Secondary forbidden relationships, those defined by rabbinic law rather than Torah law, carry on from generation to generation. For example, one's wife's granddaughter and great-granddaughter are forbidden to the yavam. The rabbis argue whether certain forbidden relationships carry on to the third, fourth, or infinite generation/s. We learn in a note that Rambam's opinion is our halacha. His rationale for "concluding" these prohibitions is that we are to rule leniently regarding uncertain rabbinic decrees.
A new learning regarding conversion: a convert is described as a person newly born. This means that s/he has no legally binding relationships with Gentile family members. The rabbis argue about the impacts of this legal fiction on the requirements of yibum. A Jew who has converted is not subject to numerous secondary forbidden relationships; he is permitted to marry his maternal grandmother, for example, which would otherwise be a forbidden secondary relationship. We also learn about the testimony of converts who are related to each other.
Another aside: a paternal half-brother who is a yavam always requires yibum or chalitza, even if there are questions about his lineage. A maternal half-brother, however, is not considered a yavam if his mother is a Gentile or a Canaanite maidservant. Any person who dies and has a child - regardless of that child's lineage - exempts his wife from the status of yevama and the obligation of yibum. This Mishna reminds us that such a child is legally bound as his child. This means that if the child strikes his/her father, the child is liable to death. The only exception is a child of a Gentile woman or Canaanite maidservants - such a child is not have the legal status of his child.
The Gemara discusses mamzerim: though a mamzer would exempt a yevama from yibum, if the brother of the deceased man is a mamzer, yibum is still a legal obligation; the levirite bond still exists. After looking further into the notion of kin relationships and mamzerim, the rabbis look at mamzerim who curse their parents and are sentenced to death. We watch the rabbis argue this point; it seems as though they are uncomfortable with such a harsh ruling. Perhaps we should remember the sins of the father; perhaps we should think about the implications of repentance.
The Sages discuss the degree of punishment that face those who have sexual relations with their sisters who are the daughters of their fathers' wives. The punishments are simply offerings - nothing close to the death sentence facing a disrespectful child. We learn that the notion of marital rape does not exist: such a yavam is not liable to yibum with a sister from a woman who had been raped. She is considered his sister because she is the daughter of his father's wife; a rape victim could only have resulted from intercourse between his father and another woman -- such a woman would not be called his sister at all.
We end the daf with more disturbing interpretations. The rabbis teach us that when a man's father rapes a woman (not, of course, his wife, for that does not exist as a concept), that man is allowed to marry the woman's daughter of another man. However, if the woman's daughter was the man's paternal half-sister, the half-sister would be forbidden to him in marriage. We learn in a note that the punishment the man would receive for marrying his half-sister would be because she was his sister and not because she was the daughter of his father's wife.
It is clear that our rabbis are working very hard to define the boundaries of their society. They regulate sexual relationships carefully - far more carefully than what was described in Torah law - in order to create a fence around those primary forbidden sexual relationships. However, they also regulate sexual relationships as a means to reinforce the structure of society. Men are ultimately in control of their destinies based on the decisions that they make. Women, however, live lives as decided by the men around them. If they are raped, they are married - unless a man steps in to challenge that decree. If they are widowed and without children, they are subject to the actions of their brothers-in-law. It is disheartening to read about the live of my ancestors today.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment