The Gemara discusses what prohibition could be referred to when the Rabbi Chiyya and Bar Kappara argue regarding Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's ruling regarding multiple prohibitions. Perhaps, for example, one cut off his finger with a ritually impure knife. This would simultaneously prohibit him from the Temple due to both ritual impurity and a blemish.
Most of today's daf outlines cases where multiple prohibitions are transgressed, causing a debate regarding whether one or two punishments are issued, which transgression is more severe, and which punishment is more grave.
Today's daf mentions a point that we learned in yesterday's daf that I neglected to mention in my last post. We are told that when a person does something wicked, that does not mean that s/he should be buried with other people who have done wicked things. It seems that those who committed at least two wicked acts (intentional transgressions of Torah law that has been punished by the court) are buried in a distinct part of the cemetery in ancient times. However, because even pious people might do one wicked thing, all people can be buried in proximity of each other except for those who are deemed "completely wicked".
A new Mishna tells us that two men marry two women and switch them before consummation/the canopy. They are punished because they are prohibited from having intercourse with married women. If they are brothers, they are violate laws regarding family relationships. And if the two women are sisters, they transgress another halacha regarding family relationships. Finally, if the women are menstruating, the brothers transgress the prohibition regarding ritual purity.
A note tells us that that last addition could seem superfluous. However Tosafot HaRosh teach that this is a novelty; that this is a prohibition that is not allowed now but will be permitted one day in the future. Is this suggesting that intercourse with a menstruating woman will one day be permitted? That does not seem possible, given the understandings of ritual purity... unless women one day will not menstruate. However, perhaps it is suggesting that one day something else will be permitted in the future...
Back the the Mishna. If this happened, the women would be separated from the men for three months to determine whether or not she became pregnant through this transgression. If the women were actually minor girls, no separation would be necessary, as they could not become pregnant. And if they were the daughters of priests, they would be forbidden to marry priests at any time in the future and they are not to eat of the teruma.
The Gemara begins with the notion of intentionality. Would men intentionally switch wives? They determine that this was an accidental switch. First the rabbis consider the minor girls: minor girls return to their husbands because seduction of minor girls is considered rape, and rape victims are permitted to return to their husbands. The rabbis realize that this does not prove or disprove intention. Next, they look at returning pregnant women to their husbands after three months apart. If the switching was intentional, they would not be permitted to return to their husbands. Thus this case is regarding an accidental switching of wives, our rabbis teach.
Little commentary is necessary when looking at the comments about minor girls. Legally, they can be raped and then returned to their 'proper' husbands for continued sexual intercourse -- because their bodies are not yet able to conceive. The complete disregard for the bodies of young girls is encapsulated here. Her agency as a human being - in the most basic ways - is of no concern to our rabbis. Instead, they focus on the mitzvah of intercourse -- without even pretending that the intercourse will lead to procreation. Why wouldn't the rabbis rule that minor girls should not be made to engage in intercourse at all? The betrothal documents are as good as marriage. The reasons must have to do with maintaining a social structure reliant on the acquisition and ownership of people and things by men, regardless of the cost to others. There is something about the unexamined assumption of ownership of women's bodies that is difficult to stomach as a 21st century Jew.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment