MARRIAGE WITH A HALF-AUNT

QUESTION:

A man married and had a daughter. After his wife died, he married again and had another daughter. The son of the first daughter (i.e., the man’s grandson) desires to marry his grandfather’s second daughter (i.e., from the second marriage). May we, as rabbis, officiate at such a marriage? (From Rabbi Jerome Gurland, Cranston, Rhode Island.)

ANSWER:

THE PROPOSED bride and the young man’s mother are children of the same father and are, therefore, halfsisters. This woman is his half-aunt by blood. Such a marriage is clearly prohibited by law. The Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha’ezer, 15:16, states that a man may not marry his father’s sister or his mother’s sister, whether this sister is a sister through his parents’ father or mother. In other words, it is forbidden to him to marry his mother’s halfsister. It is important to understand the status of this prohibition and the gravity with which the law accords it. The Bible itself, directly, has no such prohibition. It prohibits marriage only with the father’s sister or the mother’s sister (Leviticus 20:19) and makes no reference at all to halfsisters. However Rashi in his commentary to this Biblical text says at once that this Biblical prohibition is meant also to include halfaunts. Rashi’s basis is the Talmud in Yevamot 54a and b, which mentions this extended prohibition incidentally in the course of an argument. The prohibition of mariage to the halfaunt is then given specifically in the responsa of the Geonim (see Ozar Hageonim to Yevamot, p. 135). Maimonides gives it as a clear prohibition (see Yad, Issure Biah, II, 5) . So later also the Tur to Even Ha’ezer 15 and then, as we have stated, the Shulchan Aruch. The Tur and the later scholars clearly consider the prohibition of the half-aunt as a Biblical prohibition even though it is not specifically mentioned in Scripture. The reason is that the wording of Scrip-ture (which is more elaborate than necessary) is deemed to imply this clearly. Thus it is not one of the secondary prohibitions (i.e., shniyot) that is the Rab-binical amplifications which are less strict, but it is Biblical and therefore the marriage is in essence void. (The Rabbinical amplifications, shniyot, are not in essence void but must be voided by divorce.)

Since, therefore, this is a Biblical prohibition, its status as a prohibition must be considered a high one. This helps us decide whether we as Reformers shall conform to it. There are certain Biblical and later prohibitions to which we as Reformers do not conform. This nonconformity occurs when the prohibition violates our conscience, and when the Biblical law is based upon an inequality between men and women. Thus, for example, a man may marry his deceased wife’s sister. A woman may not marry her deceased husband’s brother (except, of course, under levirate circumstances) . A man may divorce his wife. A woman may not divorce her husband. Such prohibitions are not always followed by us because we consider them unjust. Furthermore, we are likely to be lenient if the prohibition is merely one of affinity (due only to the marriage bond) and not of consanguinity.

Of course, in this case there is also implied an inequality of status between men and women. If, for example, this were not a case of a man marrying his half-aunt but a case of a man marrying his half-niece, it would be completely permitted. In fact, by Biblical law he could marry his full niece. Nevertheless, in spite of this inequality, I doubt whether I would marry a man to his aunt. I do not think that any of us have done so, although an inconsistency is indeed involved. So similarly in this case, it is not a question merely of affinity but actually one of common blood. For this reason we should not violate what must be considered an actual Biblical prohibition, and we should not officiate at this marriage.