Although permitted by the Torah, Rav instituted lashes as a punishment TB Kiddushin 12

If you follow my daily blog on dafyomi, you have noticed that I did not write anything concerning the dappim TB Kiddushin 9-10. The major topic on these pages was effecting kiddushin with the method of sexual intercourse (בִיאָה-be-ah). Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagreed what was the Torah source of this method of kiddushin. The ensuing discussion is for mature audiences only. I just didn’t know how to write something discussed delicately enough for publication.

Even though the Torah permits this sexual intercourse for the purposes of kiddushin, Rav on today’s daf TB Kiddushin 12 punished people who exhibited this kind of extremely inappropriate behavior.

“Rav would flog a man for betrothing a woman in the marketplace, because this is disrespectful and crude, and for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse, as it is unsavory to invite witnesses to observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse. And he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman without an arrangement [shiddukhei], i.e., if he did not discuss betrothal with the woman before betrothing her. Each of these acts is considered indecent behavior.

And likewise, Rav would flog a man for nullifying a bill of divorce he has already sent to his wife, and for issuing a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce. The latter case is referring to one who announces before giving a bill of divorce that he is divorcing his wife against his will, thereby rendering the document ineffective. This behavior might lead to a grave sin if the wife marries another man under the mistaken impression that she is divorced. And similarly, Rav would flog anyone for tormenting a messenger of the Sages, as this indicates a lack of regard for the Sages. And Rav would flog one who had an excommunication take effect on him for thirty days and yet does not repent or appeal to the Sages to annul his censure.

“And Rav would flog a son-in-law who lives in his father-in-law’s house, as there is a concern that he might sin with his mother-in-law. The Gemara comments: This indicates that with regard to one who lives in his father-in-law’s house permanently, yes, he is flogged, whereas with regard to one who only passes by his father-in-law’s house, no, he is not flogged” (Sefaria.org translation)

Not only do we have a problem understanding why some of these behaviors are worthy of the punishment of lashes, the Gemara relates that the Sages of Neharde’a had a limited tradition what Rav considered highly inappropriate behavior.

“The Sages of Neharde’a say: Rav would not flog a violator in all of the cases listed, but he would in fact flog a man for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse without a prior arrangement. And there are those who say: Even if there was an arrangement beforehand, he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman with intercourse, due to licentiousness, as it is indecent to have witnesses observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Tur and the Rosh limit the punishment of lashes to those men who would betrothed a woman through sexual intercourse.