The gemarah (yevamos 34b) indicates that Er slept with Tamar sh'lo k'darka. If this is the case how was Er ever married to Tamar if the injunction of the pasuk וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ (Bereshis 2:24) is not fulfilled?

  • 1
    Can you clarify why ודבק באשתו is not fulfilled, and why that would be a prerequisite for marriage?
    – Double AA
    Oct 24 '12 at 16:17
  • 1
    I was thinking of Er's sin the other day and it occurred to me, "to er is human." ;-) Jan 7 '13 at 16:00

There is no question that Er was married to Tamar as indicated in Bereshis 38:8, the easiest way to answer this question is to say that Er and Onan had a din of a ben Yisroel, not a ben Noach, even before Matan Torah. Based on this assumption it would be a question of if kiddushin is chal on chayvei la'vim which it is(as opposed to if they were b'nei noach it would be chayvei misah).

to really be m'varer this sugya you need to see the summary in the sefer Mitzvos Hashem Bara on Vayishlach (appended to this work). The maare mekomos include:

1) beis halevi al hatorah - vayishlach 18b - regarding was there any issur involved in the rape of Dena (sh'lo k'darko)

2) gemara in nedarim 20b and the Ra"N there which asserts that the heter of sh'lo k'darko was a chiddush of matan torah (ki yikach isha)

3) Sanhedrin 58b - which prohibits a ben noach from having relations with his wife sh'lo k'darko (opinion of R' Chanina)

4) R' Yehuda Rosnish (baal Mishne L'Melech) Sefer Parshas Derachim, Derush Rishon, derech ha'atarim 10a - who discusses your question with Tamar specifically and leaves it as a tzarich iyun!

5) however R' Dovid Prado is cholek and proves that Er and Onan clearly didn't have a din of Ben Noach as far as this inyan because the pasuk testifies that Tamar was married to Er (eshes achicha - bereshis 38:8, mentioned above)

6) maharal B'er HaGolah b'er 2

  • Are you saying kiddushin isn't chal no chayvei mitot for benei noach? I didn't know they had kiddushin (which derives from the root Q.D.Sh ie Kedusha).
    – Double AA
    Oct 28 '12 at 18:59
  • @DoubleAA kedusha steps from the root for separate - a ben noach is assur on his friends wife, hence she is separate. Oct 28 '12 at 19:18

The Gemarah in Yevamot 55b says that all ביאה works even it is done שלא כדרכה. (Tosafot on 20a s.v. יבא say that the reason is that the people having ביאה need to be able to impregnate/be impregnated, not that the act of ביאה needs to be able to impregnate.) The one exception is a שפחה חרופה, as that needs שכבת זרע to be חייב (learned out on Yevamot 55a/b). Being that this is so, the ביאה needed for קידושין need not be כדרכה, and ער was indeed קונה though קדושי ביאה.

  • תוס' יבמות כ. ד''ה יבא– ואר"י דלא קשה מידי דלא בעינן שתהא ראויה להקמת שם אלא שהיבמה והיבם יהו ראוין להקמת שם ולא ממעטינן אלא אילונית וסריס שאינן ראוין לילד לעולם אבל ביאה שאין יכולה להתעבר בה לא ממעטי כיון שהאשה או היבם ראוין לבסוף להוליד...ובפ' הבא על יבמתו (לקמן נה:) נמי מרבינן דנקנית בביאה שלא כדרכה והעראה אע"פ שאין מתעברת בה.
    – moses
    Oct 24 '12 at 16:40
  • Can you clarify why you think the rules of Kiddushin as they apply to Jews apply to marriage in the days of Er?
    – Double AA
    Oct 24 '12 at 16:57
  • :סנהדרין נז says the only way a בת נח) בן נח) can be אשת איש is through בעולת בעל. If we assume that before מתן תורה every one has a דין of a בן נח, then ער is no different and is קונה his wife with ביאה specifically. Furthermore, when the תורה said משכבי אשה, from which we see that all ביאה counts, it is not saying that in cases of Jews having ביאה we also include שלא כדרכה. It is saying that the definition of ביאה is any ביאה. But it is possible that all of the above is superfluous, as it has not yet been proven that A) ודבק באשתו is מעכב, and B) that there is no דביקות from ביאה שלא כדרכה.
    – moses
    Oct 24 '12 at 17:08
  • It also hasn't been proven that the Halachic process after Matan Torah was in effect in the Middle East among the handful of people for whom the very idea of monotheism wasn't foreign. (Ie., children of our Avoth who clearly did not adhere to Halachah as we know it.)
    – Seth J
    Oct 25 '12 at 3:44
  • @SethJ the question is reliant on exactly the opposite. That only the laws of bnei noach were in effect
    – user1668
    Oct 26 '12 at 13:26

You must log in to answer this question.