web analytics
April 18, 2015 / 29 Nisan, 5775
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post


Home » Judaism » Parsha »

Committed To Rabbeinu Gershom

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

In this week’s parshah the Torah discusses the halachos of one who has two wives and they both bare children. The Torah says that though one wife is more loved in her husband’s eyes, he may not give her son the firstborn rights if the other wife bore a child first.

Famously, around the year 1000, Rabbeinu Gershom issued a series of takanos, including a prohibition on polygamy.

The Acharonim were bothered by the following question: the Taz (in Orach Chaim 588 and Yorah Deah 117) says that the Rabanan may not forbid something that the Torah explicitly permitted. In truth this concept is found in Tosafos in Baba Metzia 70b. Therefore, they ask, how can Rabbeinu Gershom forbid marrying more than one wife, when the Torah explicitly permits it in this parshah?

Similarly they ask on another takanah of Rabbeinu Gershom, not to divorce a woman against her will. The Torah explicitly says that a husband may divorce his wife if he so pleases. How can Rabbeinu Gershom forbid these things when the Torah seemingly explicitly permits them?

One could suggest that Rabbeinu Gershom fundamentally disagrees with this concept and opines that the Rabanan may forbid something even if the Torah explicitly permits it. However, since we do not find any Rishonim who openly disagree with this concept, it is difficult to assume that Rabbeinu Gershom did.

I believe that the simplest answer to this question is that Rabbeinu Gershom did not enact a prohibition against marrying more than one wife or divorcing her against her will. Rather, he made a cherem against one who does these things. This means that one who acts in this manner should be put in cherem. However, it is not forbidden to act this way. Tosafos and the Taz only said that the Rabanan may not create an issur to do something which the Torah explicitly permitted. They never said that the Rabanan may not issue a cherem against such an act. This answer is brought in the Chasam Sofer (likutim chelek 6, siman 56).

To this extent, the Beis Shmuel (Even Ha’ezer 1:21) says that if a doubt arises concerning the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom one may be lenient. This is because Rabbeinu Gershom never intended to create an issur; rather he wanted to prevent fighting.

Rav Shlomo Kluger (Teshuvos Tuv Tam Va’da’as 1:22) says that the Torah never explicitly permitted one to marry more than one wife. The Torah only discussed the halachah of when someone was in this situation. The Taz was discussing making a bris milah on Shabbos, where the Torah explicitly commands that we desecrate the Shabbos in order to make the bris milah. There the Rabanan do not have the authority to enact a decree forbidding such an action. Similarly, Tosafos in Baba Metzia was discussing lending to goyim with interest, something that the Torah explicitly permits. Tosafos says that the Rabanan would not be able to enact a decree forbidding such an action. However, here the Torah never explicitly said that one should or could marry more than one wife.

Rav Kluger continues to say that in our case there is one opinion in the Gemara in Yevamos (23a) that explains that the “hated” wife refers to a woman who it was forbidden to marry. She is halachicly “hated” and the pasuk is coming to teach us that her son will nonetheless receive the firstborn rights. We see that according to this opinion there is no source that the Torah ever permitted one to marry more than one woman.

The Minchas Elazar (1:62) suggests another solution to the original question. He first asks why Rabbeinu Gershom stipulated that this cherem last only until the end of the fifth millennium (see Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha’ezer, siman 1:10. The Rama says that communities have accepted this upon themselves even afterwards). The Minchas Elazar says that Rabbeinu Gershom did not enact his cherem for all generations because he couldn’t, since the Torah had permitted marrying two wives. He explains that the Rabanan cannot make a new prohibition that will be in affect forever when the Torah permitted something. They can, however, make a temporary prohibition. Therefore Rabbeinu Gerhsom only made his cherem for a short period of time. Afterwards the communities have accepted upon themselves to continue this on their own accord.

About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Committed To Rabbeinu Gershom”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Daniel Lubetzky  president of V15 and CEO of Kind "healthy" bars
No Victory for V15 and Not Healthy ‘Healthy’ Snack Bars
Latest Judaism Stories
Hertzberg-041715

Lincoln was not a perfect man. But he rose above his imperfections to do what he thought was right not matter the obstacles.

Arch of Titus

Adon Olam: An Erev Shabbat Musical Interlude Courtesy of David Herman

Daf-Yomi-logo

Oh My, It’s Copper!
‘…And One Who Is A Coppersmith’
(Kethubboth 77a)

Grunfeld-Raphael-logo

The omer sacrifice of loose barley flour was more fitting for animal consumption than human consumption and symbolizes the depths to which the Jewish slaves had sunk.

Question: If Abraham was commanded to circumcise his descendants on the eighth day, why do Arabs – who claim to descend from Abraham through Yishmael – wait until their children are 13 to circumcise them? I am aware that this is a matter of little consequence to our people. Nevertheless, this inconsistency is one that piques my curiosity.

M. Goldman
(Via E-mail)

When Chazal call not eating treif food a chok, that refers to how it functions.

His mother called “Yoni, Yoni!” Her eyes, a moment earlier dark with pain, shone with joy and hope

Kashrut reminds us that in the end, God is the arbiter of right and wrong.

In a cab with Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach & Rav Elayshiv discussing if/when to say tefillas haderech

The successful student listens more than speaks out; wants his ideas critiqued, not just appreciated

Why would it not be sufficient to simply state lehoros from which we derive that in such a state one may not issue any psak?

What do we learn about overcoming loss from the argument between Moses and Aaron’s remaining 2 sons?

Each of the unique roles attributed to Moshe share the common theme that they require of and grant higher sanctity to the individual filling the role.

Because of the way the piece of my finger had been severed, the doctors at the hospital were not able to reattach it. They told me I’d have to see a specialist.

“The problem is that the sum total is listed is $17,000. However, when you add the sums mentioned, it is clear that the total of $17,000 is an error. Thus, Mr. Broyer owes me $18,000, not $17,000.”

More Articles from Rabbi Raphael Fuchs
Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

Why would it not be sufficient to simply state lehoros from which we derive that in such a state one may not issue any psak?

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

The Netziv answered that there is a difference between a piece of bread that was cut already in front of you, and one that was cut from beforehand.

Why is it necessary to invite people to eat from the korban Pesach?

The Ran asks why the Gemara concludes that since we are unsure which two of the four we must recline for, that we must recline for all four.

The Chasam Sofer answers that one of only prohibited from wearing a garment that contains shatnez if he does so while wearing the garment for pleasure purposes.

The Aruch Laner asks: How can Rashi say that the third Beis Hamikdash will descend as fire from heaven when every Jew prays several times a day for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash?

The Ohr Hachayim rules that one may not manipulate the system; rather he must state his opinion as he see the ruling in the case; not as he would like the outcome of the verdict to become.

He suggests that the general admonition only dictates that a father may not actively enable his son to perform an aveirah.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/committed-to-rabbeinu-gershom/2014/09/04/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: