[b-hebrew] virginity

michaelabernat9001 at sbcglobal.net michaelabernat9001 at sbcglobal.net
Sun Jul 22 23:46:32 EDT 2007


Please explain why Ketuboth 1:6 states that she lost her virginity before 
they were betrothed.

Ketuboth 1:6

"He who marries a woman and did not find tokens of virginity- `she says, 
"After you betrothed me, I was raped, and your field has been flooded," `and 
he says, "Not so, but it was before I betrothed you, and my purchase was a 
bargain made in error"- `Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer say, "She is 
believed." `R. Joshua says, "We do not depend on her testimony. But lo, she 
remains in the assumption of having had sexual relations before she  was 
betrothed and of having deceived him, `"until she brings evidence to back up 
her [contrary] claim."



This appears to state that she is being punished for having relations prior 
to her engagement.

Sincerely,

Michael Abernathy

----- 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 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity


> Because only a woman who has committed adultery, not sex without
> marriage/betrothal, is subject to the death penalty.  "Played the
> whore" refers to that, not to modern day ideas of what promiscuity
> consists of.
>
> Shoshanna
>
>
>
> Dear Shoshanna,
>
> Deuteronomy 22:21-22
>     "But if these things be true, 'and the tokens of' virginity be not 
> found
> for the damsel; then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her
> father's house, and the men of the city shall stone her with stones THAT 
> SHE
> DIE (my emphasis); because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the
> whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."
>
> 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>; "Shoshanna Walker"
> <rosewalk at concentric.net>
> Cc: <leviny at 012.net.il>
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:32 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
>>
>> 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: 7/21/2007 
> 3:52 PM
>
> 




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list