JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

Spreading of Enlightenment.” As a friend of *Mendele Mokher
Seforim, he translated his He-Avot Ve-ha-Banim (“Fathers and
Children”) into Russian and collaborated with him on a few
popular pamphlets in Yiddish, also writing one of the first
biographical articles about him (Voskhod, 12, 1884). In 1891
he published a study of the Jewish agricultural settlements in
the district of Yekaterinoslav (now Dnepropetrovsk). In 1892
when Vladimir *Tiomkin resigned from his post as Ḥovevei
Zion representative in Ereẓ Israel, the *Odessa Committee
appointed Bienstok in his place. He assisted in the establishment
of modern schools in the country and the founding of
the Sha’arei Zion library in Jaffa.
Bibliography: Tidhar, 3 (1958), 1280–81; LNYL, 1 (1956),
297–8.
[Yehuda Slutsky]
BIERER, RUBIN (1835–1931), one of the first active Zionists
and members of Ḥovevei Zion in Galicia, Austria, and Bulgaria.
Bierer, who was born in Lemberg, completed his studies
in medicine in 1863. He was a founder of the Jewish association
Shomer Israel in Galicia. From the early 1880s he lived in
Vienna, where he was a founder of the Jewish student organization
*Kadimah (1882). In the same year, he was one of the
founders of the Ahavat Zion society for the settlement of Ereẓ
Israel, of which both Pereẓ *Smolenskin and Zalman Spitzer,
the leader of the Orthodox Viennese community, were members.
He published articles on the idea of Jewish nationhood
and settlement of Ereẓ Israel in most of the German Jewish
periodicals. Invited to Belgrade to serve as court physician, he
transferred his Zionist activities there, and thereafter to Sofia,
where he later lived. In Bulgaria he was a devoted assistant
to *Herzl, who sent him the first copy of Der Judenstaat, inscribed
“to the first pioneer of the Zionist idea.” He returned
to Lemberg in 1905, and continued his Zionist activities almost
until his death.
Bibliography: T. Herzl, Complete Diaries, 5 (1960), index;
N.M. Gelber, Toledot ha-Tenuah ha-Ẓiyyonit be-Galiẓyah, 2 (1958), index;
Haolam (Dec. 22, 1931), 1003; EG, 10 (Bulgariya) (1967), index.
[Getzel Kressel]
BIGAMY AND POLYGAMY. In Jewish law the concept of
bigamy (or polygamy) can involve either (1) a married woman
(eshet ish) purporting to contract a second marriage to another
man (or to other men) during the subsistence of her
first marriage; or (2) a married man contracting marriages
to other women during the subsistence of his first marriage.
These two aspects must be considered separately.
(1) Relating to Women. The general principle is that “a
woman cannot be the wife of two [men]” (Kid. 7a and Rashi).
In relation to a wife the term kiddushin implies her exclusive
dedication to her husband. There can therefore be no kiddushin
between her and another man while the first kiddushin
subsists, and a purported marriage to another man is thus totally
invalid. Such a bigamous “marriage” does incur severe
legal consequences – primarily because of the law that sexual
bigamy and polygamy
intercourse between a married woman and a man other than
her husband (i.e., adultery) results in her subsequently being
prohibited to both men forever and she then requires a get
(“divorce”) from both of them (see *Divorce, *Adultery). She
requires a divorce from her husband, mi-de-Oraita (“according
to biblical law”), because, although her adultery renders
her prohibited to him, her legal marriage to him continues to
subsist. To resolve this paradox she needs a get. She also requires
a divorce from her adulterous “husband,” mi-de-Rabbanan
(“according to rabbinical enactment”) – even though
her marriage to him is invalid – so that people, ignorant of the
true facts and perhaps under the impression that her second
“marriage” was a valid one, should not be misled into thinking
that she is free of him without a proper divorce (Yev. 88b and
Rashi; Maim. Yad, Gerushin 10:5; Sh. Ar., EH 17:56).
Notwithstanding her divorce by both men, on the death
of either of them she continues prohibited to the survivor
forever (Sot. 27b; Yev. 87b and 88b; Yad, Gerushin, 10:4–5;
Sh. Ar., EH 17:56). The aforementioned consequences result
whether the bigamous “marriage” was intentional or inadvertent;
e.g., if the woman was incorrectly informed by two
witnesses of her legal husband’s death (Yev. 87b; Yad, Gerushin
10:4 and Sh. Ar., EH 17:56). If, in spite of the said prohibitions,
she does subsequently contract a later marriage with either
of the two men, such a later marriage is a prohibited one
(see Prohibited *Marriages) and must be dissolved (Maim.
Yad, Gerushin 10:4). Further legal consequences of a woman’s
bigamous “marriage” are that her children of the second,
adulterous, union are classed as *mamzerim according to
biblical law and also that her financial rights are affected
(Yev. 87b).
(2) Relating to Men. The law is different in the case of a
married man who purports to take a second wife while still
married. According to Jewish law this second marriage (and
any others) is valid and can therefore only be dissolved by
death or divorce (Yev. 65a; Piskei ha-Rosh, ibid., 17; Yad, Ishut,
14:3; Sh. Ar., EH 1:9; 76:7). Permitted according to biblical law,
polygamy was practiced throughout the talmudic period and
thereafter until the tenth century (Piskei ha-Rosh to Yev. 65a;
Sh. Ar., EH 1:9). Already in amoraic times, however, the practice
was frowned upon by the sages, who prescribed that polygamy
was permissible only if the husband was capable of
properly fulfilling his marital duties toward each of his wives
(see *Marriage). The opinion was also expressed that if a man
takes a second wife, he must divorce his first wife, if the latter
so demands, and pay her ketubbah (Yev. 65a; Alfasi, Piskei
ha-Rosh, and Sh. Ar., EH 1:9). Similarly, according to talmudic
law, a man may not take a second wife if he has specifically
undertaken to his first wife, e.g., in the ketubbah, not to do
so (Sh. Ar., EH 76:8). Taking a second wife is also forbidden
wherever *monogamy is the local custom since such custom
is deemed an implied condition of the marriage, it being presumed
that the wife only wishes to marry in accordance with
local custom (Sh. Ar., EH 1:9; Beit Shemu’el, ibid., 20; Ḥelkat
Meḥokek, ibid., 15, 76:8). Generally, the husband can only be
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 691