Rabbi Yossi SprungAlthough there is no Issur to marry a widow me’Ikar haDin (provided that it is at least ninety days from the date of her husband’s death[1] – see Shulchan Aruch E.H. 123:1), Kabbalistic sources relate that marrying a widow poses a danger due to the soul of the first husband disapproving of the marriage (Zohar, Mishpatim, 101b). His spirit contends with the spirit of the present husband and may overcome it, leading to the premature death of his “successor”.
The Chavos Ya’ir[2] wrote a fascinating Teshuva on the subject (197) about a woman who was engaged twice, and on each occasion the Chasan died before the wedding.[3] Was she permitted to marry or did she have the status of “Katlanis” – a woman who had buried two husbands and is forbidden to marry again due to Sakana?
In his response, R’ Bachrach expresses several considerations:
- The Rosh explains that the prohibition of a Katlanis to remarry is because the death of her spouses indicates that she has a “Mazal Ra” – a Heavenly decree that she is not destined to be provided for by a husband.
The Chavos Ya’ir notes that, according to the Rosh, the Halacha of Katlanis should not apply until after the Nisuin when the husband becomes Halachically obligated to provide for her. Since the Chasan does not yet have a Chiyuv to supply her with Mezonos after Kiddushin, his death before Nisuin must have been due to another factor and cannot be attributed to a Heavenly decree that his betrothed not receive Mezonos.
However, he dismisses this argument based on the Gemara’s application of the Halacha of Katlanis to an Arusa (a betrothed woman). Given that an “Arusa” would not receive Mezonos during the time of Chazal, yet the Gemara still applies Halacha of Katlanis, it seems that we assume that there may be a Heavenly decree that she should not receive even one moment of financial support. Therefore, it is possible that the Chasan died before he was able to perform the Nisuin so that he would not even incur the obligation of Mezonos.
- The Chavos Ya’ir argues further that there is more room for leniency when the husbands’ deaths were several years after their weddings, as we can only attribute the death of a husband to his wife if he died soon after the wedding. This is also the case regarding the Halacha of a baby whose two older brothers died from complications of Bris Mila. We do not perform a Bris Mila on this baby only when his brothers died shortly after the Bris, not a long time afterward. Likewise, considering a wife to be the cause of her husband’s death is only reasonable if his demise was soon after their wedding. In that case, we can posit that marital life with her weakened him to the point of death. [4]
If so, it is obvious that merely following betrothal, there can be no reason to attribute the husbands’ premature deaths to the woman and she should not have a Din of Katlanis.[5]
- The Chavos Ya’ir’s third consideration is based on the aforementioned Zohar:
According to the Chachmei haEmes – found in the Zohar that was not yet revealed during the days of the Rosh, as is known – there is an intriguing reason [for this Halacha] based on the hidden Torah. In light of that reasoning, there is a danger in the case of every widow, as brought in the Sefer “Novlos Chochma”, see there. According to that approach, there is a greater danger when marrying the widow of a great person who achieved extraordinary [levels of] Torah and Chassidus, as his spirit left within his wife will undoubtedly be victorious and drive out the second (husband). (The Ma’avar Yabok (Sefas Emes 9) states a similar concern.) Therefore, when the second husband dies, it can be assumed that the spirit of the first husband was victorious. According to the Zohar’s reasoning, there is no concern about an Arusa, even an Arusa who has received Kiddushin, and certainly if there had only been Shidduchim. Though it might seem difficult [to make this argument] when her [second] husband remains alive after the wedding, we can nevertheless say that the two spirits were in battle for some time until the first one was victorious. This is implied in the Zohar.
In other words, the Halacha of Katlanis stems from the concerns expressed by the Zohar regarding marrying any widow. Sometimes the spirit of the new husband takes the upper hand, but at other times the spirit of the deceased husband is more powerful. In the case of a Katlanis, we have already seen that the spirit of the deceased husband was strong enough to bring about the downfall of other men; therefore, there is a concern that the same will occur again.
It is also clear from the Chavos Ya’ir that there is a greater concern if the earlier husband(s) were Talmidei Chachamim, as there is more reason to believe that his spirit would overcome the new husband.
The Chida[6] (Shu”t Chaim Sh’al, 2:19) discusses the Gemara in Maseches Pesachim (112a) that relates that R’ Akiva once instructed his student R’ Shimon bar Yochai not to “cook in a pot in which your friend cooked.” In one interpretation, the Gemara explains that he referred to marrying a widow. In other words, this should be avoided as the deceased husband may have been a greater person and the widow might compare her second husband to him and treat her new husband disrespectfully. However, in light of the Zohar above, the concern is much greater than the possibility of disrespect. As the Chida comments:
I heard from Mekubalim that the period of danger is twelve months from the death of her husband.
In other words, after twelve months, the Sakana is minimal. However, the Chida himself cautions:
I believe that one should be cautious about marrying a widow in any case. Even though they said dreams make little difference, the Rashbatz nevertheless wrote in a Teshuva that one should at least be cautious. I will tell you of a case like this that occurred some thirty years ago or more. I was a junior member of the Beis haMedrash of the extraordinary Mekubal, R’ Shalom Sharabi zt”l, with the Maharit Algazi zt”l. A particular Rav, [who was] a pious person, came before us. He had been married to a certain woman for three years; she was the Almana of a holy, pious man. At first she had been married to a young man, who remained with her for a short period until he died in a plague. Then she married an elderly man, who also died. Then, after many years, she married the holy Rav mentioned above. After him, she married the Rav who stood before us. He related to us that he had a dream in which his wife’s three previous husbands had come to him. The elderly man [the second husband] said nothing, the other Rav [the third husband] forgave him, but the young man spoke harshly against him and told him that he wished to take him to the Beis Din in Shamayim. He was very shocked at the dream and he asked us to place the young man in Cherem so that he would not make a claim against him in the Beis Din. We answered that it is unheard of to place someone seeking Din in Shamayim in Cherem; it can barely even be suggested. We appeased the Rav; we were fearful to deal with this matter. It was not long until that Rav passed away. We were dismayed by the sequence of events and we said, “How great are the words of the Chachamim”.
The Ben Yehoyada[7] (Sotah, 2) also recounts a frightening episode that took place during the time of the Arizal. A particular Chacham was married to a widow. Whenever he was outside the home he felt love for her, but the moment he entered his home he became angry with her to the extent that he wanted to beat her. He asked the Arizal about it and he responded that the spirit of the deceased husband came to quarrel with his spirit, exclaiming, “Will you overcome the Queen even in my house?” (Esther 7:8) The present husband’s spirit would retort that he married her according to Din Torah; this was the source of his anger. (He goes on to relate that the spirit of the deceased was within their young son.)
In light of this, the Chida wonders how the Torah could permit a marriage to an Almana, given the Sakana. “Deracheha Darchei Noam”! He offers several mitigating factors:
People have always married Almanos – this has been the practice for all generations. The Torah issued a novel ruling forbidding [an Almana] only to a Kohen Gadol. Furthermore, many who married Almanos are alive today with healthy Mazal; the spirit of the first [husband was evidently] pushed aside. Also, even where the spirit of the first husband is stronger than his, if there is great merit, it will be strong enough to overcome the first spirit and no harm will befall the Tzaddik… Tzaddikim will either be saved due to their merits, or they will refrain from marrying her – their hearts will refuse to take her. Moreover, if the Torah had forbidden marriage to Almanos entirely, there would be a temptation for them to fall into prurient ways. [The Torah] therefore permitted them.
Despite the above, the Chida recommends that one not marry an Almana even after twelve months have passed. He concludes by stating:
These Shiurim were only conveyed to those who could keep them quiet, not publicize them. “Hashem will guard the naïve.” Many have “drunk” but have lived long lives.
The Chida arrives at the same conclusion in his Sefer, Yosef Ometz (49), again warning against publicizing this matter. He adds that publicizing it would cause trouble for many young Almanos. Only a Talmid Chacham who is aware of the words of the Zohar haKadosh should be concerned about it.
The Bnei Yisaschar[8] (Ma’amarei Chodesh Adar 2:7) makes a marvelous observation. The Gemara in Maseches Kesubos (2a) states that the Chachamim established a Takana that Almanos should wed “l’Yom haChamishi” (on Wednesday evening) to emulate the Takana that Besulos should marry “l’Yom haRevi’I”. The reason was, “if not, people would have said that the marriage of Almanos was unimportant to the Chachamim which is why they made no enactment for them” (Ran ad. loc.).
The Bnei Yisaschar wonders why anyone would even have believed that “the marriage of Almanos was unimportant to the Chachamim.” We must say that it would be based on the ideas revealed by the Zohar haKadosh, namely, that marrying an Almana can bring about Sakana.
Why indeed were the Chachamim not concerned about this? The Bnei Yisaschar explains at length that when the Chachamim make enactments and the people follow them, this creates a “Tikun and Iluy”. Here too, when the Chachamim enacted that Almanos wed l’Yom haChamishi and people follow that enactment, “by dint of this wisdom a Birur and Aliya takes place for that spark, in other words, that spirit that her husband left and which is rattling within. If so, not only will the deceased not act as an accuser against one who marries his widow, he will stand as a Melitz Yosher for him since part of his Neshama has been elevated by him.”
In practice, it is customary to perform a “Tikun Almana” in these cases. The Ben Ish Chai (Shu”t Rav Pa’alim 2, Sod Yesharim 1) discusses the source and development of this Tikun:
In the Sefer Emes l’Ya’akov by R’ Ya’akov Ninav z”l, in the Kuntres Sfas Emes p112, one Tikun is mentioned from the Mekubal R’ Shalom Sharabi z”l, which he performed for one marrying an Almana to protect him from Sakana. The Tikun should be performed before he performs the Kiddushin: He states that it appears that following the episode related by the Chida zt”l (Chaim Sh’al 2:19), R’ Sharabi was moved [to action] and established this Tikun.
The Ben Ish Chai attests that there were many people in the city of Baghdad who married widows and performed this Tikun. Baruch Hashem, they were not harmed and went on to bear sons and daughters and lived long lives. Accordingly, it is recommended to perform this Tikun, and the merit of the holy R’ Shalom Sharabi will protect us.
However, we should point out that this Tikun was not practiced in every locality. For example, see the Divrei Yatziv[9] (E.H. 13) who wrote that there is no record of this Tikun whatsoever in Poland, Hungary, or the surrounding areas. Many thousands of widows have remarried without harm or concern. Chas v’Shalom that we should deviate from the established traditions and practices of our holy ancestors, whether by being more strict or more lenient.
[1] This is also the case with marrying a divorcee.
[2] R’ Yair Chaim Bachrach zt”l (1638-1702) lived in Worms and Mainz and was a major Posek in the 17th century.
[3] [Editor’s note: Incidentally, the Chavos Yair describes the first Chasan as having died of “the evil diarrhea” (“Shilshul haRa”) and the second of “the disease of the head that was prevalent at that time” (“Choli haRosh sheHaya Mispashet B’zman haRa haHu”). It is unclear where this occurred and what diseases or pandemic he refers to. Rabbi Dr. Eddie Reichman suggests that the “Shilshul haRa” was most likely dysentery, as cholera epidemics did not begin until the 19th century.]
[4] [Editor’s note: The Chavos Yair bases this on the Rema (E.H. 9:1) who quotes the Beis Yosef in the name of the Ramban and writes: “Some say that [the Din of Katlanis] only applies if they died a natural death (“Misas Atzmam”) but if one of the husbands was murdered, died in a plague, fell to his death, or the like, there is no concern. Therefore many are lenient in these matters and we do not protest.” R’ Bachrach explains that we only consider the woman a Katlanis when both of her husbands succumbed to a similar pattern of rapid decline – becoming weak and ill shortly after the marriage, progressively deteriorating and ultimately dying – suggesting that marital relations with her caused their fatal weakening.]
[5] There is extensive discussion in the Poskim about the extent to which we apply the Halacha of Katlanis only to deaths soon after marriage but this is beyond the scope of this essay.
[6] R’ Chaim Yosef Dovid Azoulai zt”l (1724-1806) traveled extensively throughout the Jewish world and was a prolific author of many Sefarim, including Shu”t, Sifrei Halacha, commentaries on Gemara and Sugyos haShas, Tanach, Haggada shel Pesach, Mussar, Drash, and Jewish history and bibliography.
[7] Chacham Yosef Chaim of Baghdad zt”l (1835-1909) is commonly referred to as the Ben Ish Chai after the name of his well-known Sefer of Drashos. He wrote over one hundred Sefarim, many of which have never been published. Ben Yehoyada is a commentary on the Agados in Shas.
[8] R’ Tzvi Elimelech Shapira of Dinov zt”l (1783-1841) was a Talmid of the Chozeh m’Lublin, R’ Menachem Mendel of Rimanov, the Maggid of Koznitz, and the Ohev Yisrael of Apta. He is best known by the name of his Sefer Bnai Yisaschar which is arranged according to the months of the year and discusses mystical aspects of Shabbos and the Yomim Tovim.
[9] R’ Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam zt”l (1905-1994) was the Sanz-Klausenberg Rebbe and founder of the Kiryat Sanz neighborhood and Laniado Hospital in Netanya.
Rabbi Yossi Sprung
Add comment