Jews who have not been brought up in the full Jewish tradition are often taken aback at the way in which Judaism expresses its concern about marriage and married life. Even when predisposed to a sympathetic appreciation of the Torah tradition, such people cannot understand the severely legal manner of the Jewish doctrine of marriage. The Talmud, discussing the relationship between husband and wife, speaks of mitzvah and din, of halakhah and issur (prohibition), of rights and duties – exactly, it seems, in the same terms of its discourse on torts, false witness, labor law, or trade and barter. Is there no difference between the area of domestic relationships and these others? Is not the derogatory charge of “legalism” so often pressed against us justified in the light of Judaism’s treatment of marriage in the language of commandments and prohibitions, laws and duties? How can the modern mentality understand that these laws refeiTing to family life should constitute as much as one-fourth of the entire “Shulhan Arukh," the code of Jewish law?First, let us repeat what a recent Israeli rabbinic writer said, something which appears rather astounding and yet is completely true: woe to the couple that regulates its married life solely on the basis of the “Shulhan Arukh!" Law adjudicates rival claims, it attempts to reconcile opposing demands; and whereas such accommodation of conflicting claims can save a bad domestic situation from disintegrating entirely, it is certainly not the ideal way to live a married life. It is unfortunate if husband and wife, 01• parents and children, think only of their rights and their demands upon each other. For a family to be successful there must be love and patience and tenderness and a willingness to forgive and forget and forego. ,Thus does the Talmud (Kidduxhin 41a) teach that the famous commandment, v’ahavta le’reiakha kamokha, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” refers in the first instance—to one’s wife! And Mai-monides codifi…

Having said all this (and it should be understood as a self-evident principle), we must add that love itself is an insufficient basis for life. King Solomon, the wisest of all men, proclaimed that azah ka-mavet ahavah, “love is as strong as death.” Love is powerful, one of the most powerful forces in the universe; but, unregulated and undirected, it can also be deadly and destructive. Why is this so? First, without law we cannot distinguish between licit and illicit love; the limits of love’s expression are gone, and one does not know where it will lead. Second, human love, for all its eminence in life and in doctrine, does not remain the highest value of all. Judaism teaches man that he must submit his entire life and his most cherished commitments to the higher authority of God Himself. There is a love that transcends our love for parents and wife and children—and that is love for God. There is a judgment that surpasses any human judgment no matter how ethical-—and that is the divine judgment. This, indeed, is the teaching of the akedah: Abraham, despite his passionate and deathless love for his only son, bows his head and submits to the divine decree to offer up his only son as a sacrifice. The law of God takes precedence over the love of man.Third, without law, love not only “conquers all,” but it destroys all—including itself! Law is that which allows love to endure within the context of life. The mitzvot provide the framework in which true and authentic love can flourish; other-wise it is in danger of spending itself prematurely. Look at our society: rarely before in human history has the word “love” been as popular. Despite some recent assertions that “love is dead,” it remains the cheapest commodity on the market today. It fills the scrapbooks of countless teenagers, it is the chief attraction of all pulp magazines, it is sentimentally blared forth on television and peddled in the cinema. At the same time, our society is successively discarding all traditio…

Finally, we must not ignore those (and they may well be a majority of human beings) who cannot or do not experience love. Such people are no less decent, no less sensitive, no less moral or ethical than those who do love. They have every right to a decent life and to the protection of their emotions, of their families, of their children – no less so than those blessed with the gift of feeling love. Jewish law attempts to create the conditions under which love can flourish in human relationships, and under which people can live humanly with each other even if they do not attain love. If one examines the consistent manner in which the Talmudic Sages applied the commandment ve’ahavta le'reiakha kamokha, he will discover that its correct translation ought to be not “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” but “Act lovingly towards thy neighbor as thou wouldst act towards thyself” (see the commentary of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch on this verse). It is precisely because of Judaism’s concern for the integrity of marriage and home that it legislates on such matters. In fact, the more important the subject, the more does Judaism hedge it about with laws. It is because marriage is so sacred and sexuality so sensitive that the Torah prefers to protect it legally rather than wax poetic about it romantically. Torah considers marriage and family and yihus (the legitimacy of lineage) so significant, that it will not allow them to be left to the whim of sudden passion and instantaneous infatuation.That is why gittin and kiddushin (divorce and marriage) abound in such complex technicalities. Marriage is a lifelong relationship of the most significant and far-reaching consequences which is initiated by a single ceremony or contract. Therefore, we must make sure that both parties know exactly what they are doing, that both offer their free and untrammelled consent, in order that no avoidable errors be perpetuated. Hence, the Halakhah’s insistence upon the formality of the ring, of the witnesses, of …

Regretfully, no matter how liberal or moderate an Orthodox Rabbi wants to be, no matter how he wishes to keep up good relations with Jews of differing convictions, he can only view with the deepest sorrow the havoc wrought by Reform when it abandoned Jewish marriage law. This was probably the most historically irresponsible act in the recent annals of our people. Based on a piece of spurious scholarship, Reform proclaimed that a civil divorce is adequate, and that a get is unnecessary for remarriage. It overlooked the glaring inconsistency of insisting that marriage should be a religious ceremony, while divorce may lie a civil ceremony. As a result, it cavalierly dismissed the consideration that the Halakhah considers the previous marital bond still in full force. Therefore, the person who remarries without a religious divorce is considered as living in adultery, and the children of such a union are illegitimate.Now, illegitimacy, uuimzerut, imposes a terrible burden on such children: they are forbidden to marry any others save those in the same category. Too much human tragedy has resulted from this irresponsibility for us to remain silent about it. That is why, with all our concern with religious freedom in Israel, we must draw the line at matters of r/ifti>1 an<l kidduxhin. It is bad enough that Reform has destroyed the the happiness of so many Jews and Jewesses in this country, often forcing a young couple to make a tragic choice between love for each other or loyalty to the basic tenets and laws of their faith; we do not need this to destroy the unity of the Jewish community of the State of Israel as well. One can only hope that enlightened Reform had-ers will themselves come to this realization and attempt to correct the situation — or at least not endeavor to impose it on Israeli Jews.These matters are not always pleasant to discuss. Yet without them there is no Judaism. They are too important and too dangerous for us to pass over them in polite silenc…

The prophet Isaiah proclaims, ki mei noah zot li, “for this is as the waters of Noah to me.” Just as I have sworn, says God, not to bring another flood to the world, so will I not punish my people again. But, the Zohar (Lev., 14b) remarks, is this not a strange expression? Should the waters of the flood not be referred to as such, mei mabbul, rather than as mei Noah, the waters of Noah? The answer of the Zohar provides us with a marvelous moral insight. It tells us that when the Almighty wishes to bring destruction upon a world deserving of such cataclysm, He first informs the pious of that generation, hoping that they will intercede for their fellow men before God, and that they will try to arouse their contemporaries to righteousness so that, having changed their ways, God may feel free to change His decree. Thus did Moses plead before God and preach to his fellow men, and thus did the prophets do after him. Noah however, did nothing of the sort. He was concerned only for himself. He did not care about his contemporaries. When God told him that a flood would destroy every existing thing, he built an ark for himself and his family, concerned only for Noah and no one else. Because of this spiritual self-centeredness, because of his religious indifference towards the well-being of his fellow men, he was damned with the eternal stigma of having this flood known as mei Noah, “the waters of Noah.” The devastation, the destruction, the calamity bear his name for eternity.Let us not, in our days, be guilty of the same kind of spiritual egotism in the false guise of not wanting to interfere in the lives of others. We are not interfering when we bring to our fellow-Jews, who have abandoned Jewish marriage law, the message of Torah. We are discharging our responsibility to them and to their children, and to their children’s children, and to generations yet unborn, informing them and cautioning them about the Torah’s law of marriage and legitimacy.Let us discharge our histor…

These considerations afford us the opportunity to recall that very special care must be taken in any matter relating to marriage or any situation where there exists the possibility of mamzerut, illegitimacy. Too much depends upon this, and so every precaution must be taken in advance. Hence, we must make sure that if, as often happens in the course of life, we are ever beset by a problem in this area, we always inquire of competent rabbinical authority — and the emphasis is on the word “competent.” It is unfortunate that people are sometimes innocently misled and later discover that they are involved in horrendous problems. Orthodox Jews — and, for that matter, all other Jews — must remember that rabbinic functionaries in marital matters must be fully Orthodox, experts in the area, and ethical individuals. The disqualification of those who do not fully accept the authority of Jewish Law is not a matter of pique or institutional rivalry, but of principle and law as well as common sense. Unfortunately, there are some few “Orthodox” rabbis whose credentials are questionable, and one must therefore always check carefully in advance — no less than one solicits opinions about the reputation of a dentist or a surgeon. Happily, the Rabbinical Council of America has in recent years established a fully qualified and smoothly functioning Beth Din to which most Orthodox rabbis now refer questions of ishut.These matters, about which very special care should be exercised, include divorce; remarriage or marriage of any person who has previously been married; proselytization or marrying a proselyte or a descendant of a proselyte; artificial insemination; the adoption of children, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. The problems that exist in such cases can be enormous; most of the unhappy consequences are avoidable if we are wise enough to inquire before proceeding impulsively.The Torah is the center of our lives as individuals and as a people. Its mitzvot guide our conduct, its ideals …