1. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 4.5, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape,vs. adultery Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 142| 4.5. "היתה ניזונית מנכסיו וצריכה רפואה הרי היא כמזונות רשב\"ג אומר רפואה שיש לה קצבה [נתרפא מכתובתה ושאין לה] קצבה הרי היא כמזונות היו שני בצורת ואמר לה טלי גיטיך וכתובתיך צאי ופרנסי את עצמיך הרשות בידו.", 4.8. "מצוה לזון את הבנות ואין צריך לומר את הבנים ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר חובה לזון את הבנות.", | 4.5. "If she is supported from his property and needs healing—this is like her [required] support [and the husband has to pay for it]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Healing that has a fixed price is healed [i.e. paid for] from her ketubah; but without a fixed price—this is like her support. If there were years of drought and he said to her: Take your get and your ketubah, go and fice yourself—he is allowed.", 4.8. "Ideally, one should feed [his] daughters, and it is not necessary to say [also his] sons. Rabbi Yoha ben Berokah says: It is required to feed daughters.", |
|
| 2. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 7 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape,vs. adultery Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 142 |
| 3. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan nan |
| 4. Palestinian Talmud, Yevamot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
5. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape,vs. adultery Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 142| 90b. למימרא דלא הוה ביה מעשה,מיתיבי קונם שאיני נהנה לפלוני ולמי שנשאל עליו נשאל על הראשון ואח"כ נשאל על השני אמאי אי בעי על האי ניתשיל ברישא ואי בעי על האי ניתשיל ברישא,מי יודע הי ראשון והי שני,מיתיבי קונם שאיני נהנה והריני נזיר לכשאשאל עליו נשאל על נדרו ואח"כ נשאל על נזרו ואמאי אי בעי על נדרו ניתשיל ברישא ואי בעי על נזרו ניתשיל ברישא תיובתא, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בראשונה היו אומרים שלש נשים יוצאות ונוטלות כתובה האומרת טמאה אני לך שמים ביני לבינך ונטולה אני מן היהודים,חזרו לומר שלא תהא אשה נותנת עיניה באחר ומקלקלת על בעלה האומרת טמאה אני לך תביא ראיה לדבריה השמים ביני לבינך יעשו דרך בקשה ונטולה אני מן היהודים יפר לחלקו ותהא משמשתו ותהא נטולה מן היהודים, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איבעיא להו אמרה לבעלה טמאה אני מהו שתאכל בתרומה רב ששת אמר אוכלת שלא תוציא לעז על בניה רבא אמר אינה אוכלת אפשר דאכלה חולין,אמר רבא ומודה רב ששת שאם נתארמלה שאינה אוכלת מידי הוא טעמא אלא משום תוציא לעז על בניה נתארמלה ונתגרשה אמרי השתא דאיתניסא,אמר רב פפא בדיק לן רבא אשת כהן שנאנסה יש לה כתובה או אין לה כתובה כיון דאונס לגבי כהן כרצון לגבי ישראל דמי אין לה כתובה או דילמא מצי אמרה ליה אנא הא חזינא | 90b. b That is to say that there was not /b yet any b action /b but only speech, and even so the halakhic authority can dissolve the vow.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b against this version of the tannaitic dispute from the aforementioned i baraita /i : If one says: The property b of so-and-so is i konam /i /b for me, and for b that /b reason b I will not benefit /b from it, b and /b deriving benefit from b he who I will request /b dissolution b for /b the vow is also i konam /i for me, if he desires to dissolve the vows b he /b must first b request /b dissolution b with regard to the first /b vow, b and afterward he /b can b request /b dissolution b with regard to the second. /b But according to what was stated above, that all agree that a vow can be dissolved even before it has taken effect, b why /b is this so? b If he /b so b wishes, he /b can b first request /b dissolution b with regard to this /b vow, and b if he wishes, he /b can b first request /b dissolution b with regard to that /b one.,The Gemara answers: b Does he know which /b vow b is first and which is /b the b second? /b The wording of the i baraita /i is not at all clear on this point. Perhaps, if he so wishes, he can first request dissolution of the vow not to derive benefit from the halakhic authority from whom he will request dissolution of his vow.,The Gemara b raises /b a further b objection /b from the second i baraita /i cited above: If one says: The property b of so-and-so is i konam /i /b for me, and for b that /b reason b I will not benefit /b from it, and b I am hereby a nazirite for when I will request /b dissolution b of /b this vow, if he desires to dissolve the vows b he /b must first b request /b dissolution b with regard to his vow /b that rendered benefit from a particular person forbidden, b and afterward he /b can b request /b dissolution b with regard to his /b vow of b naziriteship /b that he accepted upon himself should he request dissolution of his first vow. b But why /b must he proceed in this manner? b If he /b so b wishes he /b can b first request /b dissolution b with regard to his vow /b not to derive benefit from that other person, b and if he wishes he /b can b first request /b dissolution b with regard to his /b vow of b naziriteship. /b The fact that the i baraita /i does not say this indicates that a vow can be dissolved only once it has gone into effect. The Gemara concludes: Here is b a conclusive refutation /b of this version of the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis., strong MISHNA: /strong b Initially /b the Sages b would say /b that b three women are divorced /b even against their husbands’ will, b and /b nevertheless b they receive /b payment of what is due to them according to their b marriage contract. /b The first is the wife of a priest b who says /b to her husband: b I am defiled to you, /b i.e., she claims that she had been raped, so that she is now forbidden to her husband. The second is a woman who says to her husband: b Heaven is between me and you, /b i.e., she declares that he is impotent, a claim she cannot prove, as the truth of it is known only to God. b And /b the third is a woman who takes a vow, stating: b I am removed from the Jews, /b i.e., benefit from sexual intercourse with any Jew, including my husband, is forbidden to me., b They /b subsequently b retracted /b their words b and said /b that in order b that /b a married b woman should not cast her eyes on another /b man b and /b to that end b ruin /b her relationship b with her husband /b and still receive payment of her marriage contract, these i halakhot /i were modified as follows: A priest’s wife b who says /b to her husband: b I am defiled to you, must bring proof for her words /b that she was raped. As for a woman who says: b Heaven is between me and you, /b the court b must act /b and deal with the matter b by way of a request, /b rather than force the husband to divorce his wife. b And /b with regard to a woman who says: b I am removed from the Jews, /b her husband b must nullify his part, /b i.e., the aspect of the vow that concerns him, so that she should be permitted to him, b and she may engage in sexual intercourse with him, but she is removed from /b all other b Jews, /b so that if he divorces her she is forbidden to all., strong GEMARA: /strong b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages, based on the second ruling of the mishna: If the wife of a priest b said to her husband: I am defiled /b to you, b what is /b the i halakha /i b with regard to /b whether b she may partake of i teruma /i ? /b Is the i halakha /i that just as she is not believed with regard to divorce, so she is not believed with regard to i teruma /i , or is the i halakha /i that with regard to i teruma /i she is believed, and therefore it is prohibited for her to partake of i teruma /i , as is the i halakha /i of a woman married to a priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband? b Rav Sheshet said: /b She b may partake /b of i teruma /i , b so that she not cast aspersions on her children. /b If she is barred from partaking of i teruma /i , people will see this as supporting her claim that she had been raped, and rumors will circulate that her sons are unfit for the priesthood. b Rava said: She may not partake /b of i teruma /i , as b she can partake of non-sacred /b food, and it is preferable that her claim that she is no longer permitted to eat i teruma /i be taken into account., b Rava said: And Rav Sheshet concedes that if /b this wife of the priest who claimed to have been raped b was /b then b widowed /b from him, b she may not /b continue to b partake /b of i teruma /i . Why? b Isn’t the reason /b that she is permitted to partake of i teruma /i b only that she /b should not b cast aspersions on her children? /b This being the case, if she b was widowed or divorced, /b people b will say /b that only b now /b it occurred b that she was raped, /b i.e., the entire incident occurred after she was no longer married to her husband. Therefore, rumors will not circulate that the children that she bore him beforehand are unfit.,§ b Rav Pappa said: Rava tested us /b with the following question: As for the b wife of a priest who was raped /b in the presence of witnesses, is b she /b entitled to b receive /b payment of her b marriage contract or /b is b she not /b entitled to b receive /b payment of her b marriage contract? /b The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Is the i halakha /i that b since rape with regard to /b a woman married to b a priest is like willing /b sexual intercourse b with regard to a /b woman married to b an Israelite, /b as the wife of a priest who was raped is obligated to leave her husband, just as the wife of an Israelite who willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with another man is obligated to leave her husband, b she /b is therefore b not /b entitled to b receive /b payment of her b marriage contract? Or perhaps she can say to him: I am fit /b to continue being married, as, if her husband were an Israelite she would not be forbidden to him after being raped. |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rape,vs. adultery Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 142| 26a. מעוברת חבירו ומינקת חבירו לא שותות ולא נוטלות כתובה דברי ר' מאיר,שהיה רבי מאיר אומר לא ישא אדם מעוברת חבירו ומינקת חבירו ואם נשא יוציא ולא יחזיר עולמית וחכמים אומרים יוציא וכשיגיע זמנו לכנוס יכנוס,והרובא שנשא עקרה וזקינה ואין לו אשה ובנים מעיקרא לא שותה ולא נוטלת כתובה ר' אלעזר אומר יכול הוא לישא אחרת ולפרות ולרבות הימנה,אבל המקנא לארוסתו ולשומרת יבם שלו ומשכנסה נסתרה או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובה מעוברת ומינקת עצמו או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובתה הרובא שנשא עקרה וזקינה ויש לו אשה ובנים או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובה,אשת ממזר לממזר ואשת נתין לנתין ואשת גר ועבד משוחרר ואיילונית או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובה קתני מיהא איילונית תיובתיה דרב נחמן,אמר לך רב נחמן תנאי היא ואנא דאמרי כי האי תנא דתניא ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר איילונית לא שותה ולא נוטלת כתובה שנאמר (במדבר ה, כח) ונקתה ונזרעה זרע מי שדרכה להזריע יצאתה זו שאין דרכה להזריע,ורבנן האי ונקתה ונזרעה זרע מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי להו לכדתניא ונקתה ונזרעה [זרע] שאם היתה עקרה נפקדת דברי ר' עקיבא אמר לו ר' ישמעאל אם כן יסתרו כל העקרות ויפקדו וזו הואיל ולא נסתרה הפסידה,אם כן מה תלמוד לומר ונקתה ונזרעה זרע שאם היתה יולדת בצער יולדת בריוח נקבות יולדת זכרים קצרים יולדת ארוכים שחורים יולדת לבנים,אשת ממזר לממזר פשיטא מהו דתימא אפושי פסולין לא ליפוש קא משמע לן,אשת גר ועבד משוחרר ואיילונית פשיטא,מהו דתימא (במדבר ה, ו) דבר אל בני ישראל ולא גרים קמ"ל ואימא הכי נמי ואמרת רבויא הוא,אשת כהן שותה כו' (אשת כהן. שותה) פשיטא מהו דתימא (במדבר ה, יג) והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת וזו הואיל ונתפשה אסורה אימא לא תשתה קא משמע לן,ומותרת לבעלה פשיטא אמר רב הונא במתנוונה מתנוונה הא בדקוה מיא,במתנוונה דרך אברים מהו דתימא הא זנויי זנאי והא דלא בדקוה מיא כי אורחיה משום דבאונס זנאי ולגבי כהן אסירא קא משמע לן,אשת סריס שותה פשיטא מהו דתימא מבלעדי אישך אמר רחמנא והאי לאו בר הכי הוא קא משמע לן,על ידי כל עריות מקנין פשיטא | 26a. The i baraita /i continues: b A woman who was pregt /b with the child b of another /b man at the time of her marriage b and a woman who was nursing /b the child b of another /b man at the time of her marriage b neither drink /b the bitter water b nor collect /b payment of their b marriage contracts, /b as their marriages were prohibited by rabbinic law. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: The reason for this is b as Rabbi Meir would say: A man may not marry a woman who is pregt /b with the child b of another /b man b or a woman who is nursing /b the child b of another /b man, until twenty-four months pass after the baby’s birth, so as to ensure that the woman will not become pregt while the child needs to nurse. b And if he married /b her, b he must divorce /b her b and may never remarry /b her, as the Sages penalized him for transgressing the prohibition. b And the Rabbis say: He must divorce /b her, b and when his time to marry /b her b arrives, /b i.e., twenty-four months after the baby’s birth, b he can marry /b her again.,The i baraita /i continues: In b the /b case of a b young man who married a barren woman or an elderly woman, and he did not have a wife and children beforehand, /b the woman b neither drinks nor collects /b payment of her b marriage contract, /b as it is prohibited for him to marry a woman with whom he cannot procreate. b Rabbi Elazar says: /b This marriage is not forbidden, as b he can marry another /b woman b and procreate through her, /b and therefore she can drink the bitter water.,The i baraita /i continues: b However, /b in the case of b one who issued a warning to his betrothed, or to his /b i yevama /i while she was a b widow awaiting her i yavam /i , and she secluded herself /b with the other man b after he consummated /b the marriage, b she either drinks /b the bitter water b or does not collect /b payment of her b marriage contract. /b If b his own pregt or nursing /b wife becomes a i sota /i , then despite the concern that the bitter water may harm the fetus, she b either drinks /b the bitter water b or does not collect /b payment of b her marriage contract. /b In b the /b case of a b young man who married a barren woman or an elderly woman, and he /b already b had a wife and children /b and was therefore permitted to marry his barren or elderly wife, the woman b either drinks /b the bitter water b or does not collect /b payment of her b marriage contract. /b ,The i baraita /i concludes: With regard to b the wife of a i mamzer /i /b who is married b to a i mamzer /i /b in a permitted marriage, b and the wife of a Gibeonite /b who is married b to a Gibeonite /b in a permitted marriage, b and the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, and a sexually underdeveloped woman, /b if any of these women becomes a i sota /i she b either drinks /b the bitter water b or does not collect /b payment of her b marriage contract, /b as the marriage is permitted. After citing the entire i baraita /i , the Gemara explains the difficulty: b In any event, /b the i baraita /i b teaches /b that b a sexually underdeveloped woman /b can drink the bitter water if the marriage is permitted, and this is b a conclusive refutation /b of the opinion b of Rav Naḥman. /b ,The Gemara answers: b Rav Naḥman /b could have b said to you: /b There b is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i /b with regard to this matter, b and I state /b my opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon Ben Elazar says: A sexually underdeveloped woman neither drinks nor collects /b payment of her b marriage contract, as it is stated: “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” /b (Numbers 5:28), indicating that the i sota /i ritual pertains only to b one whose way is to bear seed /b and give birth, b excluding this /b sexually underdeveloped woman, b whose way is not to bear seed. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, what do they do with this /b verse: b “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed”? /b Since they hold that a sexually underdeveloped woman drinks the bitter water, what do they derive from the verse? The Gemara answers: b They require /b it b for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse: b “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” /b (Numbers 5:28), indicates b that if she was barren, she will be remembered /b and conceive a child; this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If so, all the barren women will seclude themselves /b with other men, b and they will be remembered /b and conceive after drinking the bitter water and being found innocent; b but that /b virtuous barren woman, who does not transgress the prohibition of seclusion, b since she does not seclude herself /b with other men, b she loses /b the opportunity to receive this blessing.,Rabbi Yishmael continues: b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed” /b (Numbers 5:28)? This means b that if /b in the past she b would give birth in pain, /b from then on b she will give birth with ease; /b if she gave birth to b females, she will /b now b give birth to males; /b if her children were b short, she will /b now b give birth to tall /b children; if her children were b black, she will give birth to white /b children.,§ The i baraita /i in the i Tosefta /i cited above states: b The wife of a i mamzer /i /b who is married b to a i mamzer /i /b in a permitted marriage… either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b that b obvious? /b Since their marriage is permitted, why should the i sota /i ritual not apply? The Gemara answers: It is necessary b lest you say /b that she should not drink, since if she drinks and is found to be innocent of adultery, she is permitted to her husband. This is undesirable since their offspring are also i mamzerim /i , and b we do not cause /b the number of individuals b of flawed lineage to proliferate. /b The i baraita /i in the i Tosefta /i therefore b teaches us /b that this is not a concern, and the wife of a i mamzer /i is permitted to drink.,The aforementioned i baraita /i in the i Tosefta /i states: b The wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, and a sexually underdeveloped woman /b can drink the bitter water. The Gemara asks with regard to the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, who also has the status of a convert: b Isn’t /b that b obvious? /b Since their marriage is permitted, why should the i sota /i ritual not apply?,The Gemara answers: It is necessary b lest you say /b that she does not drink, as the verse states: b “Speak to the children of Israel, /b and say unto them: If the wife of any man goes astray, and acts unfaithfully against him” (Numbers 5:12). One might have inferred from this verse that the i sota /i ritual applies only to those born as Jews b and not /b to b converts; /b the i baraita /i in the i Tosefta /i therefore b teaches us /b that this is not so. The Gemara asks: Why not b say /b that b indeed /b the verse excludes converts? The Gemara answers: The subsequent term: b “And say /b unto them” (Numbers 5:12) b is an amplification, /b which serves to include converts.,§ The mishna states: b The wife of a priest drinks /b the bitter water, and if she is found to be innocent of adultery she is permitted to her husband. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna state: b The wife of a priest drinks? Isn’t /b that b obvious? /b The Gemara answers: It is necessary b lest you say /b that she does not drink, as the verse states: “And a man lay with b her…neither was she seized” /b (Numbers 5:13). This indicates that if the i sota /i was not seized b she is forbidden; however, /b if she was b seized, /b i.e., raped, she is b permitted /b to her husband. b And /b with regard to b this /b woman, the wife of a priest, b since /b even if she was b seized /b she is b forbidden /b to her husband, as a priest may not remain married to his wife if she was raped while they were married, one might b say /b that the i sota /i ritual does not apply to her, and she b does not drink. /b Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that she does drink.,§ The mishna states: The wife of a priest drinks, b and /b if she is found to be innocent of adultery, b she is permitted to her husband. /b The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b that b obvious? Rav Huna says: /b The mishna is referring to a case b where /b the woman’s health b deteriorates /b after she drinks the bitter water, and one might have thought that she is defiled. The Gemara asks: In the case of a woman whose health b deteriorates, hasn’t the /b bitter b water /b already b evaluated /b that b she /b was unfaithful? The fact that her health deteriorates indicates that she is defiled and forbidden to her husband, and her death is delayed due to her merit in other matters.,The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case b where her /b health b deteriorates, /b but not in the manner of a i sota /i , who is afflicted in her belly and thighs (see Numbers 5:27). Rather, she is afflicted b by way of /b other b limbs. Lest you say: This /b woman b engaged in licentious intercourse, and /b the fact b that the /b bitter b water did not evaluate her in /b the b usual manner /b is b because she engaged in licentious intercourse under duress, and with regard to a priest, /b even rape b renders her forbidden to her /b to her husband, the mishna therefore b teaches us /b that the woman’s deteriorating health does not indicate anything.,§ The mishna states: b The wife of a eunuch drinks. /b The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b that b obvious? /b Since their marriage is permitted, why should the i sota /i ritual not apply? The Gemara replies: It is necessary b lest you say /b that she does not drink, since b the Merciful One states /b with regard to the i sota /i : “But if you have gone astray while under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you b besides your husband” /b (Numbers 5:20). This indicates that her husband had lain with her, b and this /b husband, the eunuch, b is not capable of that. /b The mishna therefore b teaches us /b that the wife of a eunuch does drink the bitter water.,§ The mishna states: A husband b can issue a warning /b to his wife b with regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden, /b e.g., her father or brother. The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b that b obvious? /b |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 142| 56b. ואנהרינהו לעיינין ממתניתין אשת ישראל שנאנסה אע"פ שמותרת לבעלה פסולה לכהונה ותנא תונא וכן הבא על אחת מכל העריות האמורות בתורה או פסולות,מאי וכן מאי לאו לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד ולא שנא באונס ולא שנא ברצון וקתני פסלה,לא מאי וכן אהעראה העראה דמאן אילימא דעריות למימרא דעריות ילפי' מיבמה אדרבה יבמה ילפינן מעריות דעיקר העראה בעריות כתיב,אלא מאי וכן אשלא כדרכה דעריות אדרבה עיקר משכבי אשה בעריות כתיב,אלא מאי וכן אשלא כדרכה דחייבי לאוין,אמר רבא אשת כהן שנאנסה בעלה לוקה עליה משום זונה משום זונה אין משום טומאה לא אימא אף משום זונה,מתיב רבי זירא (במדבר ה, יג) והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת ויש לך אחרת שאע"פ שנתפשה אסורה ואי זו זו אשת כהן,ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה,אמר רבה הכל היו בכלל זונה כשפרט לך הכתוב גבי אשת ישראל והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת מכלל דאשת כהן כדקיימא קיימא,ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבה אשת כהן שנאנסה בעלה לוקה עליה משום טומאה משום טומאה אין משום זונה לא אלמא באונס לא קרינא ביה זונה,מתיב רבי זירא והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת ויש לך אחרת שאף על פי שנתפשה אסורה ואיזו זו אשת כהן ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה,אמר רבא הכל היו בכלל (דברים כד, ד) אחרי אשר הוטמאה כשפרט לך הכתוב גבי אשת ישראל והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת מכלל דאשת כהן כדקיימא קיימא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט מן האירוסין לא יאכלו בתרומה רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון מכשירין,נתארמלו או נתגרשו מן הנשואין פסולות מן האירוסין כשרות:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תניא אמר ר"מ ק"ו ומה קדושי רשות אין מאכילין קדושי עבירה לא כ"ש,אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בקידושי רשות שכן אין לו להאכיל במקום אחר תאמר בקדושי עבירה שכן יש לו להאכיל במקום אחר,א"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא פצוע דכא כהן שקדש בת ישראל באנו למחלוקת ר"מ ורבי אלעזר ור"ש,לר"מ דאמר משתמרת לביאה פסולה דאורייתא לא אכלה הא נמי לא אכלה לר' אלעזר ור' שמעון דאמרי משתמרת לביאה פסולה דאורייתא אכלה | 56b. b and he illuminated our eyes from the mishna, /b i.e., he demonstrated that the mishna serves as the basis for his opinion: With regard to b the wife of an Israelite who was raped, although she is permitted to her husband, she is disqualified for the priesthood. /b Therefore, if her husband dies, she may not marry a priest. b And the i tanna /i /b of our mishna also b taught: And so too, /b in the case of b one who had intercourse with any one of those with whom relations are forbidden [ i arayot /i ] /b by b the Torah or /b with those who are b unfit /b to marry b him /b even though they are not in the category of i arayot /i , the woman is disqualified from marrying a priest., b What is the meaning of /b the phrase: b And so too? What, is it not /b that b it is no different /b whether they have intercourse b unwittingly or intentionally, and it is no different /b whether they have intercourse b due to coercion or willingly? And it is taught /b that b he has rendered her disqualified /b from marrying a priest.,The Gemara refutes this proof: b No, what /b is the meaning of the phrase: b And so too? /b It is referring b to the initial stage of intercourse, /b as this too invalidates her. The Gemara asks: b The initial stage of intercourse of whom? If we say /b it is referring to b those with whom relations are prohibited /b and carry a punishment of i karet /i or death b [ i arayot /i ], is this to say that /b the i halakha /i b with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited is derived from /b the i halakha /i with regard to b a i yevama /i , /b as implied by the phrase: And so too? b On the contrary, we derive /b the i halakha /i of b a i yevama /i from /b the i halakha /i b with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited, as the main /b source that indicates that b the initial stage of intercourse /b is considered intercourse b is stated in /b the context of b those with whom relations are prohibited /b and not in the context of a i yevama /i ., b Rather, what is /b the meaning of the phrase: b And so too? /b It is referring b to atypical, /b i.e., anal, b sexual intercourse with those with whom relations are prohibited [ i arayot /i ]. /b The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b On the contrary, the main /b source that atypical intercourse is considered intercourse, which is based upon the verse b “The cohabitations of a woman” /b (Leviticus 18:22) b is written with regard to those with whom relations are prohibited [ i arayot /i ]. /b , b Rather, what is /b the meaning of the phrase: b And so too? /b It is referring b to atypical /b intercourse b by those liable for /b violating an ordinary b prohibition /b not punishable by i karet /i , with regard to whom the expression: The cohabitations of a woman, does not appear. In any event, Rav Sheshet’s proof from the mishna is not conclusive.,§ b Rava said: /b With regard to b the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged /b if he later has intercourse with b her, due to /b the fact that it is prohibited for a priest to have intercourse with a b i zona /i . /b The Gemara expresses surprise: b Due to /b the prohibition proscribing a b i zona /i , yes; due to ritual impurity, no? /b The Torah refers to a married woman who has had intercourse with another man as ritually impure, and she is forbidden to her husband. The Gemara emends Rava’s statement: b Say /b that he is b also /b flogged b due to /b the prohibition with regard to a b i zona /i . /b , b Rabbi Zeira raised an objection /b based upon a verse with regard to a i sota /i : b “And neither was she taken” /b (Numbers 5:13) indicates that b she is forbidden /b to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, b but /b if b she was /b forcibly b taken, /b i.e., raped, b she is permitted /b to her husband. The term “And…she” indicates that although these principles apply in this case, b you have another /b case of a woman b who /b is b prohibited even though she was /b forcibly b taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest. /b , b And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva, /b e.g., the prohibition proscribing a priest’s wife to her husband if she has been raped, which is derived from the fact that the Torah indicates that the wife of an Israelite remains permitted, has the status of b a positive mitzva, /b not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition., b Rabba said /b in response: b All /b married women who engaged in extramarital intercourse b were included /b in the category of b i zona /i . When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” /b as it is only in that case that she is b forbidden, /b it thereby indicates that if in fact b she was /b forcibly b taken, /b she is b permitted. By inference, /b unlike the wife of an Israelite, b the wife of a priest remains as she was. /b Since the Torah does not limit the category of i zona /i with regard to the wife of a priest, she is considered a i zona /i even if she was raped., b And some say /b a different version of this discussion. b Rabba said: /b With regard to b the wife of a priest who was raped, her husband is flogged for /b having intercourse with b her due to /b her b ritual impurity. /b The Gemara asks: b Due to ritual impurity, yes; due to /b the prohibition proscribing a b i zona /i , no? Apparently, in /b a case of b rape, /b the victim b is not called a i zona /i . /b , b Rabbi Zeira raised an objection /b from the verse: b “And neither was she taken” /b indicates that b she is forbidden /b to her husband because she willingly committed adultery, b but /b if b she was /b forcibly b taken, she is permitted /b to her husband. The term: “And…she,” indicates that although these principles apply in this case, b you have another /b case of a woman b who /b is b forbidden even though she was /b forcibly b taken. And which is this? This is the wife of a priest. And a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva /b has the status of b a positive mitzva, /b not a prohibition. Consequently, one should not be flogged for this offense, as one is flogged only for violating a prohibition., b Rava said: All were included /b in the verse “Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife b after she was made ritually impure” /b (Deuteronomy 24:4). b When the verse specified with regard to the wife of an Israelite: “And neither was she taken,” /b as it is only in that case that she is b forbidden, /b it thereby indicates that if b she was /b forcibly b taken /b she is b permitted. By inference, the wife of a priest remains as she was, /b and she is forbidden., strong MISHNA: /strong b A widow to a High Priest, a divorcée, or a i ḥalutza /i to a common priest, /b even if they had only engaged in b betrothal /b and had not yet had intercourse, b may not partake of i teruma /i . /b Since they are forbidden to the men who betrothed them, the betrothal itself disqualifies them from the privileges of priesthood even if they are the daughters of priests. b Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon declare them fit /b to partake of i teruma /i . Since the prohibition is violated through the act of intercourse and not betrothal, the women are disqualified only once they have intercourse.,In a case where these women b were widowed or divorced, /b if it was b from marriage, they are disqualified /b from the priesthood and may not partake of i teruma /i . This is because a woman prohibited from marrying a priest who has intercourse with a priest becomes a i ḥalala /i , and is thereby disqualified from partaking of i teruma /i . However, if they were widowed or divorced b from /b their state of b betrothal, /b they are once again b fit /b to partake of i teruma /i according to all opinions., strong GEMARA: /strong b It is taught in a /b i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir said: /b This is b an i a fortiori /i inference: Just as optional betrothal, /b e.g., in the case of an Israelite who betroths the daughter of a priest, b does not entitle her to partake /b of i teruma /i , as her betrothal to a non-priest disqualifies her from partaking of her father’s i teruma /i , b is it not all the more so /b true in a case of b betrothal /b that constitutes b a transgression, /b as in the cases in the mishna?, b They said to him: No, if you say /b that this is true with regard to an Israelite, b whose /b status b cannot entitle her to partake /b of i teruma /i b in another case, /b as one betrothed to an Israelite may never partake of i teruma /i , b shall you /b also b say /b that this is the case with regard to b betrothal /b to a priest that constitutes b a transgression, where his /b status b does entitle her to partake /b of i teruma /i b in a different case, /b as marriage to a priest entitles a woman to partake of i teruma /i in a case where it is permitted for them to marry?, b Rabbi Elazar said /b that b Rabbi Oshaya said: /b In the case of b a priest with crushed testicles /b or with other wounds to his genitals b who betrothed the daughter of an Israelite, /b which is prohibited by the verse “He that is crushed or maimed shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2), b we have arrived at the dispute /b between b Rabbi Meir /b on the one hand b and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon /b on the other., b According to Rabbi Meir, who said /b that a woman who is b reserved for intercourse that is invalid, /b i.e., prohibited, b by Torah law may not partake /b of i teruma /i , b this one may also not partake /b of i teruma /i , as it is prohibited by Torah law for her to have intercourse with a man with crushed testicles. b According to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, who say /b that a woman who is b reserved for intercourse that is invalid by Torah /b law b may partake /b of i teruma /i until she actually engages in the prohibited act of intercourse, |
|
| 8. Anon., Halakhot Gedolot, 2.30-2.31 Tagged with subjects: •rape,vs. adultery Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 142 |
| 9. Otzar Hagaonim, Ketubbot, 346 Tagged with subjects: •rape,vs. adultery Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 142 |
