we say. Why?
Because the reason motivating the person to sell is the move to the Land. That is the reason initiating the sale.
And therefore it is as though it were said at the outset.
And it is clear that without it, he would not have sold either.
By contrast, in the case of a woman marrying a man whose brother is a leper, the woman’s initiative to marry is not that his brother not be a leper. It may be that if his brother were a leper that would be a reason preventing her from wanting to marry. But that is only a negative reason. It is as though she says: “I will become betrothed, but if your brother is a leper and I later fall before him for levirate marriage, I want the betrothal not to count retroactively.” In such a case there is no condition! Because if the brother is not a leper, that is not the reason causing her to want to marry him! Therefore, since the act of betrothal was not caused by the negation of the brother’s condition, the reason for wanting the act of acquisition of betrothal remains, and the betrothal takes effect!
And this is what the Talmud says: the reason causing her to want to marry is to escape loneliness—better to live as two than to sit alone!
So the condition looks like this: “I want to become betrothed (because of loneliness), but if a negative factor is discovered—that his brother is a leper and I fall to him for levirate marriage—I want to cancel the status of betrothal acquisition for this act retroactively.”
Such a condition cannot cancel an act of acquisition that has already been performed. Because a negative reason is a reason that comes to cancel the status of betrothal acquisition, not a reason to give it the status of betrothal acquisition. This act is called an act of betrothal acquisition because of some other reason, and therefore a future case cannot cancel the status of betrothal acquisition for an act that has already taken effect.
A condition is effective only for an act that from the outset will not effect the acquisition, such that from the outset this act is considered dependent on that future case. Because the reason to call this act an act of acquisition is only what will happen in the future! And in the case of betrothal it depends on her escaping loneliness!! And that indeed is fulfilled. The fact that his brother is a leper is not a reason causing the act; rather, her desire to escape loneliness is.
According to this, the point of the saying “better to live as two” is not that a woman wants to marry under all circumstances! That is never true!! And therefore even in our times this remains a valid rule!