[b-hebrew] virginity

Shoshanna Walker rosewalk at concentric.net
Sun Jul 22 16:55:39 EDT 2007


The word sharing the root of "znut" - as per (not only) Ramban - 
showing that this particular passage is talking about a woman who 
committed adultery, ie; she was already betrothed/married when (if) 
she had sex

Shoshanna



Shoshanna,

In your no. 3 bellow, where do you get "adultery" from? What it says is "she
did a bad thing, prostituting her father's house". A woman was basically her
father's "property" until her marriage, at which time she was "bought" by
her husband. A virgin was "worth" more, but a non-virgin (and her parents)
were expected to be honest about it. If she was not a virgin and was passed
off as one, then she brought shame on her father's house.

Yigal Levin



----- Original Message -----
From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk at concentric.net>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>; "Shoshanna Walker"
<rosewalk at concentric.net>
Cc: <leviny at 012.net.il>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity


> As Yigal says, our opinions are faith based, but the Torah never
> prohibits sex while a woman is not married or betrothed, and
> therefore would not call it evil.
>
> It is not logical to assume that in this case described here, if the
> husband's accusations are proved correct, that the woman is liable
> for the death penalty simply for having had sex before she became
> engaged/married - because  1. no where does the Torah say that a
> woman is liable for the death penalty if she had sex while she was
> not married/engaged   2. many women were concubines (no marriage or
> engagement took place) and there was no stigma against them    3.
> The Torah itself here, in this very passage, specifically states the
> reason why she is put to death, in the words (verse 21)  "(BECAUSE) -
> as'ta nevala b'Yisrael, liznot bais avi'ha"  ie; she committed
> adultery, and adultery can only be committed by a woman who is
> betrothed or married.  Ramban further clarifies that the term "z'nut"
> - "plays the harlot" - refers only to a married/betrothed woman and
> not to a single woman.
>
> Shoshanna
>
>
>
>
> Dear Shoshanna,
>
> the context of this passage of Deuteronomy 22 is as follows:
>
> 22:13:    Man takes a wife and cohabits with her and then hates her (KJV),
> spurns her (RSV), tiring of her (modern language), dislikes her (NIV).
> 22:14:    Charges are brought against the woman that she was not a "maid =
> virgin." These charges are in the form of slander, libel, etc.
> 22:15:   The father and mother then bring the evidence, the proof of
> virginity of the "damsel" before the city gate to refute the charges
> against
> their daughter.
> 22:16-17:    The nature and motive of the charges are presented and
> refuted.
> 22:18-19:    Since the evidence proves that he accusation is groundless,
> then the man is punished by the elders of the city, fined 100 shekels of
> silver which is given to the woman's father and the man is not allowed to
> divorce her "until death do us part."
> 22:20-21:    Should the accusation prove to be fact, no proof of virginity
> is provided, then the woman shall be put to death in front of her father's
> house by the men of the city. The reason? She played the fool by having
> pre-marital sex/committed harlotry BEFORE marriage. However one wants to
> think otherwise, it is quite clear that sex by the woman BEFORE marriage
> was
> definitely considered EVIL. Thus, the EVIL was to be put away from among
> the
> people of the city.
>
> I also have written notes in my bible giving the following for the entire
> passage of Deuteronomy 22:13-30,
> 22:13-17 = Slander
> 22:18-21 = Harlotry/Fornication (Pre-marital sex/sluttish behavior)
> 22:22-24 = Adultery with another man's wife
> 22:25-26 = Rape/Adultery of a "Betrothed woman" (civil contract which
> considers both parties already married, but NOT consummated), Special
> Circumstance #1
> 22:27-29 = Rape, woman who is a virgin, NOT betrothed, Special
> Circumstance
> #2
> 22:30       = Incest
> See also Leviticus 18 and the sexual perversions of the Canaanites that
> the
> Israelites were not to commit.
>
> Respectively yours,
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk at concentric.net>
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Cc: <leviny at 012.net.il>
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 6:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
>
>
>> No, I didn't write that it is "the rabbinic understanding of the
>> passage, within the context of rabbinic halachah" - you wrote that.
>> And what it seems to me that you are saying is that - either the
>> rabbis believed that they were transmitting into writing, the
>> explanations of the particulars of the Law that was written in Torah,
>> or that they believed that the Torah was deficient and that they were
>> compensating for that.  Either belief is still faith based.
>>
>> So then let's leave the rabbis out of it (as I did).  Since there is
>> no law against an unmarried (and unbetrothed) woman having sex, the
>> TORAH - not the rabbis - must be describing something else in this
>> passage - as I explained.
>>
>> And the distinction of this passage only referring to a betrothed
>> woman doesn't have to appear in the text per se (but it is implied),
>> because the text was written for and given to, people who already
>> knew the distinction, ie; that there is no law against an unmarried
>> and unbetrothed woman having sex, and that the Torah, therefore, is
>> describing specific circumstances - ie; a man who decides he doesn't
>> like his new wife and wants to get out of his divorce obligations, so
>> he accuses her of adultery - (and adultery occurs only AFTER they
>> became engaged) - because otherwise, if she had been with another man
>> BEFORE they became engaged, he knows that the Torah does not prohibit
>> that, so he couldn't have a case against her.
>>
>> What the Torah is talking about here is CLEARLY stated in verses 14 -
>> 15 (no one needs any rabbis to tell them this) - a man marries a
>> woman, comes to her and HATES HER - ie; his accusations are based on
>> the fact that he now HATES HER - the Torah does NOT say - he marries
>> her and comes to her and he sees that she is not a virgin. The very
>> next sentence continues, "and he makes a wanton accusation against
>> her, spreading a bad name against her" - THIS is the subject of this
>> passage - SLANDER.
>>
>> UNLESS she misrepresented herself - told him she was a virgin when
>> she wasn't a virgin - in that case, if she was already not a virgin
>> before they became engaged, she is not an adulteress, but she
>> forfeits her rights to her Ketuba because she misrepresented herself.
>>
>> That is why the whole thing has to be investigated, and that is why,
>> if he is proven wrong, he is liable for slander.
>>
>> And another thing - G-d certainly knew when He wrote the Torah, that
>> some women do not bleed the first time they have sex.
>>
>> Shoshanna
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Dear Shoshanna,
>> >
>> >The long halakhic explanation that you gave is just what you wrote
>> >it is: the rabbinic understanding of the passage, within the context
>> >of rabbinic halakhah. Basically, it's the rabbis' way of minimizing
>> >what they realized is a problematic law; they were aware of the fact
>> >that there was no law against an unmarried (and unbetrothed) woman
>> >having sex, so they interpreted this passage as really only refering
>> >to an arusah (betrothed woman). But the distinction does not really
>> >appear in the text. If you wish to believe that rabbinic
>> >interpretation is based on the Oral Torah, given to Moses but of
>> >which we have no evidence until the rabbis wrote it down, that's
>> >fine, but please remember that that's a matter of faith, which is
>> >NOT what this list is supposed to be about.
>> >
>> >Yigal Levin
>> >
>> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Shoshanna Walker"
>> ><rosewalk at concentric.net>
>> >To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> >Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:58 AM
>> >Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Dear Harold, you are oversimplifying things, and you are inserting
>> >> your own ideas about morality into the Torah, which is talking about
>> >> something completely different.
>> >>
>> >> It is not a moral passage, it is a halachic and LEGAL passage, and in
>> >> order to understand it - you have to know Halacha, ie; ORAL TORAH.
>> >>
>> >> There are two stages in Jewish marriage - Kiddushin and Nesuin.
>> >> Kiddushin is effected when the groom gives his bride a ring or
>> >> something else of value, and makes a declaration that, nowadays is
>> >> recited under the chuppa.  It is a legal transaction, but there is
>> >> not a good English translation, so it is sometimes called "betrothal"
>> >> but betrothal does not indicate properly that Kiddushin establishes a
>> >> stronger and more legal obligation than an "engagement".  After
>> >> Kiddushin, the couple is halachically married, and the bride is
>> >> subject to the death penalty for adultery - even BEFORE Nesuin, after
>> >> which the couple may cohabit.
>> >>
>> >> In this passage, the husband accuses his new wife of not being a
>> >> virgin - ie; that SHE HAD COHABITED WITH ANOTHER MAN AFTER KIDDUSHIN.
>> >>
>> >> If adultery CANNOT be proven, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE THAT SHE WAS NOT A
>> >> VIRGIN AT THE TIME OF KIDDUSHIN, she is not subject to any punishment
>> >> by the court, BECAUSE SHE WAS PERMITTED TO COHABIT WITH A MAN BEFORE
>> >> KIDDUSHIN, ie; when she was NOT legally married to anyone.
>> >>
>> >> Even so, however, she would not be entitled to collect the divorce
>> >> settlement stipulated in her marriage document, because she falsely
>> >> misrepresented herself.
>> >>
>> >> THE SUBJECT OF THIS PASSAGE IS A HUSBAND WHO COMES TO HATE HIS NEW
>> >> WIFE AND TRIES TO VOID THE KETUBA BY WANTONLY ACCUSING HER OF
>> >> ADULTERY (and thereby he violates the prohibition of "Motzei Shem Ra"
>> >> - defamation)
>> >>
>> >> Deut 22:  23-24  and 28-29 - "meOrasha" "Orasha" ("BETROTHED") - same
>> >> issue as above.  Proof that this is not talking about a "virgin" is
>> >> that the text says "Betula meOrasha" - a maiden (assumed to be a
>> >> virgin) who is BETROTHED - ie; LEGALLY BOUND TO A MAN (ie; not just a
>> >> simple "virgin")
>> >>
>> >> Verse 21 is proof that this is talking about a woman who is accused
>> >> of adultery - "Asta Nevala" - (committed adultery) and not the modern
>> >> morality of a woman who is not a virgin - remember a woman was
>> >> ALLOWED to be concubines, ie; living with a man and not married to
>> >> him - and there is no stigma or legal punishment against her - as I
>> >> said, a woman is only liable for one of the forbidden sexual
>> >> relationships outlined by the Torah, and single unmarried woman
>> >> having sexual relationship with a man not her father, brother, or a
>> >> woman, or an animal, is fine.
>> >>
>> >> In verses 28 - 29, the man who has cohabited with a BETROTHED woman
>> >> has to marry her, because SHE WOULD THEN NO LONGER (after sex with
>> >> another man) BE ALLOWED TO COHABIT WITH HER HUSBAND, IE; THE MAN SHE
>> >> WAS BETROTHED TO.
>> >>
>> >> Lev. 21:14  is an ENTIRELY different matter - it is about the special
>> >> rules for a Kohen, who has to maintain a higher degree of purity,
>> >> therefore he cannot marry any woman who had been married to, ie; had
>> >> sexual relations, with anyone else.
>> >>
>> >> Shoshanna
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> HH: It is a moral issue in the passage that we
>> >> have been discussing,
>> >> Deut 22:13-21. This is the main passage on the
>> >> subject. It is talking
>> >> about a moral issue, that of sexual purity. The
>> >> idea is that men wanted
>> >> pure wives, not women that other men had possessed
>> >> sexually. Virginity
>> >> is also a moral issue in other biblical laws: Deut
>> >> 22:23-24, Deut
>> >> 22:28-29. There is an implied moral element in Lev
>> >> 21:14. The issue of
>> >> virginity probably lies behind the words in Song
>> >> of Solomon 8:8-10. One
>> >> of the Shulamite's attractions for Solomon was the
>> >> purity of her virginity.
>> >>
>> >> Yours,
>> >> Harold Holmyard
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> b-hebrew mailing list
>> >> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> b-hebrew mailing list
>> >> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -- No virus found in this incoming message.
>> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> >> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/902 - Release Date:
>> >>15/07/2007 14:21
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy
> of Com-Pair Services!
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.12/910 - Release Date: 7/21/07
> 3:52 PM
>>
>
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a
> courtesy of Com-Pair Services!
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.12/910 - Release Date:
> 21/07/2007 15:52
>

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list