Minor girls and women who are deaf and mute are compared. The rabbis introduce a number of different scenarios to help them discern which of them might have more rights that the other. Are they acquired or only partially acquired through sexual intercourse - or through consummation? If the yavam has intercourse with one (or both) of these women and that intercourse is invalid, she could be exempted from chalitza in the future. The technicalities of this very remote possibility seem to be endless.
A new Mishna walks right into the waters of who disqualifies whom from staying married to a yavam if that yavam has sexual intercourse with his yevama and then his rival wife. Depending on the status, standing, etc. of the women in question, the yavam's greediness might lead him to lose his partner(s). Minor girls, deaf-mute women, and halachically incompetent women are compared to each other. If a yavam marries each one of these first and then has intercourse with the second, who is exempted from yibum? Who is encouraged to refuse? Who is told that they should divorce? Who stays married?
Another Mishna teaches us about yevamin and minor yevamot - they are to grow up together. They are too young to divorce. Within thirty days of their marriage, if they have not had intercourse, they are to perform chalitza. After that time, they are advised to perform chalitza. If the yevama claims that there has been no intercourse but the yavam disagrees, they perform chalitza. If he agrees, they perform chalitza. And if he admits the truth, even after one year, they perform chalitza. So truly the rabbis are much more eager than in usual circumstances to find ways for children's to annul their marriages through yibum.
The Mishna goes on to tell us that if a woman vows that she will never benefit from her yavam, the courts asks him to perform chalitza. The rabbis understand that chalitza forbids her from marrying him again in the future, yet they encourage chalitza.
Rabbi Meir seems to be opposed to the notion of yibum between a minor boy and a woman. The Mishna suggests that in this case she should "raise him". But Rabbi Meir is not convinced that they should be engaging in intercourse when the minor boy is not obligated to perform mitzvot. However, he agrees that once they have had intercourse, they should continue to live as a married couple.
So is Rabbi Meir's response a reaction to the notion of a boy having intercourse with a woman? Or is he interpreting the words of his Sages without bias or other motivation?
The rabbis partake in a fascinating conversation at the end of today's daf. How could a man possibly live with a woman for thirty days and not have sexual intercourse with her? Which tanna could have suggested such a bizarre reality? And it was Rabbi Meir, say his colleagues, who introduced this idea. Well, say the others, Rabbi Meir could not have been referring to one's betrothed, and without seclusion. Instead he must have been thinking of one's mother-in-law or one's brother's widow, with whom one would feel more inhibited and embarrassed. Intercourse might take more time in those cases.
It would seem that many of the rabbis believed that women and men would not be able to resist sexual urges if left alone with each other. Even forbidden relationships would be fostered through intercourse just given the opportunity. If their beliefs are such, the extreme, separatist recommendations regarding men and women begin to make sense. Even homosexual behaviour gains some clarity -- people will jump at any opportunity to have intercourse at any given time with just about anyone. So when they restrict sexual behaviours, they must restrict them with a fundamentalist's clarity.
What is wonderful about Talmud is that we learn Rabbi Meir's position, even though his is not position that informs halacha. And Rabbi Meir is a tremendously respected rabbi. Hebrew school would have been much more exciting if we as children learned Talmud: how the rabbis argue, disagree, debate - while continuing to respect each other.
*which is also sexual intercourse but in the context of a wedding rather than simply an acquisition
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment