Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Would a baalat teshuva need a get from each previous sexual relationship? In light of the idea that marriage can be contracted solely through bi'ah/public knowledge of the couple's relationship (as discussed here and here), would a woman who has had previous sexual relationships--perhaps a baalat teshuva--need a get from each one in order to be married again? What other obligations rest on her previous partners?


NOTE: If this situation is relevant to you, please consult with your Rabbi.

share|improve this question
4  
Even if your logic holds true, you'd prob only need a get from the first one. I don't think a woman can be married to more than one man at a time. – Hahu Gavra May 4 '12 at 14:56
4  
@HahuGavra ... unless each one creates an possible ("safek") marriage, in which case, it might be that we'd consider each one to possibly have taken effect, assuming all the previous ones hadn't. I expect, though, that this logic would only apply if it was logically consistent, which would be if the uncertainty is about a matter of fact that could vary per relationship and not about a matter of law that applies to all of them equally. – Isaac Moses May 4 '12 at 15:33
1  
... but the safek would IIUC be whether this sort of relationship takes effect; so the bottom line is still either the first took effect, or none. So need a get from the first. – yitznewton May 4 '12 at 16:39
1  
@yitznewton Only if it's a sefeika dedina. If it's a safek metzius (like did she have daat kiddushin) then she would need from all of them. – Double AA May 4 '12 at 17:05
    
Agreed. I assumed that we are talking about no-daat-kiddushin unions here. – yitznewton May 4 '12 at 17:46
up vote 11 down vote accepted

According to Even HoEzer 26:1 there is no need for a divorce when the relationship was not for the purpose of marriage.

share|improve this answer
4  
what if it was a long-term relationship where they lived together? – Menachem May 6 '12 at 23:40
1  
@Menachem, even a long term committed relationship does not normally include marital intent. SAH, do you know people who say "oh, everyone knows they live together and are intimate, so they're married"? No one believes that public sexual relationships are some sort of de facto marriages. Maybe if they were together long enough that one might begin consideration of a common-law spouse, OK, I hear the question. I can't imagine this happens more than once in anyone's life, and never in most lifetimes. – Ze'ev Felsen Jul 24 '12 at 4:40
2  
I'm not attacking your answer, just curious.....what happened to אין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות? – Shokhet Nov 14 '14 at 19:13
1  
I regret that many of the comments here were deleted. I am now completely in the dark about what makes something exist "for the purpose of marriage." It seems to be a completely circular argument: we call it marriage only if it is marriage, but if we are calling it marriage, then it is marriage. What is the actual standard here? – SAH Jul 3 '15 at 13:56
1  
@SAH there are no deleted comments on this post. – Monica Cellio Dec 9 '15 at 2:33

simply "lying" with a woman does not create a marriage, a get is only effective to break the bond created by Kiddushin, if there was no Kiddushin, there is no need for a Get.

share|improve this answer
3  
Is it that simple? A woman can be acquired through bi'ah and "eiyn adam oeseh be'iyso bias znus".. – Michoel Oct 10 '12 at 9:17
3  
@Michoel Actually, adam oseh biyaso bias zenus all the time, especially in this case where it seems to be his intention – Double AA Oct 10 '12 at 12:25
1  
Reb Chaim, for the benefit of others, what's your source? – Noach mi Frankfurt Feb 3 '15 at 21:38
1  
What is a kiddushin? So people are married if and only if they have a kiddushin? – Jim Thio Jul 2 '15 at 7:36
1  
But plenty of Jewish couples have only secular marriages, or weddings without Kedushin. Does this mean they are not halachically husband and wife? – SAH Jul 3 '15 at 13:54

This seems to be a minority opinion, but:

According to Mordekhai (Kiddushin 533, to Kiddushin 65b (page 4a in the Vilna Mordekhai; he cites Rabbenu Barukh), a couple who lives together, even without any legal ceremony requires a get upon separation.

Source: this page, which adds: "This is an oft-cited opinion, but in reality, he is in a significant minority. Very very few poskim agree with him about this."

share|improve this answer
1  
This seems predicated on the assumed principle that a person does not make their bi'ah a be'ilas zenus. Therefore, the "default da'as" is assumed to be for kinyan/kiddushin. We generally use this to "help" a person avoid an aveirah by ascribing this default kavanah. The counter argument is that generally those "involved" in these liasons intend the act for pleasure, not marriage (and are likely not aware of the rabbinic presumption). – Isaac Kotlicky Dec 18 '15 at 4:37

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.