Counterintuitive TB Yevamot 85

Yesterday we began the ninth chapter of our massekhet. The first Mishnah ends with the surprising conclusion. “Furthermore, if a man marries a woman forbidden to him as a secondary relative, she does not have the right to receive payment for her marriage contract if divorced or widowed, nor is she entitled to payment from her husband for the produce of her property that he used, nor is she entitled to provisions for her sustenance from his estate, nor does she get back her worn clothes or other objects she brought with her to her marriage. And the lineage of the offspring is unflawed, and the court forces him to divorce her.

“In contrast, a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcée or a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] married to a common priest, a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite of unflawed lineage, and an Israelite woman of unflawed lineage married to a Gibeonite or to a mamzer all have the right to receive payment for their marriage contract, although it was prohibited for them to marry.” (TB Yevamot 84b, Sefaria.org translation)

The prohibition of marrying a secondary relative (for example a man marrying his grandmother) is only forbidden by rabbinic decree. The widow marrying a High Priest and all the other examples above are forbidden by Torah law. Today’s daf TB Yevamot 85 provides two different answers to the obvious question. Why would the penalty for violating a rabbinic law be greater than the violation of a Torah law? This seems to be counter intuitive.

“Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: For what reason did they say that a widow married to a High Priest has a marriage contract? Because he is disqualified from the priesthood by his marriage to her, as a priest who marries a woman forbidden to him is barred from the Temple service until he divorces her and agrees not to remarry her, and she is rendered a ḥalala and disqualified from the priesthood by intercourse with him, and any place where he is disqualified and she is disqualified, they penalized him through the marriage contract. In other words, the Sages did not exempt him from payment of the marriage contract in that case. Since he is disqualified from the priesthood until he divorces her, the marriage will not last, and they did not force her to forfeit her marriage contract. And for what reason did they say that women forbidden as secondary relatives by rabbinic law do not have a marriage contract? Because he is fit for the priesthood and she is similarly fit, the couple therefore sees no need to divorce, and any place where he is fit and she is fit they penalized her by exempting him from payment of the marriage contract, in order to speed up the divorce.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar sees in which case does a person pay a higher price when entering a forbidden marriage. Recognizing that the person would pay a higher price by this marriage would discourage the marriage in the first place. A priest would not want to lose his role as a priest and all the benefits therein; consequently, he would think twice before marrying a woman forbidden to him. The rabbis did not feel the need to add further incentives by her losing her ketubah to prevent this marriage. Since there are no real penalties when a man marries a secondary relative, the rabbis added the incentive of the woman losing her ketubah to discourage such a marriage.

“Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says a different reason: These cases, a widow married to a High Priest and a divorcée married to a common priest, are prohibited by Torah law, and Torah law does not require strengthening by means of additional enactments. But those secondary relatives are forbidden by rabbinic law, and rabbinic law does require strengthening. Alternatively, the Gemara presents a second explanation: In this case, when they are both disqualified, it is he who encourages her to live with him despite the deleterious effect the prohibition will have on her and her offspring. Therefore, they penalized him by making him pay the marriage contract. But in that case, when they both remain fit for the priesthood despite the prohibited nature of their marriage, it is she who encourages him, and they consequently penalized her.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rebbe’s explanation is clear. When comes to rabbinic laws, sometimes people play fast and loose with the rules alike when it comes to a Torah law.

 

#devartorah#parashathashavua#Emor

In this week’s Torah portion we are commanded not to profane God’s name. “You shall not profane My holy name (Chillul Hashem), that I may be sanctified in the midst of the Israelite people (Kiddush Hashem). I would like to share with you a selection from Donniel Hartman’s book Putting God Second that will elucidate what these two terms mean.

 He writes that every sin a person commits is ultimately atonable with one exception, Chillul Hashem. For the sin of Chillul Hashem, the profaning God’s name, atonement can only be achieved through death. (BT Yoma 89a)

“If Jewish tradition considers this to be the most heinous form of human deviance, we benefit from paying close attention to how it is defined.  What constitutes the desecration or profanation of God’s name? The Talmud offers an extremely surprising response: “Rav said: ‘If, for example, I [that is, someone like me, a rabbi] take meat from the butcher, and do not pay him at once.’”  According to this definition, God’s name is desecrated when a rabbi is perceived to be using his status to create a financial advantage for himself – in this case, using the butcher’s possible inhibition to ask for payment to curry special treatment…

            “The God who seeks a good name, who yearns to be known, loved, respected, and worshiped, places the power for both sanctification and desecration of the Divine Name in the hands of those from whom God seeks affirmation.  The commandment to sanctify God’s name, and to avoid its desecration, requires that the religious person not think about what he or she believes God may want but rather about what people want; to ask, in other words, what ordinary individuals respect about and consequently expect from God.  Thus, the most theocentric of commandments is reshaped through the insight of Rav into the most anthropocentric of commandments, one in which a God centered consciousness requires a shift to a human-centered consciousness by virtue of God’s own stated priority; which is precisely to claim the recognition that comes from a good name.

            “What endangers disrespect in the eyes or ordinary people?  Rav argues that the most significant factor is how one treats others and uses religion either to motivate or to excuse oneself from common decent behavior.  People value moral decency and dismiss dishonesty.  Consequently, God’s name and reputation are intimately connected to the level of moral decency of those who are perceived to be God’s representatives or followers.  What follows is a true passion for sanctifying God’s name that cannot remove us from the ethical but rather must move us toward it, keeping our vision trained with ever more focus on our relationship with, and treatment of, others – for this is what ultimately exerts the most impact upon people’s sense of God.” (Pages 83-84)

 

What if the couple can’t have children? TB Yevamot 64

The mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying has occupied the rabbis on the last couple dappim. At the very end of yesterday’s daf TB Yevamot 63b they stressed the importance of procreating. “It is similarly taught in another baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who does not engage in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is considered as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: “Whoever sheds the blood of man,” and it is stated near it: “And you, be fruitful and multiply.” Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: It is as though he diminishes the Divine Image. Ben Azzai says: It is as though he both sheds blood and diminishes the Divine Image” (Sefaria.org translation)

We need to remember that only men are commanded to procreate to understand the Mishna below. The Talmud gives two possible explanations for the opinion that women are not obligated:

1) When God said “be fruitful and multiply,” the verse continues “and fill the world and conquer it.” Since men generally have a more aggressive nature and are the ones who go out to war, the implication is that only men are obligated to procreate and “conquer” the world.

2) When God later blessed Jacob saying, “I am the Almighty God; be fruitful and multiply;” he said it in the singular and not in the plural, implying that the obligation applied only to Jacob, the man.

Today’s daf TB Yevamot 64 discusses the ramifications of an infertile couple. “MISHNA: If a man married a woman and stayed with her for ten years and she did not give birth, he is no longer permitted to neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Consequently, he must either divorce her and marry someone else, or take another wife while still married to her. If he divorced her she is permitted to marry another man, as it is not necessarily on her account that she and her first husband did not have children, and the second husband is permitted to stay with her for ten years. And if she had a miscarriage, he counts the ten years from the time of the miscarriage.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Back then the husband had another option besides divorcing his wife. Polygamy was permitted; consequently, he could take another wife. That option is no longer available to us. Nevertheless, we have options that the rabbis did not have. Let me share with you Conservative Judaism’s approach

“Adoption has always been considered a praiseworthy way to create a family. Indeed, the Jewish attitude has always been that adoptive parents perform an act of great lovingkindness (g’milut khesed) by providing a home for children in need. If the birth mother of a child is not Jewish, adopted children must be converted to Judaism at the time of adoption or soon after… If an adopted child is known unequivocally to have an unambiguously Jewish birthmother, then conversion is not required.

“The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards has also endorsed a range of medical approaches to infertility. Artificial insemination was discussed favorably in a 1978 paper by Rabbi Morris Shapiro, which argued that a man who donates sperm to a sperm bank for helping infertile couples should be credited with having assisted them in the performance of the mitzvah of procreation and not condemned for having ‘wasted’ his semen. In 1994, the Committee confirmed the permissibility of artificial insemination by adopting a comprehensive paper written by Rabbi Elliot Dorff. Then, in 1995, the committee also approved a paper by Rabbi Aaron Mackler permitting in vitro fertilization. Overall, the committee has sought to lay the groundwork for permitting a wide range of medical procedures designed to assist couples in their effort to fulfill the commandment of p’riyyah u-r’viyyah, of procreation.” (The Observant Life: The Wisdom of Conservative Judaism for Contemporary Jews, pages 622-623)

The author of the chapter admits that artificial insemination raises some quite complicated questions. I encourage you to read this section Reproductive Issues (pages 621-625) and the section Infertility (pages 787-789) form a more in depth discussion of these issues

 

 

The future is unavailable at this time TB Yevamot 63

Daf TB Yevamot 63 contains a lot of famous rabbinic sayings about husbands and wives. Not all the sayings are positive. I think is more an indication of the relationship of the rabbi and his wife than Judaism’s approach to marriage. I’ll just share a few of the famous positive ones.

“The Sages taught: One who loves his wife as he loves himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time when they reach maturity, about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace. As a result of his actions, there will be peace in his home, as it will be devoid of quarrel and sin. One who loves his neighbors, and who draws his relatives close, and who marries the daughter of his sister, a woman he knows and is fond of as a family relative and not only as a wife, and who lends a sela to a pauper at his time of need, about him the verse states: “Then shall you call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and He will say: Here I am” (Isaiah 58:9).

 And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I will make him a helpmate for him [kenegdo]” (Genesis 2:18)? If one is worthy his wife helps him; if he is not worthy she is against him. And some say a slightly different version: Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction: It is written in the Torah with a spelling that allows it to be read: Striking him [kenagdo], and we read it as though it said: For him [kenegdo]. If he is worthy she is for him as his helpmate; if he is not worthy she strikes him…

“Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Once a man marries a woman his iniquities crumble [mitpakekin], as it is stated: “Whoever finds a wife finds good, and obtains [veyafek] favor of the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22). In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, when a man married a woman they would say to him as follows: Matza or motze? In other words, they would ask the groom if the appropriate passage for his wife is that verse, which begins with the word matza, as it is written: Whoever finds [matza] a wife finds good, or whether the more appropriate verse is the one beginning with the word motze, as it is written: “And I find [motze] more bitter than death the woman” (Ecclesiastes 7:26).” (Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf also quotes Ben Sira[1] on the matter of a good wife versus a bad one. As long as the Gemara is quoting one passage, it quotes another which I believe provides a healthy approach to living life in the moment and not worrying about a future that may or may not occur.

“The Gemara quotes additional statements from the book of Ben Sira: Do not suffer from tomorrow’s trouble, that is, do not worry about problems that might arise in the future, as you do not know what a day will bring. Perhaps when tomorrow comes, the individual who was so worried will not be among the living, and he was consequently upset over a world that is not his.…” (Sefaria.org translation)

My brother George z”l introduce me to the wisdom of the ToDo Institute. I like to share a short lecture (only eight minutes long) by Gregg Krech who reinforces Ben Sira’s wisdom.

https://soundcloud.com/gregg-krech/the-future-is-unavailable-at-this-time-by-gregg-krech?utm_source=www.thirtythousanddays.org&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Fgregg-krech%252Fthe-future-is-unavailable-at-this-time-by-gregg-krech

 

---

[1] We have met Ben Sira before. To refresh your memory go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Sira

I have finally fulfilled the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiply TB Yevamot 62

 Since the Gemara has been talking about who is who isn’t eligible to marry a kohen and what is the status of their child born to them, dappim TB Yevamot 61b and 62 discuss the general mitzvah of being fruitful and multiply (פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה).  “MISHNA: A man may not neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply unless he already has children. Beit Shammai say: One fulfills this mitzva with two males, and Beit Hillel say: A male and a female, as it is stated: “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 5:2).” (Sefaria.org translation)

Beit Shammai bases his opinion on the fact that Moses had two sons, Gershom and Eliezer and certainly Moses would not have stopped having children if he hadn’t already fulfilled the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiply. Beit Hillel bases his opinion on the creation of the first two human beings, Adam and Eve. By procreating we are re-creating creation.

The Gemara shares two different iterations of the disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. “It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says that Beit Shammai say: The mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled with two males and two females. And Beit Hillel say: A male and a female.

“Rav Huna said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? It is as it is written: “And again she bore his brother [et aḥiv] Abel [et Hevel]” (Genesis 4:2). The use of the superfluous word “et” indicates that she gave birth to Abel and his sister, in addition to Cain and his sister. And it states: “For God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him” (Genesis 4:25). This indicates that one must have at least four children. And the Rabbis, how do they understand this verse? In their opinion, Eve was thanking God for granting her another child, but one is not obligated to have four children.

“It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Natan says that Beit Shammai say: The mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled with a male and a female. And Beit Hillel say: Either a male or a female. Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? It is as it is stated: “He did not create it a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18), and one has made the earth inhabited to a greater degree by adding even one child to the world.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The halakha follows Beit Hillel. To fulfill the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiply one needs to have a son and a daughter. I have four sons. What happens if you are like me and have either all sons or all daughters? Does that mean that I have not fulfill this mitzvah yet and must continue to try to have a daughter? Well, there is at least one point of view that my grandchildren can count on my behalf and thus help me fulfill this mitzvah of being fruitful and multiply. “Grandchildren are considered like children. This indicates that if one’s children have passed away, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply only if they had children of their own, as they are considered like his own children. The Gemara responds: When that baraita is taught it is with regard to completing the required number of children, e.g., if he had only a son, but his son had a daughter, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.” (Sefaria.org translation) I don’t think I have to wait for one of my sons to pass away for me to count one of my four granddaughters as my own.

Should we stop at having two children? Rabbi Yehoshua believes one should continue to have children as long as he or she can. “§ The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: If a man married a woman in his youth, and she passed away, he should marry another woman in his old age. If he had children in his youth, he should have more children in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not withhold your hand; for you do not know which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both alike shall be good” (Ecclesiastes 11:6). This verse indicates that a man should continue having children even after he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I think we should encourage young Jewish couples to have more than just two children for the sake of the Jewish people. Herb Keinon writes:

“83 years since the beginning of World War II and the Holocaust, the Jewish people have still not replenished themselves. According to the CBS figures, based on numbers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry, the world Jewish population at the end of 2020 stood at 15.2 million. The definition of a Jew used in all countries, except for Israel, is anyone ‘who defines themselves as Jewish, or people who were born to Jewish parents who do not have a religious or ethnic self-definition.’

“By contrast, the world Jewish population in 1939 stood at 16.6 million. Because of Hitler and Nazi Germany, there is still 1.4 million fewer Jews today than they were in 1939, a decrease of 9.2% the world population, by contrast, has gone from 2.3 billion to 7.9 billion the same period, an increase of nearly 250%.

“83 years later in the world’s Jewish population has still not reached the level of what it was before the Holocaust. Encapsulated in that figure is the sheer enormity of the loss.” (The International Jerusalem Post, Number 3179, April 29-May 5, 2022, page 5)

I appreciate how expensive it is to raise Jewish children today. Jewish education tuition, Jewish camps’ fees, trips to Israel place an enormous economic burden Jewish parents. And I haven’t even added the cost of belonging to the Jewish community, synagogues, JCCs, Federations let alone the cost of keeping a kosher home and observing all the Jewish holidays. If the Jewish community advocates that we should have more children, the Jewish community should help support these parents and make all these costs more affordable by underwriting some of it.

 

Who is a zona? TB Yevamot 61

This week’s Torah portion, Emor, delineates who a Kohen and the Kohen Hagadol, the High Priest, may and may not marry. “They shall not take [into their household as their wife] a woman defiled by harlotry (zona- זֹנָ֔ה), nor shall they take one divorced from her husband. For they are holy to their God… He (the Kohen Hagadol-gg) may take [into his household as his wife] only a woman who is a virgin. A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is degraded by harlotry (zona- זֹנָ֔ה)—such he may not take. Only a virgin of his own kin may he take as his wife)” (Leviticus 21:7, 13-14))

There are six different opinions on daf TB Yevamot 60 exactly what is the legal definition of a zona.

“(1) The zona forbidden to a priest is as the name zona implies, i.e., a married woman who committed adultery; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

(2) Rabbi Akiva says: A zona is a woman, even an unmarried woman, who is available to all, i.e., she has intercourse with whoever is interested.

(3) Rabbi Matya ben Ḥarash says: Even if her husband went to make her drink the bitter waters after she disregarded his warning not to seclude herself with a certain man, and he had intercourse with her on the way, he has thereby caused her to become a zona because she was forbidden to him at the time, despite the fact that she is his wife. (This is a lenient position because a resulting child of this intercourse is not considered a mamzer)

(4) Rabbi Yehuda says: A zona is a sexually underdeveloped woman (אַיְלוֹנִית ). [An Alonit is a woman who cannot conceive children. Since one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiply with her, Rabbi Yehuda holds that this intercourse has no raison d’être except for licentious purposes only-gg]

(5) And the Rabbis say: The term zona applies only to a female convert, a freed maidservant, and one who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse. (The rabbis believe that these women come from a promiscuous culture and would most likely have engaged in sexual intercourse-gg)

(6) Rabbi Elazar says: Even in the case of an unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage, he has thereby caused her to become a zona. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rambam poskins that the halakha follows the Rabbis’ opinion. (Mishneh Torah, Sefer Kedusha, Forbidden Intercourse, chapter 18 halakha 2)

Who is a virgin? TB Yevamot 59 (with help from daf 57)

 Because the Kohen Hagadol, the High Priest, comes in the closest contact with God, the source of all holiness, the Torah lays down very strict rules about who he may marry. “He may take [into his household as his wife] only a woman who is a virgin. A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is degraded by harlotry—such he may not take. Only a virgin of his own kin may he take as his wife— that he may not profane his offspring among his kin, for I YHVH have sanctified him.” (Leviticus 21:13-15)

Today’s daf TB Yevamot 59 teaches that the dating and marriage pool is not that deep for the Kohen Hagadol. To appreciate the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, we have to know the three stages in a girl’s\woman’s life. From birth to 12 years old, the girl is considered a ketana (קְּטַנָּה), a minor. From 12 years old to 12 ½ years old she is a na’ara (נַעֲרָה), a young woman. After 12 ½ years old she is considered a bogeret (בּוֹגֶרֶת), a grown woman.

What is the legal definition of a virgin is at the core of the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon. We define a virgin as a person was not had sexual intercourse no matter what his or her age is. The movie The 30-year-old Virgin proves my point. At least Rabbi Meir would disagree with this definition. “It was taught in the mishna: And a High Priest may not marry a grown woman (bogeret- בּוֹגֶרֶת). The Sages taught that the verse: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13) excludes a grown woman, whose hymen has worn away, i.e., it is no longer as complete as that of a minor or a young woman; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare a grown woman fit to marry a High Priest.” (Sefaria.org translation) 

Rambam poskins that the Kohen Hagadol may not marry a bogeret. (Mishnah Torah, Sefer Kedusha, Forbidden intercourse, chapter 17, halakha13). Interestingly, he aloo interprets a section in our sugiyah that the Kohen Hagadol may not practice bigamy. He is allowed only one wife at a time.

We learned back on TB Yevamot 57 that a girl may marry at the age of three years old and one day. I wish to quote to you Sue Parker Gerson’s dafyomi page to help put the marriageable age of children into social and historical context.

“Putting aside for a moment the horrific notion of a man having sex with a three-year-old girl (we’ll come back to this), let’s take a beat and look at the context in which these statements are made.

“First, we need to understand that the difference between the age of three and three and one day is the legal demarcation of the age at which a girl can be married, with her father’s consent. (The age for boys is nine.) We also need to know that the marriage ceremony, as we will learn in much greater detail in tractates Kiddushin and Ketubot, is split into two stages: betrothal (erusin) and the marriage ritual (nissuin). Marriage itself can be effected in three ways: with a kebutah (marriage contract), payment (or the giving of a gift of monetary value) or sexual intercourse.

“For many reasons, not the least of which was low life expectancy, it was common in the ancient world for parents to betroth their children at a young age. In the era of the rabbis, the average life expectancy was just 25. Without modern medicine, people died young due to illness and, among women, in childbirth. Parents were therefore motivated to attach their children to another family in order to provide care and stability in case they didn’t survive. This was especially so in Jewish communities targeted with violent antisemitism. Sometimes, parents even brought their young children to the wedding canopy and then brought them home to wait until they reached puberty. This is the reason why the erusin and nissuin rituals are separated. Sometimes, they took place months or even years apart.

“But this passage isn’t discussing just betrothal; the rabbis are talking quite dispassionately about actual intercourse between a man and a girl who may have been as young as three. Or even younger: The Gemara describes her as a tinoket — literally, a baby. While the Gemara rules that if a child was younger than three it didn’t count as a real marriage, if she was older than three — even by a day — it did.

“What are we to make of this?

“While our daf shows that the early rabbis were aware of such marriages, other texts demonstrate that they didn’t approve of them. Sanhedrin 76b quotes Rav as advocating that parents wait until the age of puberty to marry off their children, and he forbids child marriage altogether on Kiddushin 41a:

“It is prohibited for a person to betroth his daughter to a man when she is a minor, until such time that she grows up and says: I want to marry so-and-so.

“A girl who is nevertheless married off as a child may reject her husband once she reaches maturity. As we will read soon on Yevamot 107a, Beit Hillel declares a minor may reject her parents’ chosen suitor. 

“I’d like to think that the rabbis, if not abjectly horrified like I was when reading this passage, were at least disgusted by it — or at least disgusted enough that multiple later legal rulings were enacted to discourage (and ultimately forbid) it.” (https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/yevamot-57/)

 

How to correct someone #devartorah#parashatkedoshim#parashat hashavua

Contrary to common belief, the ostrich does not bury its head in the sand to ignore danger. An ostrich can run at a speed of 45 miles per hour, kick powerfully, and peck aggressively with its beak. As the largest and fastest bird in the world, it doesn't need to bury its head.

"Burying your head in the sand" is a saying that describes someone who wants to ignore his shortcomings or those of others. The prophet Nathan did not allow King David to forget his sins of adultery and murder (2 Samuel 12:1-14). It took a brave man to confront a king about his errors. Yet Nathan was obedient to God and wise in his approach.

In this week’s Torah portion we are instructed that one way to love our neighbor is to “reprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because of him.” (Lev. 19:17) “The Sages forbid carrying reproach to the point of embarrassing someone, thus incurring guilt because of that exchange, something that is forbidden by the Torah (Sifra) The obligation to reprove is limited to cases in which one has reason to believe the reproof will bring about a change in behavior. It should always be a loving rebuke, never an occasion to belittle another for errant behavior.” (Etz Hayyim commentary below the line. Page 696)

We shouldn't go looking for sin in the lives of other, of course. But neither should we bury our head in the sand when it needs to be confronted wisely, appropriately, and done in such a way that the reproach will be heard.

 

Would states like Texas and Florida ban the Talmud because of its sexual content?[1] TB Yevamot 55-56

The Hebrew technical term for the completion of sexual intercourse is be-ah (בִּיאָה). Dappim TB Yevamot 55 and 56 tries to define what exactly is the definition an initial stage of male sexual penetration (הַעֲרָאָה ) and when it qualifies as sexual intercourse in the case of a mitzvah and for a case of a prohibition.

The first Mishna in the sixth chapter makes it clear that partial penetration is sufficient to fulfill the mitzvah of yibum. “both one who merely engages in the initial stage of intercourse and one who completes the act of intercourse has thereby acquired his yevama.” (TB Yevamot 53b, Sefaria.org translation)

On the other a man having sexual intercourse with designated Canaanite maidservant (שִּׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה) needs full penetration in order to violate a prohibition based on a rabbinic interpretation on daf TB Yevamot 55. This week’s Torah portion Kedoshim (Leviticus 19:20) describes the situation of this Canaanite maidservant. “If a man has carnal relations with a woman who is a slave and has been designated for another man, but has not been redeemed or given her freedom, there shall be an indemnity; they shall not, however, be put to death, since she has not been freed.” According to Rashi she is a woman who has had two owners. One freed her while the other hasn’t; consequently, she is a half slave woman and a half free woman who is married to a Hebrew servant.

“Toras Kohainim, perek 5:2; Kereisos 11a. A Canaanite slave woman cannot enter a bond of marriage. No Jew except a servant owned by a fellow Jew, may have relations with her. Such a Jewish servant may be assigned a Canaanite slave woman by his master (see Exodus 24:4). Our verse speaks of a woman who is half Canaanite slave woman and half free Jew, e.g. a slave woman who was owned by two Jewish partners, one of whom freed her with respect to his share in her (a freed Canaanite slave is no longer a Canaanite, but takes on the status of a free Jew. Since this woman was only freed by one of her Masters, she is in the unique position of being both a Canaanite slave woman and a free Jew.) Such a woman may not have relations with the Canaanite slave, for she is half free, and that liberated side of her may not have relations with the Canaanite slave. Normally she have relations with the free Jew, because of the slave side for. She can enter into a relationship with a Jewish servant of a fellow Jew, however. He can marry the free side for, and he is permitted to have relations with the slave side of her.” (Note #9, page 239-40, The Sapirstein edition of the Torah: with Rashi’s commentary, translated, annotated, and elucidated, Leviticus) If another Jew other than her husband would only have partial penetration he would not be in violation of a prohibition.

Daf TB Yevamot 56 tries to define the legal definition of an initial stage of male sexual penetration (הַעֲרָאָה ). Of course the Gemara cites a disagreement between Shmuel and Rabbi Yoḥanan.

“Shmuel said: The definition of the initial stage of intercourse is a kiss, i.e., external contact of the sexual organs. Shmuel explains: This is comparable to a person who places his finger on his mouth; it is impossible that he not press the flesh of his lips. Similarly, when there is contact of the sexual organs, there will certainly be at least a small amount of penetration, and this is considered an act of sexual intercourse…

“When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The definition of the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona… When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The definition of the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona, whereas a complete act of sexual intercourse is literally a complete act of sexual intercourse, i.e., insertion of the male organ beyond the corona. From this point forward, insertion of anything less than the corona is only considered a kiss, for which he is exempt.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Yosef Kairo poskins according to Ravin and Shmuel bar Yehuda. (Shulkhan Arukh, Even Ha’ezer 20:1 as does Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot forbidden intercourses, chapter 3, halakha 11)

---

[1] See https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/04/28/book-banned-why-locations/