@IsaacMoses R' Micha might have something to say about that question.

@msh210 I'm not at all impressed by the experiment documented there. Sample size is not its only problem.

... I also question whether it

Biblical Hermeneutics is looking into making a tool that searches for questions on their site referring to particular Scriptural verses: meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/3241/…

@IsaacMoses I agree. I was pointing out only that a Yodeyan has an answer to your question -- not that I agree with that answer.

@IsaacMoses I agree.

@msh210 How do you know those are the same people?

@Daniel Er... I forget. But not through sooper-seekrit methods available to mods. At least, I hope not.

Ah I see the "About the Author" section lists his name

It seems that some significant number of yodeyans have a non-trivial blogging presence on the internet

@Daniel And the bios on his MY profile and aishdas.org/asp/about match. Whew. <wipes forehead>

@msh210 The propriety police give you a pass this time

@msh210 Thanks.

@msh210 He's a bit of a public figure. I, at least, knew the name before he came here.

I didn't think my question about heter meah rabbanim would be that difficult, but it just keeps attracting speculation

There are already 2 deleted speculative answers and 2 answers that are not deleted but are also speculative

@IsaacMoses I did too. I spent a very enlightening Shabbat with his family once, before he was a rabbi.

@msh210 Fair enough. The particulars of the experiment aside, there are various aspects of the Facebook environment that would present challenges to the responsible creation and maintenance of the group I suggested, and non-trivial policy questions to answer. (Source: watching GSUFYO for a few months)

@Daniel I think the logical argument behind these speculations is pretty strong. An answer that quotes the relevant passages from a standard HMR text and then derives from there would probably be pretty good.

@IsaacMoses There have been logical arguments arguing both sides

I agree that the answer from hazoriz is the best so far, but I really don't think the text that he shows makes it clear

@Daniel Oh, I see.

@Daniel In particular, does the text say "With that, he's now permitted to marry someone else" without anything to the effect of "this time" or "to marry this other woman"? If so, it seems to me that the plain reading of the heter is that it applies to the gavra and not to the giveret.

It seems the question has come down to whether the heter is to have two wives or to marry a second wife. If it's the former, then you probably wouldn't need a new heter after divorce, but if it's the latter perhaps you would

(... like the distinction between "I commit to korban X" and "this animal [lehavdil, OK?] is committed to korban X")

@IsaacMoses It says "להתיר לקלמן בן בן יצחק לישא אשה אחרת ע"פ הסכמת מאה רבנים"

Too me that's unclear whether he needs 100 rabbis to agree to a specific woman or not

@Daniel ... but no reference to a particular "other woman." I think it's a stretch to assume a limitation on that.

@IsaacMoses :-)

@IsaacMoses perhaps it's a stretch

@Daniel Does one wait to get a HMR until one is ready to remarry someone specific? I doubt it.

... that's certainly not how it works with regular gittin

@IsaacMoses Right, that would seem improper

Probably it's before he begins dating

@Daniel ought to be

@Daniel So, it seems unlikely that the HMR would have a relationship to a particular future marriage, rather than to the prospect of future marriage, generally

@IsaacMoses yeah. I mean I don't disagree with that

I just wish it were clearer

Like, "I was in this exact situation and I asked my rabbi whether I had to go through the process again and he said no."

Assuming (as I suspect) that he doesn't need a second heter if his second wife dies (or if they divorce), I have followup question: Does he need one if his second wife is incapacitated?

@Daniel Don't hold your breath for that. The intersection of people who have gotten an HMR with Yodeyans is probably pretty small to begin with, and the likelihood of someone within that set having married twice following the HMR is pretty small. (Although the likelihood of a post-HMR marriage ending in divorce is probably higher than that of the average marriage, statistically speaking.)

@msh210 That's a good questoin

@msh210 Why wouldn't he?

If we're going by the diyuk in the language of the heter it seems like he would

לישא אשה אחרת not לישא נשים אחרות

actually that could be a reason why he would need another heter even in the case of a regular divorce

@IsaacMoses That would be an interesting study, but I bet the sample size is pretty small

(speaking of sample sizes)

@Daniel Yes. I'd say the same (though perhaps with a lower correlation) of post-divorce marriages vs. marriages in general, and I'd be surprised if that study hasn't been done, at least in the general (not specifically Jewish, that is) population

And I also imagine that the vast majority of HMR are a result of incapacitated wives rather than marital issues, so the effect on divorce in the second marriage might be small

@IsaacMoses What do you think of chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/26665816#26665816 ?

@Daniel Oh. Right. I guess I meant separation-HMRs.

@Daniel Still a stretch, IMO

@Daniel Also if we're going by the spirit of the law he would. Otoh maybe it's a heter for more than one wife and that's all he needs. Heck, maybe he can now have two wives even without incapacitation. (But I doubt it.)

@msh210 Preventing anyone thinking the latter may be why "לישא אשה אחרת not לישא נשים אחרות"

That is, "No, sir, you don't get to be a practical polygamist now."

@msh210 You mean if the first wife dies he could then marry another woman while still married to his second wife?

@IsaacMoses May well be.

@Daniel No, his first is incapacitated and he can marry a second. I proposed (but, again, I doubt it's true) that he can also marry a third. A week later, say.

@msh210 How would you read it that way?

Just that the heter is uprooting the takkana for him?

@Daniel Basically, yeah. The cherem was against polygamy, and this says "okay, you're not in cherem for it".

Gtg. Tzt.

^ Normally I'd say: no, it's on-topic. But here: (a) It doesn't ask only for a Biblical source. It asks for Biblical or Jewish source. (Which here means "of Jews", not "of Judaism", I gather.) (b) It gives no reason at all for thinking there may be a Biblical source. It'd be like asking "Is there a Biblical source for [any random thing]?" Like this:

@msh210 Yeah I propose that there should be a reason why one would expect to find a Biblical source of a word

@msh210 That's exactly what I was about to say. If we're not site about Hebrew, people shouldn't be able to get around that and ask Hebrew questions just by asking if there's a biblical source

@Daniel So you think this should be closed? I'm thinking I should mod-close it anyway, but if people here now think so then I b'li neder shall.

Oh. You and I are the only ones here now. :-/

@msh210 I'd say probably yes, but I'm not sure my opinion is really consistent with the community opinion. I kind of think all Hebrew questions should be closed, even ones that are somewhat related to Judaism

(e.g. judaism.stackexchange.com/q/66726/1713)

@Daniel "somewhat"?

@IsaacMoses That is a question about Hebrew grammar

@msh210 I like this analogy

It happens to be Hebrew grammar that is in the Torah

but this isn't a site about Hebrew grammar

@Daniel Is there any context outside of Judaism in which that aspect of grammar exists?

@IsaacMoses probably not

@Daniel Then it's about Judaism

What if I could tell you how to make a kosher cheeseburger