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: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
  • Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:55:35 -0400

I don't want to be annoying, so I am only going to say that my assumption that the people who were the immediate audience of the Torah actually knew and practiced the distinction between what the rabbis later called erusin and nisu'in, is EITHER 1. based on rabbinic interpretation, or 2. based on actual facts about how they were living and DESCRIBED by the rabbis later on, based on knowledge transmitted orally throughout all the generations.

While I know you and others may believe differently....

I don't believe erusin and nisu'in was a new invention created by the rabbis.

And I think that the Torah is very clear about what circumstances it is describing.

Shoshanna




No, you didn't write those words, and I didn't put them in quotation marks.
But your assumption that the people who were the immediate audience of the
Torah actually knew and practiced the distinction between what the rabbis
later called erusin and nisu'in IS based on rabbinic interpetation.

Yigal Levin
----- 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: Sunday, July 22, 2007 4:21 AM
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



--
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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page