Blog Yomi – Kesubos #35/Daf 36

We begin six lines from the bottom of דף ל״ה עמוּד ב:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁנִיּוֹת לַעֲרָיוֹת — אֵין לָהֶן לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי. הַמְמָאֶנֶת — אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי. אַיְילוֹנִית — אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי, וְהַיּוֹצֵאת מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם רָע — אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי

Young girls is the opening song of Bruno Mars’ 2012 album Unorthodox Jukebox, and acknowledges the inappropriateness of the protagonist indulging in the dubious charm of young girls. There is a price to be paid, though it is not necessarily monetary.

The young girls in question in our Gemara are forbidden relatives, primary and secondary. What do we mean by this? מַאי ״עֲרָיוֹת״ וּמַאי ״שְׁנִיּוֹת לַעֲרָיוֹת״

The עֲרָיוֹת are listed in פַּרְשַׁת אַחַרֵי מוֹת, where it states: אִ֥ישׁ אִישׁ֙ אֶל־כּל־שְׁאֵ֣ר בְּשָׂר֔וֹ לֹ֥א תִקְרְב֖וּ לְגַלּ֣וֹת עֶרְוָ֑ה. Why the doubling of the term “אִישׁ”? We might say that any man acting this way is two-faced with regard to his Orthodoxy, though that is speculation on my part. Why is the plural term “תִקְרְבוּ” used rather than the singular? Rashi comments: לְהַזְהִיר הַנְּקֵבָה כַּזָּכָר, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר לְשׁוֹן רַבִּים. To warn the females as well as the males about the severity of this violation. And here is the list: Mother, stepmother, sister, daughter of a woman raped by your father (“מוֹלֶדֶת חוּץ”), granddaughter, aunt, sister-in-law (on your brother’s side), and step-daughter. The Gemara refers to all these as “עֲרָיוֹת מַמָּשׁ”.

See the source image

The question however is what is meant by שְׁנִיּוֹת לַעֲרָיוֹת. Normally that means those relatives who were declared off limits not because they’re in the list above specified in the Torah, but those who are off limits based on Rabbinic Law or מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים (your wife’s sister or your grandmother, for example). But the Gemara says that cannot be the inference here, because rape or seduction of those secondary relatives should be liable for קְנַס. Rather …

אֶלָּא: ״עֲרָיוֹת״ — חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, ״שְׁנִיּוֹת״ — חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת. אֲבָל חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין יֵשׁ לָהֶן קְנָס, וּמַנִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי הִיא

… the meaning of שְׁנִיּוֹת in this context is different: Forbidden relatives are those for which one is liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty; secondary relatives are those for which one is liable to receive כָּרֵת, which are relatively less severe than those for which one is executed. However, those liable for violating regular prohibitions receive קְנַס if they are raped or seduced. According to whose opinion is the baraisa taught? It is the opinion of Shimon HaTimni, who exempts from paying a קְנַס only those who rape a woman with whom קִידוּשִׁין does not hold.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי ״עֲרָיוֹת״ — חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין וְחַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת, ״שְׁנִיּוֹת״ — חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין. מַנִּי — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא הִיא

But others say that עֲרָיוֹת refers to all relatives with whom relations are forbidden by severe punishments, both those for which one is liable to death by the court and those for which he is liable to כָּרֵת, and שְׁנִיּוֹת refers to those relatives with whom one who engages in relations is liable for violating regular prohibitions. This follows the opinion of R’ Shimon ben Menasya, who maintains that even a woman raped by a man forbidden to her by a regular prohibition is not entitled to the fine, despite the fact that קִידוּשִׁין does hold in that case.

The Gemara continues:

הַמְמָאֶנֶת אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי. הָא קְטַנָּה בְּעָלְמָא — אִית לַהּ. מַנִּי — רַבָּנַן הִיא דְּאָמְרִי: קְטַנָּה יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אַיְילוֹנִית אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: קְטַנָּה אֵין לָהּ קְנָס, וְהָא מִקַּטְנוּתָהּ יָצְתָה לְבֶגֶר. רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר

We encountered the term “מְמָאֶנֶת” previously in Yevamos, and ArtScroll here repeats the explanation at length that she is a fatherless girl (orphaned by the loss of her father) who was married off by her mother or brothers while she was still a legally considered a קְטַנָה. She has the right of first refusal not to marry the person designated by her guardians. This was presumably done to protect the girl from unscrupulous men until she is considered mature enough to fend for herself. ArtScroll cites Rashi as saying that our baraisa in discussing the case of מְמָאֶנֶת in the context of a girl who annulled her marriage through מִיאוּן and was subsequently raped or seduced.

The אַיְילוֹנִית is a girl with undifferentiated sex organs and Dr. Jeremy Brown previously commented at length on this at Talmudology.com.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וּבִמְמָאֶנֶת סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וּמִי סָבַר לַהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: עַד מָתַי הַבַּת מְמָאֶנֶת — עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה שָׁחוֹר עַל הַלָּבָן

More discussion ensues about the age or stage until an orphan can exercise her right of refusal that constitutes מִיאוּן when her mother or older brother arrange a marriage for her. רַבִּי מֵאִיר says it’s up to the age when she sprouts two hairs in the pubic area. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה says we need bush.

We’ll Zoom ahead to an interesting comment:

מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְמִירְמֵא אַחֲרִיתִי עִילָּוֵיהּ: הַחֵרֶשֶׁת וְהַשּׁוֹטָה וְהַבּוֹגֶרֶת ומוּכַּת עֵץ — אֵין לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. הַסּוֹמָא וְאַיְילוֹנִית — יֵשׁ לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: סוֹמָא אֵין לָהּ טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים

We’re back to discussing the legitimacy of a claim by a groom of מֶקַח טָעוֹת – that he thought he was marrying a virgin, and found that his bride was not a virgin. Why would his claim not be valid in the case of a סוֹמָא, a blind girl? Because if a blind girl loses her virginity due to causes other than intercourse, such as a fall that tore her hymen), she can’t see blood as a sign that her hymen has torn.

סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: סוֹמָא אֵין לָהּ טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּחְבֶּטֶת עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע. כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי חַבּוֹטֵי מִיחַבְּטִי? כּוּלְּהוּ, רוֹאוֹת וּמַרְאוֹת לְאִמָּן. זוֹ, אֵינָהּ רוֹאָה וְאֵינָהּ מַרְאָה לְאִמָּהּ

(All this may be moot if one accepts research which says that only 43% of women experience visible bleeding as a result of their first sexual encounter.)

Onward to the next Mishnah, which begins:

וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן קְנָס: הַבָּא עַל הַגִּיּוֹרֶת וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ, יְתֵירוֹת עַל בְּנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁבוּיָה שֶׁנִּפְדֵּית — הֲרֵי הִיא בִּקְדוּשָּׁתָהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגְּדוֹלָה

And these are the cases of young women who do not have a fine paid to their fathers when they are raped or seduced: One who has intercourse with a convert or with a captive woman or with a gentile maidservant, who were redeemed, converted, or emancipated when they were more than three years and one day old, as presumably they are no longer virgins. Rabbi Yehuda says: A captive woman who was redeemed remains in her state of sanctity even though she is an adult, as it cannot be stated that she certainly engaged in intercourse.

As an aside, some days it feels like instead of our Series being called סֵדֶר נָשִׁים, of which Kesuvos is one Mesechta, it should be called “Men Behaving Immorally”. A basic premise of the Gemara, in stereotyping the status of a girl who is a captive or slave of sorts, is that immorality is rampant among Gentiles.

I’ll conclude with the following Gemara that elaborates on the רֵישָׁא of the Mishnah above:

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי דּוֹסָא, דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁבוּיָה — אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי דּוֹסָא. אָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסָא: וְכִי מָה עָשָׂה לָהּ עַרְבִי הַלָּז? וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּיעֵךְ לָהּ בֵּין דַּדֶּיהָ, פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה

Here is the translation from Sefaria:

“Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa said one and the same thing with regard to a captive woman. The statement of Rabbi Yehuda is that which we said in the mishna. The statement of Rabbi Dosa is as it is taught in a baraisa: A captive daughter or wife of a priest, who was redeemed, partakes of teruma; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. In explanation, Rabbi Dosa said: And what did this Arab who took her captive do to her? And due to the fact that he lasciviously squeezed between her breasts, did he render her unfit to marry into the priesthood? Although he may have taken liberties with her, there is no concern that he had relations with her.”

How delicate a phrase: שֶׁמִּיעֵךְ לָהּ בֵּין דַּדֶּיהָ – he “lasciviously squeezed between her breasts”. What does that mean? According to The Urban Dictionary that would be a Bronski, presumably here of the facial or penile variety. The outcome is if this young lady spent time among the non-Jews, we are lenient and don’t disqualify her from marrying a כֹּהֵן or eating terumah on the presumption that she had conventional intercourse. She may have just been on the receiving end of an Arabian Bronski.

Not that we’re necessarily singling out Arabs. They were evidently a proxy for all non-Jews in the time of the Gemara. Although Tosafos does cite that Arabs have a special place in the pantheon of זִימָה or lewdness/lasciviousness, apparently cornering the market on kinkiness and immorality with a 90% זִימָה rating:

וכי מה עשה לה ערבי זה – נקט ערבי לפי שהם שטופים בזימה כדאמר בקדושין (דף מט:) עשרה קבין זימה ירדו לעולם ט’ נטלו ערביים

Here is the complete citation from Gemara Kiddushin:

עֲשָׂרָה קַבִּים גְּבוּרָה יָרְדוּ לָעוֹלָם תִּשְׁעָה נָטְלוּ פָּרְסִיִּים וְכוּ’ עֲשָׂרָה קַבִּים כִּנִּים יָרְדוּ לָעוֹלָם תִּשְׁעָה נָטְלָה מָדַי כּוּ’ עֲשָׂרָה קַבִּים כְּשָׁפִים יָרְדוּ לָעוֹלָם תִּשְׁעָה נָטְלָה מִצְרַיִם כּוּ’ עֲשָׂרָה קַבִּים נְגָעִים יָרְדוּ לָעוֹלָם תִּשְׁעָה נָטְלוּ חֲזִירִים כּוּ’ עֲשָׂרָה קַבִּים זְנוּת יָרְדוּ לָעוֹלָם תִּשְׁעָה נָטְלָה עַרְבִיָּא כּוּ’

Again, as translated by Sefaria: “Ten kav of strength descended to the world; the Persians took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of lice descended to the world; Media took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of witchcraft descended to the world; Egypt took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of plagues descended to the world; pigs, which carry disease, took nine and the rest of the world took one. Ten kav of licentiousness descended to the world; Arabia took nine and the rest of the world took one.”

About Leonard J. Press, O.D., FAAO, FCOVD

Developmental Optometry is my passion as well as occupation. Blogging allows me to share thoughts in a unique visual style.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Blog Yomi – Kesubos #35/Daf 36

  1. doctuhdon says:

    רַבִּי יְהוּדָה says we need bush.
    🧐

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s