Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] virginity

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
  • Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:32:51 -0400

On Jul 19, 2007, at 12:32 PM, <michaelabernat9001 AT sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Shoshanna,

I considered the possibility that someone might argue "that SHE HAD COHABITED WITH ANOTHER MAN AFTER KIDDUSHIN." That's why I looked it up in the Mishnah before commenting. Note 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 passage makes it evident that this law was applied to any sexual relationship prior to the consummation with her husband.

Since you mention it I think this part of the Mishnah attracts particular interest in view of BTWLH and its linguistic meaning in the biblical text. If you notice there is nothing said here in this portion of the Mishnah about the biblical requirement that the father produce his daughter's simlah (Dt. xxii 17). Also, the translation of BTWLYM in Ket. i 6 as "tokens of virginity" is actually misleading: a BTWLH, according to the Mishnah (Nid. i 4), is not necessarily a physical virgin since it is possible for her to be a married woman:

איזו היא בתולה כל שלא ראת דם מימיה אף על פי נשואה

This is the earliest definition of BTWLH in any source and I believe there are valid reasons for thinking that it correctly reflects the preexilic idiom: (1) because no dissenting opinion is recorded in or outside the Mishnah; (2) because native terminology used in marital practices, in any culture, are subject to a certain conservatism against changes; (3) because in the cognate languages betulah (and almah) is interchangeable with terms used to describe a married woman; and (4) because it would be easy for the parents of a newly wed girl to fabricate a blood-stain on their daughter's clothing or bed-linen.

If for the sake of argument on the wedding night a husband finds no blood stains on the bed-linen, and then decides to accuse his wife of )LYLT DBRYM, "shameful matters", the bed-linen becomes his evidence against her in court. The father of the bride is now obligated to produce "the dress" (ha'simlah) worn by the girl during the betrothal period while she lived with her parents, but the husband described in the text of Dt. xxii 13-21 is willing to bet 100 shekels and a lifelong marriage that there ARE blood stains on it.

Since the betrothal garment remained in the possession of the girl's parents when she was handed over to her husband the day of the wedding, traces of blood would prove that the girl was not a BTWLH at the wedding night, i.e. she came of age while still living in her father's house and she may be held culpable for not being forthcoming about this. The biblical law enjoins very strict rules for girls to follow when they reach puberty and begin menstruating (Lev. xv 19-33). So one may surmise that originally, in the preexilic period, the harlotry committed by the girl sentenced to death in Dt. xxii 20-21 had nothing to do with extra-marital infidelity but violating ritual purity laws under the father's roof, thus defiling the father's house and then the marital union.

The interpretation of BTWLYM found by a husband as blood stained bed- linen from the rupturing of the hymen on the wedding night, but for a bride as the unstained garment worn during her betrothal, fits with the translation of BTWLH as pre-adolescent girl, i.e. a girl who has not yet suffered a flow of blood, and also fits with the age-old custom of early marriage in the Middle East. If the father of the accused is able to produce the spotless garment, it attests to the fact that the girl was a pre-adolescent at the wedding night. And since she has yet to menstruate she remains a (married) BTWLH even after the wedding night until her first period.

What is happening in Mishnah Ketuboth i 6 is a reinterpretation of Dt. xx 13-14 and this is acknowledged even in yeshiva. In Mishnaic times one school of rabbinic authority is willing to accept without further ado the explanations given by the girl whose BTWLYM were not found by her husband the night of the wedding. The other school insists that she, not her father, provide proof of her words otherwise she is presumed guilty of sexual misconduct. It seems to be a very different situation in Dt. xxii.

Tory Thorpe



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page