DOCSLIB.ORG

Gittin 081.Pub

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

כ"ג אדר א' תשעו“ Thursday, March 3 2016 גיטין פ“א OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT 1) Defining “immediately” and “after a time” (cont.) Bringing fruit into the house through the roof דורות האחרונים וכו ‘ לפוטרן מן המעשר -The Gemara resolves the challenge to Shmuel’s explana tion of the terms “immediately” and “after a time.” R abbi Yanai teaches the halacha that the produce of one’s 2) MISHNAH: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree farm is subject to the laws of tithes only once it is brought into whether gittin not delivered or delivered with an unfulfilled the house through the front gate. He derives this law from the condition prohibit a woman from marrying a kohen. verse in Devarim (26:13) when a farmer declares that he has re- 3) If a rumor says that a kohen divorced his wife moved all his ma’aser “from the house”. This leads Rabbah bar Shmuel ruled that if a rumor says that a kohen divorced bar Channa to observe, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ila’ei, his wife they must separate and the matter requires further that earlier generations used to bring their fruits into the house research. through the front gate to proudly obligate them in this mitzvah. The exact point that requires further research is ex- Later generations, however, sought to avoid this obligation. They plained. took advantage of the loophole which was available, and they brought the fruit from the field and brought it into the house 4) Differences between earlier and later generations through the roof and through the back yard, all of this in order R’ Yehudah bar Ilai is cited as noting the contrast between to avoid having the fruit become obligated to have tithes taken the ruling of Beis Shammai in the Mishnah and R’ Dosa’s rul- from them. ing in the Baraisa and how this illustrates how the stature of The poskim deal with the question whether this behavior of later generations has declined. seeking to avoid an obligation to separate tithes is prohibited, or Another observation cited in the name of R’ Yehudah bar is it a legitimate move, correctly using a loophole for those who Ilai about the descent of generations is presented. choose to do so. The Yerushalmi (Ma’asros 3:1) cites a list of 5) MISHNAH: The Mishnah presents a dispute between Amoraim who used to bring their fruit from the field into their Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel whether a divorced couple that houses through the roofs of their houses. When Rabbi Yehuda -bar Ila’ei saw this, he made his aforementioned statement com . גט stayed together in a hotel require a new 6) Clarifying the dispute paring earlier generations to later ones. The question is what was Rabbah bar bar Chanah in the name of R’ Yochanan meant by this comment? Should we conclude that since several identifies the parameters of the dispute between Beis Sham- Amoraim did this, it is obviously allowed, or should we say that mai and Beis Hillel. Rabbi Yehuda bar Ila’ei criticized them, this means that it is not This explanation is successfully challenged and it is sug- permitted. gested that R’ Yochanan’s statement was made in reference to Meiri in Berachos (35b) writes that it is prohibited for a per- a different source. son to avoid tithing by bringing his produce into the house in a The Gemara explains the point of the dispute according manner where he will be exempt from doing so. This is also to its present understanding of the Mishnah. seems to be the opinion of Ramban. Others suggest that even A contradiction is noted and confirmed regarding R’ according to those who prohibit avoiding tithing, this is not a Yochanan’s position on these matters. formal sin, but they mean that such conduct is inadvisable in times when we are in such dire need of the merit of such mitzvos. 7) MISHNAH: The Mishnah presents the halachos related . גט קרח and then defines a , גט קרח - גט to a bald גט A bald (8 is invalid is explained. REVIEW and Remember גט The reason a bald 9) Clarifying the dispute between Ben Nanas and R’ Akiva 1. What is the point of dispute between Beis Shammai and The Gemara after a number of attempts explains why, Beis Hillel? _____________________________________________ . גט קרח according to R’ Akiva, a slave cannot sign on the R’ Ada bar Ahavah qualifies the dispute between Ben 2. Cite two ways that later generations are different than Nanas and R’ Akiva. earlier generations? (Overview...Continued on page 2) _____________________________________________ ? גט קרח What is a .3 Today’s Daf Digest is dedicated _____________________________________________ In loving memory of ?Explain the dispute between Ben Nanas and R’ Akiva .4 מרת פייגע בת ר' דוד ע"ה Mrs. Florence Bodanis o.b.m _____________________________________________ גיטין פ“א—Number 1310 (Continued from page 1) R’ Zeira challenges this explanation. HALACHAH Highlight Rabbah bar Sheilta answers this challenge. Performing kiddushin at night A Baraisa is cited that supports this explanation of R’ Ada .bar Ahavah המגרש את אשתו ולנה אמו בפונדקי One who divorces his wife and lodged with her in an inn. An alternative version of R’ Ada bar Ahavah’s qualifica- tion is cited. eis Yosef 1 cites authorities who maintain that one should גט B 10) A bald not divorce at night. Teshuvas Re’em 2 explains that divorcing is R’ Yochanan asserts that only one relative can sign on a and judgments ( תחילת דין ) considered the beginning of judgment .but no more גט קרח may not be conducted at night. Precedent for this is R’ Eliezer’s R’ Ashi cites a Baraisa that supports this assertion. ruling that chalitzah may not be performed at night since it is considered the beginning of judgment. Teshuvas Re’em then that there should be a restriction against performing kiddushin at writes that it is possible that one should not perform kiddushin at night. equate Sefer Get Pashut 4 also disagrees with Teshuvas Re’em ” ויצאה והיתה “ night since the juxtaposition of the words the halachos of kiddushin and divorce. regarding this stringency and cites the Gemara in Kiddushin that Rav Akiva Eiger 3 disagrees with this assertion for a number of makes explicit reference to the performance of kiddushin at night Rav Akiva Eiger 5, despite his opposition to .( דקידשה בליליא) -reasons. Firstly, the Mishnah discusses a case of a divorced cou ple who slept in an inn and the possibility that kiddushin was Teshuvas Re’em’s ruling, defends the objection put forward by implies that they Sefer Get Pashut. Since the stringency is based on the ruling of ” ולנה “ performed. The language of the Mishnah slept in the inn at night. Secondly, one could contend that the R’ Eliezer which is disputed by Rabanan one could assert that the juxtaposition that equates marriage and divorce does not apply in Gemara in kiddushin follows Rabanan and thus since halacha this case. Had the Torah stated explicitly that one may not di- follows R’ Eliezer it could still be maintained that kiddushin may vorce at night one could accept that the halacha of kiddushin and not be performed at night. the halacha of divorce are the same. However, since the halacha 1 בית יוסף אה"ע סי' קנ"ו. 2 שו"ת הרא"ם המכונה מים עמוקים סי' ל"ה. i.e. the divorce ,( סברא ) of divorce is derived only from logic 3 שו"ת רעק"א ח"ב סי' ע"א. begins the kesubah proceedings, one could argue that since this 4 4 ספר גט פשוט סי' קכ"ג ס"ק כ"א. logic does not apply to kiddushin there is no reason to assume 5 שו"ת רעק"א שם. no one could be trusted, who would risk giving her a divorce… Beis Hillel says that torture or death for a halachic ceremony? he must give her a second writ.’ It would STORIES Off the Daf One young crypto-Jewish couple mar- appear as though our case is the same, Living under Duress ried in the usual fashion. A few months since everyone knew that they were living after the wedding they managed to get out as man and wife. This is at least as effective "ובה"א צריכה הימנו גט שני..." of Spain. Sadly, when the two finally ar- in establishing a relationship as mere wit- A fter the expulsion from Spain, the rived at a free port, the husband decided nesses. This is incorrect, however. In the only Jews to remain had to pose as non- to abscond. He left his pregnant bride sud- case mentioned earlier, we are relying on Jews. Any evidence of observance was kept denly and was never heard from again. the established precedent that a man will extremely private since fulfillment of the After waiting a time she realized that not do that which is against halachah. It Torah’s commands would render a person he would likely never return, but what follows that if a man is intimate with his or proof of ex-wife (or perhaps any other woman), he גט subject to the horrors of the Inquisition. could she do? Without a All rituals were only observed with imme- demise a married woman may not remarry. intends the intimacy be for the sake of diate family present, since it presented As is well known, there is no halachic way kiddushin. such a risk. Any mitzvah that required wit- to circumvent this. The Rivash concluded, “In our case, nesses who were not close relatives was not But then someone suggested that since there wasn’t even a mikveh in the town fulfilled, since this was a danger to life and she never halachically married, perhaps where the couple lived! Clearly, if the laws of taharas hamishpachah are not essential .
Recommended publications
  • Should Bakeries Which Are Open on Shabbat Be Supervised? a Response to the Rabinowitz-Weisberg Opinion RABBI HOWARD HANDLER

    Should Bakeries Which Are Open on Shabbat Be Supervised? a Response to the Rabinowitz-Weisberg Opinion RABBI HOWARD HANDLER

    Should Bakeries Which are Open on Shabbat Be Supervised? A Response to the Rabinowitz-Weisberg Opinion RABBI HOWARD HANDLER This paper was submitted as a response to the responsum written by Rabbi Mayer Rabinowitz and Ms. Dvora Weisberg entitled "Rabbinic Supervision of Jewish Owned Businesses Operating on Shabbat" which was adopted by the CJLS on February 26, 1986. Should rabbis offer rabbinic supervision to bakeries which are open on Shabbat? i1 ~, '(l) l'\ (1) The food itself is indeed kosher after Shabbat, once the time required to prepare it has elapsed. 1 The halakhah is according to Rabbi Yehudah and not according to the Mishnah which is Rabbi Meir's opinion. (2) While a Jew who does not observe all the mitzvot is in some instances deemed trustworthy, this is never the case regarding someone who flagrantly disregards the laws of Shabbat, especially for personal profit. Maimonides specifically excludes such a person's trustworthiness regarding his own actions.2 Moreover in the case of n:nv 77n~ (a violator of Shabbat) Maimonides explicitly rejects his trustworthiness. 3 No support can be brought from Moshe Feinstein who concludes, "even if the proprietor closes his store on Shabbat, [since it is known to all that he does not observe Shabbat], we assume he only wants to impress other observant Jews so they will buy from him."4 Previously in the same responsum R. Feinstein emphasizes that even if the person in The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly provides guidance in matters of halakhah for the Conservative movement.
  • The Intersection of Gender and Mitzvot Dr

    The Intersection of Gender and Mitzvot Dr

    The Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies Walking with Mitzvot Edited By Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson ogb hfrs andvhfrs Rabbi Patricia Fenton In Memory of Harold Held and Louise Held, of blessed memory The Held Foundation Melissa and Michael Bordy Joseph and Lacine Held Robert and Lisa Held Published in partnership with the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly, the Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs and the Women’s League for Conservative Judaism. THE INTERSECTION OF GENDER AND MITZVOT DR. RABBI ARYEH COHEN TO START WITH A COUPLE alakhah, or Jewish Law, it has been often noted, is as much a pedagogical system as a legal system. The goal of the Hmitzvot as codified and explicated in the halakhic system is to create a certain type of person. Ideally this is a person who is righteous and God fearing, a person who feels and fulfills their obligation towards God as well as towards their fellows. Embedded into this goal, of necessity, is an idea or conception of what a person is. On the most basic level, the mitzvot “construct” people as masculine and feminine. This means that the halakhic system, or the system of mitzvot as practiced, classically define certain behaviors as masculine and others as feminine. The mitzvot themselves are then grouped into broad categories which are mapped onto male and female. Let’s start with a couple of examples. The (3rd century CE) tractate Kiddushin of the Mishnah begins with the following law: “A woman is acquired in three ways, with money, with a contract and with sex.” The assumption here is that a man “acquires” a woman in marriage and not the reverse.
  • The Marriage Issue

    The Marriage Issue

    Association for Jewish Studies SPRING 2013 Center for Jewish History The Marriage Issue 15 West 16th Street The Latest: New York, NY 10011 William Kentridge: An Implicated Subject Cynthia Ozick’s Fiction Smolders, but not with Romance The Questionnaire: If you were to organize a graduate seminar around a single text, what would it be? Perspectives THE MAGAZINE OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES Table of Contents From the Editors 3 From the President 3 From the Executive Director 4 The Marriage Issue Jewish Marriage 6 Bluma Goldstein Between the Living and the Dead: Making Levirate Marriage Work 10 Dvora Weisberg Married Men 14 Judith Baskin ‘According to the Law of Moses and Israel’: Marriage from Social Institution to Legal Fact 16 Michael Satlow Reading Jewish Philosophy: What’s Marriage Got to Do with It? 18 Susan Shapiro One Jewish Woman, Two Husbands, Three Laws: The Making of Civil Marriage and Divorce in a Revolutionary Age 24 Lois Dubin Jewish Courtship and Marriage in 1920s Vienna 26 Marsha Rozenblit Marriage Equality: An American Jewish View 32 Joyce Antler The Playwright, the Starlight, and the Rabbi: A Love Triangle 35 Lila Corwin Berman The Hand that Rocks the Cradle: How the Gender of the Jewish Parent Influences Intermarriage 42 Keren McGinity Critiquing and Rethinking Kiddushin 44 Rachel Adler Kiddushin, Marriage, and Egalitarian Relationships: Making New Legal Meanings 46 Gail Labovitz Beyond the Sanctification of Subordination: Reclaiming Tradition and Equality in Jewish Marriage 50 Melanie Landau The Multifarious
  • Women's Testimony and Talmudic Reasoning

    Women's Testimony and Talmudic Reasoning

    Kedma: Penn's Journal on Jewish Thought, Jewish Culture, and Israel Volume 2 Number 2 Fall 2018 Article 8 2020 Women’s Testimony and Talmudic Reasoning Deena Kopyto University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/kedma Part of the Jewish Studies Commons, Near and Middle Eastern Studies Commons, and the Religion Commons This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/kedma/vol2/iss2/8 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Women’s Testimony and Talmudic Reasoning Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License This article is available in Kedma: Penn's Journal on Jewish Thought, Jewish Culture, and Israel: https://repository.upenn.edu/kedma/vol2/iss2/8 Women’s Testimony and Talmudic Reasoning Deena Kopyto Introduction Today, being a witness is often considered a burden – an obligation that courts force people to fulfill. In contrast, in Talmudic-era Babylonia and ancient Israel, testifying was a privilege that certain groups, including slaves, women, and children, did not enjoy. While minors should be barred from participating in courts, and still largely are today, the status of women in Talmudic courts poses a much trickier question. Through this historical and Talmudic analysis, I aim to determine the root of this ban. The reasons for the ineligibility of female testimony range far and wide, but most are not explicitly mentioned in the Talmud. Perhaps women in Talmudic times were infrequently called as witnesses, and rabbis banned women from participation in courts in order to further crystallize this patriarchal structure.
  • Gittin Before Kiddushin

    Gittin Before Kiddushin

    ª#…π Volume 3. Issue 33. Gittin before Kiddushin The last masechtot left for us to learn in this seder are the laws] of gittin and kiddushin – should not Gittin and Kiddushin. Gittin relates to divorce, while be dealt with [as a judge]. R’ Asi said in the Kiddushin discusses halachic engagement and name of R’ Yochanan that such judges are ultimately marriage. The order of the last two more destructive to the world than the masechtot at first may be somewhat surprising. One generation of the flood. would expect that Kiddushin would precede Gittin as it would match the chronological ordering of the The Gemara describes the vital importance that events discussed in these masechtot. The reverse judges should be expertly knowledgeable in gittin and however is true. kiddushin. Interestingly, Shmuel orders the two topics in the same manner as their masechtot. The The Rambam (Introduction to Mishnayot) explains Maharsha, notices this and questions the order in a that the order chosen matches the order in which the similar vein as presented above. He answers that there pasuk discusses both topics and from which one of the are two important differences that made gittin a methods of kiddushin is derived: priority for the judges over kiddushin. Firstly, the laws ...and he wrote for her a bill of divorce and of gittin are more complicated than those of presented it into her hand, and sent her from kiddushin. More importantly, there are more dire his house. And she left his house and went consequences if a judge errs in cases of gittin as a and married another man (Devarim 24:1-2) married woman may be ruled as being divorced and as Consequently, the compiler of the Mishnayot simply a result may unknowingly commit halachic adultery.
  • What Sugyot Should an Educated Jew Know?

    What Sugyot Should an Educated Jew Know?

    What Sugyot Should An Educated Jew Know? Jon A. Levisohn Updated: May, 2009 What are the Talmudic sugyot (topics or discussions) that every educated Jew ought to know, the most famous or significant Talmudic discussions? Beginning in the fall of 2008, about 25 responses to this question were collected: some formal Top Ten lists, many informal nominations, and some recommendations for further reading. Setting aside the recommendations for further reading, 82 sugyot were mentioned, with (only!) 16 of them duplicates, leaving 66 distinct nominated sugyot. This is hardly a Top Ten list; while twelve sugyot received multiple nominations, the methodology does not generate any confidence in a differentiation between these and the others. And the criteria clearly range widely, with the result that the nominees include both aggadic and halakhic sugyot, and sugyot chosen for their theological and ideological significance, their contemporary practical significance, or their centrality in discussions among commentators. Or in some cases, perhaps simply their idiosyncrasy. Presumably because of the way the question was framed, they are all sugyot in the Babylonian Talmud (although one response did point to texts in Sefer ha-Aggadah). Furthermore, the framing of the question tended to generate sugyot in the sense of specific texts, rather than sugyot in the sense of centrally important rabbinic concepts; in cases of the latter, the cited text is sometimes the locus classicus but sometimes just one of many. Consider, for example, mitzvot aseh she-ha-zeman gerama (time-bound positive mitzvoth, no. 38). The resulting list is quite obviously the product of a committee, via a process of addition without subtraction or prioritization.
  • A PRIMER on JEWISH DIVORCE a Guide for the Jewish Communal Professional

    A PRIMER on JEWISH DIVORCE a Guide for the Jewish Communal Professional

    A PRIMER ON JEWISH DIVORCE A Guide for the Jewish Communal Professional IRVING A. BREITOWITZ Associate Professor of Law at the University of Maryland, Rabbinics Professor in the College of Jewish Studies Cooperative Graduate Program with George Washington University, and Rabbi of the Woodside Synagogue, Silver Spring, Maryland This article presents some basic information about the halacha of the divorce process with which Jewish communal professionals should be familiar. It describes the Get, the problems of the mamzer and the agunah, and the bet din process. istorically, divorce within the tradition­ discussion, some of this information is quite Hally close-knit and cohesive Jewish important even to Jewish clients who may family, particularly one that adhered to not normally adhere to halacha. Because halacha (Jewish law), was rare. Although women are most often affected by many of the Torah itself recognizes the possibihty of these requirements, this article assumes a divorce, it was an option that was rarely female client. employed and indeed was societally discour­ aged. This is no longer the case. Although THE GET: WHAT IS IT? the divorce rate among the most traditional­ ist segment of Jewry, the Orthodox, is still To dissolve a marriage under Jewish law, a well below that of the general popidation, it husband must present to his wife a specially is on the rise. To some extent, this is a sad prepared document known as a Get. Get is reflection of the "throw away" mentality an Aramaic term meaning "document." that pervades and afflicts all of American Although the term "Get" can be, and occa­ society—if it doesn't "pay" to fix a phone, sionally is, employed in reference to any le­ it doesn't pay to "fix" a marriage.
  • Kiddush in Shul on Friday Night

    Kiddush in Shul on Friday Night

    Parshas Ki Sisa-Parah 5780/March 13, 2020 Volume 2, Issue 11 Kiddush in Shul on Friday Night Rabbi Chaim Yeshia Freeman What is the source for reciting kiddush in shul on Friday night? What is the proper procedure for this recitation? Source for the custom: There is a custom in many kuddush, it is considered kiddush in the place of the meal, as communities that kiddush is recited on Friday night in shul one’s intent connects the kiddush to the meal. This approach at the end of services. There is a great deal of discussion is based upon a passage in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Brachos regarding the reason behind this custom. This article will 6:6) which states that if one desires to eat in the sukkah on explore some of these sources and attempt to explain the Shemini Atzeres, he can make kiddush in his home and go origins of this custom. up to the sukkah located on the roof to eat the meal. This The Gemara (Pesachim 100b-101a) cites a dispute between ruling indicates that intent to eat elsewhere can connect the Rav and Shmuel regarding people who recite kiddush in shul. kiddush to the meal. Rav says that they have not discharged their obligation to The Rosh disagrees with Rabbeinu Nissim. He argues that recite a new blessing over the wine they will drink at home, the aforementioned Gemara in Pesachim is at odds with but they have fulfilled the kiddush obligation. Shmuel, on the this Yerushalmi, for it questions the purpose of kiddush in other hand, argues that they have not fulfilled the kiddush shul according to Shmuel.
  • The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions

    The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions

    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5bx332x5 Author Septimus, Zvi Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions by Zvi Septimus A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Joint Doctor of Philosophy with Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley in Jewish Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Daniel Boyarin, Chair Professor David Henkin Professor Naomi Seidman Spring 2011 The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions Copyright 2011 All rights reserved by Zvi Septimus Abstract The Poetic Superstructure of the Babylonian Talmud and the Reader It Fashions by Zvi Septimus Doctor of Philosophy in Jewish Studies University of California, Berkeley Professor Daniel Boyarin, Chair This dissertation proposes a poetics and semiotics of the Bavli (Babylonian Talmud)—how the Bavli, through a complex network of linguistic signs, acts on its implied reader's attempt to find meaning in the text. In doing so, I advance a new understanding of how the Bavli was composed, namely as a book written by its own readers in the act of transmission. In the latter half of the twentieth century, Bavli scholarship focused on the role of the Stam (the collective term for those people responsible for the anonymous voice of the Bavli) in the construction of individual Bavli passages (sugyot).
  • Engaged Couples, צעירים, and More,Daily

    Engaged Couples, צעירים, and More,Daily

    and ,צעירים ,Engaged Couples More and More ,צעירים ,Engaged Couples Marc B.Shapiro Continued from here 1. Regarding engaged couples having physical contact, this is actually the subject of a section of the book Penei Yitzhak by R. Hezekiah Mordechai Bassan. Here is the title page. This book was published in Mantua in 1744 by Menahem Navarra who was a descendant of R. Bassan. Navarra, who was at this time a doctor, not a rabbi, was nevertheless very learned in Torah matters. (He would later be appointed rabbi of Verona.[1]) Navarra included three essays of his own in the volume, the second of which is called Issur Kedushah. In this work he criticizes members of the Jewish community for allowing engaged couples to have physical contact before marriage. Here are the first two pages of the work. Navarra and the others I have referred to are only dealing with an engaged couple touching before marriage, but not with actual sexual relations. Yet this too is mentioned many centuries before A .בני טבעות Navarra. Ezra 2:43 and Nehemiah 7:46 refer to commentary attributed to R. Saadiah Gaon[2] explains this as follows: בני טבעות: שקלקלו אבותם גם [צ”ל עם] ארוסותיהם קודם שיכניסו אותם לחופה והיו סומכין על קדושי טבעות ומקלקלין עם ארוסותיהן. What this means is that after kiddushin, which was effected by ring), but before actual marriage (the two used to be) טבעתa separated, sometimes for many months), the engaged couple would have sexual relations. The children who resulted from As S. H. Kook .בני טבעות this were referred to negatively as points out,[3] R.
  • Observing Niddah in Our Day: an Inquiry on the Status of Purity and the Prohibition of Sexual Activity with a Menstruant

    Observing Niddah in Our Day: an Inquiry on the Status of Purity and the Prohibition of Sexual Activity with a Menstruant

    OBSERVING NIDDAH IN OUR DAY: AN INQUIRY ON THE STATUS OF PURITY AND THE PROHIBITION OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MENSTRUANT Rabbi Avram Israel Reisner This paper was approved by the CJLS on September 13, 2006, by a vote of thirteen in favor, two opposed and four abstaining (13- 2-4). Members voting in favor: Rabbis Kassel Abelson, Elliot Dorff, Aaron Mackler, Robert Harris, Robert Fine, David Wise, Loel Weiss, Daniel Nevins, Alan Lucas, Joel Roth, Paul Plotkin, Avram Reisner, and Vernon Kurtz. Members voting against: Rabbis Gordon Tucker and Susan Grossman. Members abstaining: Rabbis Joseph Prouser, Leonard Levy, Myron Geller, and Pamela Barmash. :שאלה Is it necessary, in our day, to continue the prohibition of sexual activity during and after a woman’s menstruation? Is it still necessary for a menstruant to immerse in a mikveh before resuming sexual relations? If so, what are the parameters that apply? PROLOGUE Fundamental to the Biblical description of reality is the notion of the twinned states of tum’ah (impurity) and tohorah (purity), one of which (tum’ah) is incompatible with the sacred (kodesh). It is difficult to concede the reality of these designations in a twenty-first century that is dominated by scientific thought, and which cannot find any trace of these entities in reality. Yet the Torah clearly understands these to be either physical or metaphysical states and defines modes of contracting them and modes of being relieved of them which are quite physical in their nature. It would be convenient, but inconsistent with the Biblical foundation of our religion, to simply profess disbelief in a system described by the Torah at length.
  • Rabbinic Laws That Regulate Gender Segregation

    Rabbinic Laws That Regulate Gender Segregation

    Feminist Sexual Ethics Project Gender Segregation in Rabbinic Law – Yichud Gail Labovitz Senior Research Analyst, Feminist Sexual Ethics Project Level I – Introduction The rabbis of late antiquity who composed the documents that serve as the foundation for Jewish practice among many Jews even today developed a body of laws restricting the possibility of individual or small combinations of men and women from being alone together, in order to prevent the possibility of forbidden sexual activity between them. Named Yichud in Hebrew, these laws continued to be developed and transmitted throughout the rabbinic period and in later Jewish law codes. Although generally practiced only by the most orthodox of Jews today--indeed, we have no way of knowing to what extent they were practiced in the communities by and for whom they were developed--these laws are an important site to investigate rabbinic ideas about human sexual nature, maleness and femaleness, and what constitutes sexual ethics. Underlying these laws are significant assumptions about how men and women are likely to act sexually in each other’s company, the nature of sexual desire, and how sexuality and sexual expression should be regulated by society and societal sexual norms enforced. When put into practice, or possibly even when used to set the terms of debate, these laws also have the potential to significantly limit the possibility of social, intellectual, and professional interactions between men and women. The fundamental rule of gender segregation is laid out in Mishnah (link to glossary) Kiddushin 4:12, which opens: A man may not be alone with two women, but one woman may be alone with two men.