How does a widow help her deceased husband's heirs to sustain her? Should she sell her property each year? She would ask for her payment to be distributed equally every thirty days for the twelve months. Or why not sell her property every six months? This would help the widow who wishes to receive her ketuba, in which case she would not be able to receive the monthly payments/sustenance any longer. The rabbis argue back and forth about how this should be done. In the end, they decide in accordance with Rabbi Yeduda that she should sell her property every six months.
If she should sell property that belonged to her late husband, her heirs would act as her guarantors. The rabbis wonder how this might affect all parties if the property were seized. They speak of other cases where sales are reversed. For example, one who sells and ox and then realizes that he does not need the ox. In this case, the buyer was Rav Pappa and her reversed the sale, going beyond the letter of the law.
Another case involved many mansions sold in Nehard'a following a drought where wheat became scarce. When the wheat arrived shortly after the sale of properties, the rabbis decided to reverse the sales. Are these sales "errors" simply because the sellers did not know that wheat was on its way? Is this situation - a drought - an unusual enough circumstance for such a reversal? The effects of such rulings could be far reaching: people might not buy property at all for fear of reversals. But the Gemara states the final ruling: if one sold property (for a specific purpose) and then did not need the money from the land, the sale can be reversed.
A new Mishna teaches that a widow from betrothal or from marriage should not sell her property through the court for it will make her less desirable to do so. Rabbi Shimon states that a widow from betrothal must sell her property in court, for she is not receiving sustenance. Those who do not receive sustenance should only sell property in court. Another Mishna tells us that a divorcee must sell her property in court.
The rabbis speak of a divorcee - a woman who is not, apparently, as desirable as a widow, especially a widow from betrothal - because the divorcee is usually not a virgin. Thus is it necessary for her to be seen as desirable? One could argue that she is at a greater disadvantage and thus needs 'desirability' more than a widow.
So what is 'desirability', anyhow? The rabbis speak of the shame of being seen in court. It seems that a woman should not be in this public setting; a place that hears and settles conflict. This can be seen as protective of women's sensibilities, or their reputations, or their gentle natures, from one perspective. Or it can be understood as a paternalistic, patriarchal method to keep women from the one legal tool that might secure them greater freedoms and power in a very rigid society.
The rabbis also speak of virginity at some length. It is not questioned that a virgin is more valuable - monetarily - than a non-virgin. But some rabbis recognize that even grown women who are virgins might not demonstrate signs of virginity for their hymens might deteriorate over time even without intercourse. The rabbis go so far as to argue whether or not a woman should be called a virgin if she has had anal intercourse but not vaginal intercourse.
The context for this discussion is the notion of the part and the whole. If a woman has sold only part of her property, is she still entitled to sustenance? Or is selling that part of her property equivalent to selling all of her property? Amazing that the rabbis use this opportunity to discuss vaginal and anal sex. I wonder if another set of examples might be available as well? Perhaps the rabbis believed that since they were speaking of women, they should find another discussion about women to inform their conversation. But just because they are discussing women, must they discuss intercourse? Likely this is another reason that the Talmud has been forbidden to women (and others) for so long.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment