Shiur Peticha - Opening Shiur on Massekhet Kiddushin               

by HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein shlit"a                                           

Translated, abridged and adapted by Moshe Cahan, Menachem Weinberg, and R. Yair Kahn                         

      Massekhet  Kiddushin  opens  with  a  discussion  of  kinyan kiddushin  -  the different ways in which a marriage bond  can  be created.  The  nature  of  marriage  itself,  however,   must   be categorized as an issue of issur ve-heter (forbidden and permitted relations), and not as a matter of kinyan (acquisition).  Marriage forbids  the  bride to other men, and permits her to her  husband. This  permission, attained through marriage, clearly assumes  that before  a  woman  is married, relations with her  are  prohibited. Therefore, before we delve in upcoming shiurim into the  modes  in which kiddushin is accomplished, let us first examine the halakhic background which makes kiddushin necessary.

      [What  follows is an excerpt from a much lengthier shiur  by Rav  Lichtenstein  which dealt in-depth with the  various  sources prohibiting premarital relations. In this presentation  we  merely summarize  the  three  possible sources  for  the  prohibition  of premarital  relations,  and then bring one interesting  test  case from  among  the  several  discussed  by  Rav  Lichtenstein.]  The Prohibition of Premarital Relations:

       There  are  three types of prohibitions that  may  apply  to premarital relations:

      A. Firstly, these relations may be prohibited on the rabbinic level. The prohibition of yichud (the private seclusion of  a  man with  a woman) obviously assumes a prohibition on actual relations as well, at least on the level rabbinic level.

       B.  The  Rivash  (395) thinks that one  who  has  premarital relations  violates an issur aseh - a transgression of a  positive commandment. The Torah dictates that a man should marry  a   woman, and  only then have relations with her (Devarim 24:1); thus anyone who  forgoes  the  religious ceremony is  actively  negating  this halakhic  principle.  In  other  words,  he  is  transgressing  an implicit biblical ordinance, and not just a rabbinic prohibition.

     C. Rambam (Hilkhot Ishut 1:4) and Ra'avad disagree whether or not  there  is  a  direct biblical prohibition against  premarital relations. The issue revolves around interpretation of the Torah's prohibition on prostitution in Devarim 23:18. While Rambam  thinks that  all  extramarital  relations  fall  under  the  category  of prostitution,  Ra'avad limits the prohibition. Only  a  woman  who clearly  designates herself as a prostitute,  be  it  by  publicly soliciting  on  the  streets or by working in a  brothel,  can  be defined as a prostitute. Only with such a woman would relations be in direct violation of the biblical prohibition on prostitution.

       To summarize, premarital relations are clearly prohibited by rabbinic  law  and  may  also  be in  violation  of  the  biblical imperative  to marry before having relations. Rambam  thinks  that the  biblical  prohibition  against  visiting  a  prostitute  also applies as well, whereas Ra'avad disagrees. The Pilegesh

       In  biblical  times,  the  practice  of  having  a  pilegesh (concubine)  was  well-known (see Bereishit  25:6).  A  man  would acquire and maintain a designated woman, in addition to his  wife, for the distinct purpose of having relations with her on a regular basis.  In light of the discussion above of the problems  involved in  extramarital relations, I would now like to examine how Jewish law relates to this practice.

       Although  the  gemara  in  Sanhedrin  (21a)  states  that  a concubine is not actually married to her companion, some  versions of  the Sifra and Rashi (Bereishit 25:6) indicate that there is  a marital  bond, kiddushin, between the two. The Sifra distinguishes between  standard marriage and the pilegesh relationship, only  by the detail that a wife must be given a ketuba (marriage contract), and a pilegesh not. (See also Yerushalmi Ketubot 5:2.) Whether  or not  the  system  of  pilegesh is a form of ishut  (marriage),  or completely divorced from the standard marriage framework,  is  not just   a   technical  issue.  There  are  numerous   nafka   minot (ramifications) of this legal classification. If pilegesh is  just a different form of marriage, then various laws of marriage should equally  apply to the concubine as to the wife. For  example,  she should  be prohibited to other men, and she should require  a  get (divorce  contract)  to release her from this quasi-marital  bond. However, if pilegesh is a strictly extramarital relationship, then none of these strictures should apply.

       This  question  of  whether or not the pilegesh  is  legally married  to  the  husband  is  also  important  in  light  of  the prohibitions  on  extramarital relations  discussed  above.  If  a pilegesh is married to the husband, then even if this marriage  is somehow  on a lower level of intensity than the standard  husband- wife  relationship,  the permissibility of  this  relationship  is understandable. If, however, the pilegesh is a purely extramarital affair,  such  relations should surely be prohibited,  as  we  saw earlier. The Rishonim's Decision

       Earlier,  we  mentioned the controversy between  Rambam  and Ra'avad  regarding  the  definition of the  biblically  prohibited prostitute.  Rambam  is  of  the position  that  all  extramarital relations are considered prostitution, whereas Ra'avad limits  the prohibition  to  an  actual prostitute,  one  who  has  designated herself  for this lifestyle. It is easy to understand,  then,  why Ra'avad says (Hilkhot Na'ara Betula 2:17) that there is no  direct prohibition  that is contravened by a man who has a pilegesh.  The concubine is not walking the streets to sell her wares, but rather is designated to this man alone. While Ra'avad clearly states that no  biblical prohibition is involved, he does not seem to actually permit  one to acquire a pilegesh. Ramban (Responsa 105),  on  the other hand, is of the opinion that it is perfectly permissible for a man to acquire a concubine.

      [Rav Yaakov Emden wanted to use this Ramban as the basis of  a program  that would re-institute the pilegesh system  to  solve  a number  of  social problems in his day. Rav Chaim Soloveitchik  is said  to  have  remarked that this idea is a  classic  example  of "naval  bireshut  haTorah," one who is vile while still  remaining within the letter of the law.]

      Rambam,  however,  has  a  singular  opinion  regarding  the permissibility  of  the  pilegesh (see Hilkhot  Melakhim  4:4):  a pilegesh is permitted only to the king, while a commoner is denied this option. This ruling is enigmatic, insofar as it complies with neither  of  the  understandings of the pilegesh system  developed previously.    If   pilegesh   is   considered   an   extramarital relationship, then according to Rambam's opinion above, it  should be  considered prostitution; why, then, is it permitted to a king? Does  the  king  have different standards than the  commoner  with regard  to other prohibitions in the Torah? If, however,  pilegesh is some form of marriage, why is it prohibited to the commoner?

       A  careful  study  of  the  Rambam  seems  to  indicate   a categorization  of  pilegesh  which  differs  from  both  of   the alternatives  previously mentioned. Rambam states explicitly  that there  is  no kiddushin - marital bond - in the case of a pilegesh (as  we quoted from the gemara in Sanhedrin above). This leads  us to  understand  that pilegesh is an extramarital relationship.  On the  other  hand, Rambam writes that a halakhic kinyan, a  legally recognized  acquisition, is necessary to acquire a pilegesh,  just as  one  is  required  to actualize marriage. Furthermore,  Rambam compares  pilegesh to the case of yi'ud (the process  in  which  a master  takes  his  maid-servant as a wife), which  is  a  clearly defined  halakhic  framework.  The conclusion  to  be  reached  is simple.  Pilegesh is an independent halakhic institution. Although it  is  not  a form of marriage, it is, nonetheless, a  recognized legal  framework. Therefore, even though no kiddushin is  involved in  the  case  of  pilegesh, some form  of  legal  acquisition  is required.

      After understanding pilegesh as an independent legal system, we  can now explain Rambam's ruling. Earlier we stated that  Rambam prohibits  all extramaritrelations. Now we must amend and  clarify that  not  all extramarital relations are prohibited, but  rather, only  relations that are not legally recognized are  illegitimate. Relations   that  are  within  any  accepted  halakhic  framework, including  kiddushin,  yi'ud, and pilegesh, are  permissible.  Why then does Rambam only permit a king to have a pilegesh? The  answer seems  to  lie  in the realm of kinyanim, the acts of  acquisition necessary to effect the pilegesh relationship. Only a king has the ability to make the kinyan, one which is similar to yi'ud, that is necessary  to acquire a pilegesh. [This may be due to the  special laws  which grant exclusivity to the king. Accordingly,  a  former wife  of  a  king  may  never  have relations  with  anyone  else. Therefore, when the king takes a pilegesh, she becomes  exclusively his,  despite  the lack of kiddushin (See Rambam Hilkhot   Melakhim 2:1-2)].  It is not that the king is given more leeway in  marital law  (ishut) than is the commoner. If a commoner could effect  the kinyan  required,  he  too could acquire a pilegesh.  However,  in practice only a king can effect such a kinyan, hence only  he  can have a concubine. Summary

      Kiddushin  effectively permits the  bride  to  her  husband, because prior to this, relations with her were prohibited, both by biblical  and by rabbinic law. Whether or not premarital relations are  considered  prostitution is the matter of a  dispute  between Rambam  and Ra'avad. We saw that the institution of pilegesh,  the concubine,  was  understood by most Rishonim  as  either  a  quasi marital  relationship  or  a  strictly extramarital  relationship. Rambam, however, sees pilegesh as a separate institution, parallel to marriage, that in practice only a king can effect.

Sources for Next Week's Shiur: 1)   Kiddushin (2a) Mishna      Kiddushin (3a) "Ve-eima hachi nami ... nafsha"      Rambam Hilkhot Ishut 1:1      Vayikra 22:11      Ketubot (57b) "Amar ula ... kaspo hu"      Tosefot Rosh, Ketubot (2b) d"h Nistapcha "veyesh lomar .      (until the end)

2)   Kiddushin (6b) "Ta shema ... lo kol sheken"      Ramban, Hashmatot leMassekhet Gittin 9a d"h Im "vehadin      eino ken ... ta'aninan la"      Nedarim (29a) "Amar lei R' Hamnuna ... bikdei"

3)   Kiddushin (2b) "Venitani hatam ... ikulei alma kehekdesh"      Yerushalmi Kiddushin 1:1 "Kinei matnitin ... o be-viya"

Questions: 1)   Which pasuk suggests that kiddushin entails a form of kinyan? 2)    Can  the  dimension  of  'kinyan' present  in  Kiddushin  be   compared with a standard kinyan? 3)    Why  might  the kinyan aspect of kiddushin be  fundamentally   different from a standard kinyan? 4)    Which  form  of kiddushin (kesef, shtar, biya)  most  likely   evokes a kinyan; which least?

      The purpose of these shiurim is to supplement and enrich the study  of  Massekhet Kiddushin. The first few weeks will focus  on the development of basic concepts and will deal frontally with the issues  found in the mishna. Therefore, although the sources  will concentrate on the mishna, it would be wise to continue on in  the gemara.