<html>
<body>
From
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/le9yr48" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/le9yr48</a><br><br>
<font size=3>On March 15, 2013, the <i>New York Times</i> published the
following letter in its “Ethicist” column:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>I am a single woman in my mid-20s. I recently learned from my dear
friend that she has developed a longtime pattern of cheating on her
husband of five years. I understand cheating happens for various reasons
but if I remain friends with her, am I condoning her ongoing behavior?
If I am “anti-compulsive-cheating,” do I therefore have to be anti-her? I
value many aspects of our friendship but don’t see her (or my) views on
philandering ever changing.<br><br>
</dl>This story might seem sad and foreign to a website like Torah
Musings that looks at the world from an Orthodox Jewish perspective based
on Torah law which offers a very unambiguous perspective on infidelity
with two simple words – “Lo Sinaf</i>” – do not commit adultery. However,
the issue publicly started to hit the Orthodox home a bit more than a
month later. For on April 23rd of the same year, NEFESH, the organization
of Orthodox Jewish mental health professionals and the Task Force on
Children and Families cosponsored a fantastic half day training entitled:
“Clinical and Halachic Perspectives on Treating Marital Infidelity in the
Orthodox Jewish Community.” While the program was restricted to a unique
audience – mental health professionals who tend to see the extreme cases
in any population the openness of the conversation and the capacity
crowd of attendees, seemed to indicate that the issue of marital
infidelity was not one that was to be seen as foreign in our community.
In fact, one of the presenters, a world-renowned posek</i>, made it clear
that he saw his primary role in presenting as “coming to vent” about a
problem that he has seen rising within the Torah -based
community.<br><br>
<Snip><br><br>
<font size=3><b>II. Thought # 2: Halachically I need to say something
because after all, she may be Assur to him…<br><br>
</b>The Talmud (<i>Pesachim</i> 113b) tells the story of a man, Tuvia,
who had engaged in a sexual indiscretion and was observed by Zigud. Zigud
went and informed Rav Papa of Tuvia’s sin. In turn, Rav Papa punished
Zigud. Zigud was shocked. He said, “Tuvia sinned and Zigud gets
punished?” Rav Papa answered in the affirmative. He noted that when one
testifies by himself instead of with the required two witnesses, then the
only possible outcome is rumor. Accordingly, by testifying by himself,
Zigud had violated the Torah’s prohibition against being a talebearer
(Vayikra 19:16).<br><br>
Based on this story, one might choose to remain silent in the face of
news of an adulterous affair. Yet, while Zigud’s case involved Tuvia, a
male, would the <i>halacha</i> differ if the single witness would be
believed as in the case of a female – at least to potentially forbid her
from her husband?<br><br>
When it comes to an adulterous female spouse perhaps there is a different
Halachic issue that requires consideration. The Gemara (<i>Yevamos</i>
11b) debates and the Rambam (<i>Hilchos Geirushin</i> 11:14; see also
<i>Smag, Lavin</i> 82; & <i>Yere’im</i> 37) clearly concludes that
the husband of an adulterous wife is not allowed to have relations with
her.<a href="http://torahmusings.com/2014/01/when-a-friend-commits-the-ultimate-indiscretion/#fn-19982-4">
<sup>4</a></sup> If he continues to have relations, he violates a
<i>lav</i>. Am I obligated to tell a husband about his cheating spouse in
order to prevent him from <i>aveira</i>?<br><br>
<Snip><br><br>
The <i>Noda B’Yehudah</i> in a famous (or perhaps infamous) responsum
(<i>Noda B’Yehudah Kama</i>, O.C. 35) responds to a question posed to him
by a Yeshiva student who had transgressed the <i>halachos</i> of adultery
and was now about to marry the daughter of the adulteress. The questioner
asked if he was required to tell the husband of the adulteress (and
future father-in-law of the boy)of his transgression. In response, the
<i>Noda B’Yehuda</i> assumed that the decision about whether to inform
was based on the difference of opinion between the Rosh and the Rambam.
The <i>Noda B’Yehuda</i> wanted to rule leniently in that case, citing
<i>pegam mishpacha</i> – or the potential disaster this revelation would
have on the family. However, in the end, he too, rules that the husband
needed to be informed because unlike the <i>shaatnez</i> case where
violating the law of <i>shaatnez</i> was temporary, here the intimate
relationship between the older man and his adulterous wife would be
ongoing – with constant, recurring sin. <br><br>
See the above URL for more. YL<br><br>
</font></body>
<br>
</html>