Amud (a) walks in spirals around the concept of paternal and maternal sisters-in-law. The rabbis consider the case of an aunt, comparing the restrictions upon that relationship to those on the yibum relationship. I found amud (a) helpful in understanding that the paternal sister-in-law is eligible for levirate marriage, while the maternal sister-in-law is not. The differences in paternal vs maternal kinship was very different in antiquity from today's understandings.
Amud (b) is much more controversial. The rabbis argue about what counts as intercourse. They speak about the corona, the head of the penis, and the initial stage of sexual intercourse refers to inserting just the corona of the penis into the vagina. However, the rabbis argue about this. Could initial contact just be a kiss? And then we learn how the rabbis define a kiss: a kiss is the word used to describe sexual organs touching externally. We should be careful to whom we offer a kiss!
The rabbis also discuss the notion of 'cohabitation with seed'. It is interesting that they do not require cohabitation with seed as the defining factor of sexual intercourse.
A few other disturbing facts our mentioned today. A yavam (or any other man) is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with a dead woman who is forbidden to him by Torah law. However, that act is not defined as intercourse at all. No mention is made of ritual impurity. Is this "of course, theoretical"? Or is this something that the rabbis were not concerned about as it happened so infrequently?
The rabbis state that one can have intercourse with a woman in two ways. Our notes suggest that this refers to vaginal and anal intercourse. It is clear that anal intercourse is a forbidden act. However, it must have been practiced to have been discussed so openly by our rabbis.
If a man has a "dead organ", this means that his penis is fully limp and that he can only have intercourse through inserting it manually. Such an act performed with a prohibited sexual partner does not result in the consequence of karet, but could result in flogging.
The rabbis mention the cases of the sota and the designated maidservant. Both of these women are in predicaments that have removed their agency and force them to be dependent on the men around them. Their presence in today's text, however, has to do with whether or not they are available to men as sexual property. How will men be consequenced if they have intercourse with these women? There is no mention of the experience of the women themselves.
The rabbis are concerned about which acts are punishable by karet and which acts are punishable by other serious consequences, including stoning and excommunication.
It continue to feel both surprise and dismay when I read of the misinformation shared by our rabbis. The voices of women are completely silenced through the text. Without the voices of women, the rabbis miss me mark with any interpretations that they might devise.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment