When a Woman Becomes Forbidden to Her Husband Due to Adultery
Question
I would like to ask regarding the law of “just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to the adulterer” in the case of a married woman who committed adultery, and in particular regarding the woman’s credibility to render herself forbidden to her husband.
What is the law in a case where there are no witnesses to the act, but the woman herself comes before the rabbi and explicitly declares:
“I committed a transgression with so-and-so, and I had marital relations with him while I was a married woman.”
From a halachic standpoint, is she believed by her words to render herself forbidden to her husband and to that man (the adulterer)?
On the one hand, we find in several places the rule “a person does not make himself wicked” (Sanhedrin 9b and elsewhere), and it would seem that a person is not believed to testify about himself that he committed a transgression.
On the other hand, we find in the sugya of “shavya anafshei chaticha de-issura,” that a person can render a certain matter forbidden to himself through his own admission.
How do we rule in practice when the woman says on her own initiative that she committed adultery: is she believed to render herself forbidden to her husband?
Should one distinguish between her credibility regarding herself and her ability to remove the husband’s right to continue living with her?
Additionally, if we say that her admission alone is insufficient to remove her from her husband, another question arises:
Under what circumstances does a married woman indeed become forbidden to her husband due to adultery?
Is full testimony specifically required from two witnesses who saw the actual act of intercourse?
In practice, it is almost impossible for there to be witnesses to the act itself, since it is not the normal way for people to see the actual act of intercourse.
Therefore, it is necessary to clarify:
Are witnesses to seclusion sufficient?
If two witnesses saw the woman and the man enter together into a closed place suitable for intercourse, and the door was locked in a way that allows seclusion — does the seclusion itself render her forbidden to her husband?
Is there a difference between a one-time seclusion and a situation in which it is known that they live together on a regular basis?
Is there a specific amount of time of seclusion required to create a presumption or assessment of intercourse?
Should one distinguish between the laws of the prohibition of seclusion and the evidence required to render her forbidden to her husband?
What is the scope of the evidence or proof required by Halacha to determine that she indeed committed adultery and became forbidden to her husband and to the adulterer?
I would be very grateful if the Rabbi could detail the practical Halacha and the distinctions in these laws,
With many blessings and thanks in advance
Answer
Shalom u’vracha.
A woman is not believed, since she is thereby forbidding herself to her husband. Therefore, we do not apply here the principle of “shavya anafshei chaticha de-issura.”
It is clear that if the matter concerns herself, she is believed; for example, if she becomes divorced, she will be forbidden to return to him, since when she is not married she is not bound to him.
Testimony regarding the act of intercourse itself is not required; rather, it is sufficient that witnesses saw them “in the manner of adulterers.”
Ordinary seclusion does not render a woman forbidden to her husband, but if “they entered one after the other and locked the doors” — see Rabbi Akiva Eiger (first edition, siman 99), regarding when seclusion is considered an indecent circumstance.
When they live as husband and wife, it is considered a known prohibition.
It is clear from the above that there is a distinction between the prohibition of seclusion and a woman becoming forbidden to her husband.
In Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, siman 11, se’if 1, it is explained that in order to render her forbidden, there must be “indecent circumstances,” such as testimony about overturned shoes or saliva on the canopy.
Source
Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, siman 20, se’if 1
They do not need to see “like a brush in a tube”; rather, once the witnesses see them clinging to one another in the manner of adulterers, they are put to death for this (Tur), and the woman becomes forbidden to her husband (Nimukei Yosef, second chapter of Yevamot).
Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, siman 11, se’if 1
And witnesses came regarding her that she had secluded herself with this man, and he came and found an indecent circumstance, such as: they entered after him and found her standing over the bed while she was putting on her trousers or fastening her belt; or they found saliva above the canopy (or saw the place of the shoes overturned) (Tur); or they were leaving a dark place; or lifting one another out of a pit, and the like; or they saw him kissing her through her garment; or they saw them kissing each other; or they entered one after the other and locked the doors.
