Ketubot 37: Contraception; Execution

Rabbi Yehuda and other rabbis have a disagreement.  What should be done with women who might be pregnant when they marry?  A new convert, a redeemed captive, an emancipated slave?  A woman who was raped or seduced?  The rabbis argue whether it is helpful - or necessary - for these women to wait to marry for three months after they have re/joined the larger Jewish community.  By waiting three months, they argue, a previous conception would be showing.  The resulting child would fit more neatly into a 'box' if we know his/her lineage, inheritance implications, etc.

The Gemara walks us through these women and their circumstances.  Who would be likely to be promiscuous and thus pregnant when she marries (again)?  Who would avoid pregnancy either by refusing to be seduced or by "turning over" or using a "resorbant" before intercourse?  The rabbis note that these methods do not always work, but they are mentioned, which indicates common knowledge of their usage.  

The rabbis use the example of a maidservant who is married to a slave and she is about to be emancipated. They state that she would have no reason to avoid pregnancy even if she did not know of her upcoming emancipation.  She is a married woman, of course she would allow herself to become pregnant!  I cannot imagine being a slave and wishing for a pregnancy, even if I was legally married.  My child would not 'belong' to me.  I would have to relinquish the care of my child to others.  I can't imagine wanting a child in those circumstances; certainly not as a matter of course as stated by the rabbis.

Clearly birth control has been around since human beings figured out that sex leads to babies.  Interesting that contraception was the responsibility of women in antiquity as well.  In one of our notes, we are told that "turning over" might refer to the suggestion of anal sex.  That continues to be a popular form of birth control, particularly when women's pleasure is not the focus of the couple having intercourse.  

Amud (b) returns to the debate regarding dual punishments for the same crime.  The rabbis understand that one should not be punished financially and in their bodies via a fine and lashes. But what about capital punishment?  If a person is put to death, is that not more severe a punishment?  Of course we could extrapolate that the death penalty erases the need to also pay a fine.  The rabbis look for further proof texts to strengthen their claim.  They consider the need to keep a murderer from the cities of refuge, for example.

The rabbis move into a more detailed discussion of execution.  We have learned that executions were extremely rare in ancient Jewish societies, but the rabbis give great consideration to the practice of execution.  This raises questions about other topic that are reported in great detail - were they practiced at all?

Execution should be done in the kindest manner possible due to Leviticus 19:18, love one's neighbour as oneself.  The rabbis wonder which is more kindhearted: death by strangulation or death by decapitation?  A note explains the ritual of the beheaded calf: if a body is found murdered between towns, the closer town donates a cow that has never worked the land.  That cow is taken to a specific place where it it beheaded with a strike from above the back of the neck.

A person being executed cannot pay for his freedom, nor can he negotiate.  He is not permitted to make a vow that will affect his punishment.  Whether or not the beheaded cow takes place before he is found, he will be put to death once he has been found.  There can be no ransom for him.  The rabbis discuss how vaulting works - where one's value is determined based on their age, sex, etc. Compared with their value based on their sale prices as slaves, this valuation is preferable.