If a woman cannot have children, can she marry?

Question

I've been doing some research, and I found a lot of references to the rule that if a marriage lasts 10 years and does not produce any children, the couple must divorce and remarry in a new attempt to have children. This raised three questions in my mind, which I was unable to find the answers to despite research attempts:

1. Is this still a rule practiced in modern times? If not, when did this change (and what justification was given for the change)?

2. In the past, one could only guess if they were sterile or just hadn't yet had a child for whatever reason. But now we have science which can, in certain cases, confirm that it is impossible for a woman to have children. (The most extreme example: if she has had a hysterectomy.). Is there a difference between having trouble conceiving and likely being infertile, and knowing for an absolute fact that you cannot have children?

3. If a woman is entirely certain that she cannot have children, does that mean she cannot marry? Or that she may, but the marriage can only last 10 years (dependent upon the answer to #1).

(This seems silly though, as the 10 year period seems to exist to give enough time for the couple to try to conceive, and in this case they already know going into it that they can't. Of course the woman should disclose this fact to her future husband, but producing children is the husband's responsibility and that he flouts Jewish law if he has none. So would such a woman be barred from marrying because she would prevent her husband from carrying out his duty to have children? (Or could/should she marry a non-Jew, who has no such restrictions? Or could adoption fulfill this requirement?) I also read that the primary purpose of marriage is not procreation, but love and companionship and partnership for the married couple. These two ideas seem to be at odds in the case of a woman who cannot have children.

Answer 1

1. The last Lubavicher Rebbe, the Chazon Ish, and Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach (to name just a few prominent Rabbis who were never blessed woth children) did not divorce their wives, as we have not forced divorces after ten years, at least for half a millennium. I am not sure what the reasoning was for the change – if there ever was a change. It may be that rule has always just been taken to justify divorce.

2. A undisputably infertile woman can still get married; either to an undisputably infertile man, or to a man who already has children, and therefore is not depending on this woman to fulfill his obligation.

Answer 2

Rema, Even HaEzer 1:3

וּבַזְּמַן הַזֶּה נָהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לָכֹף עַל זֶה. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁלֹּא קִיֵּם פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וּבָא לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בַּת בָּנִים, כְּגוֹן עֲקָרָה וּזְקֵנָה אוֹ קְטַנָּה, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁחוֹשֵׁק בָּהּ אוֹ מִשּׁוּם מָמוֹן שֶׁלָּהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּדִּינָא הָיָה לִמְחוֹת בּוֹ, לֹא נָהֲגוּ מִכַּמָּה דּוֹרוֹת לְדַקְדֵּק בְּעִנְיַן הַזִּוּוּגִים.

And nowadays, we do not force this [we do not force a person to get married.] And similarly, one who did not fulfill the mitzvah to procreate and came to marry a women who cannot have children, like an infertile women, an old women, or a "ketana" [possibly referring to a women with no menstrual periods], because he desired her or for her money, even though legally we ought to stop this, we have not been accustomed already from many generations to be picky regarding marriage partners

From this Rema we see clearly that a man can marry a totally infertile women despite never having fulfilled the mitzvah of procreation. A women well past menopause (the old women of the Rema's time) is totally unable to have children, no different from the lady with the hysterectomy of today's time.

Of course, CYLOR for practical guidance.

Answer 3

Isn't there an option to adopt a child? If the husband teaches Torah to others, are they not his children? In addition, the Torah refers to the sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, as “the descendants of Aaron and Moses.” (Numbers 3:1)

The Talmud explains that although they were in fact Aaron's sons and not Moshe’s, the Torah considers them Moshe’s sons as well because anyone who teaches another Jew Torah is considered as if he had borne him - (Sanhedrin Ibid)