[Avodah] Tzinius and the ILG

[Chana Luntz]

RAM writes:

> 
> R' Micha Berger wrote:
> > We really don't see that halakhah endorses slavery.
> > Rather, that HQBH saw fit to regulate it rather than prohibit it. 
> > Certainly the need for such legislation shows a dissatisfaction with

> > the idea. So, why isn't there an actual issur?
> 
> HQBH also saw fit to regulate eating. Does the need for that
> legislation show dissatisfaction with the idea? I don't think so.
> 
> I think (hope?) we can all agree that Eishes Yefas To'ar *IS* an
> example of something which the Torah allows but only grudgingly. I 
> really don't think that eating is an example of that. And this 
> discussion is about where the line is located, and on which side of 
> that line slavery falls.
> 

Perhaps a more interesting example is encapsulated by the following
(Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer, siman 26, si'if 4):

"Haisha mekudeshes bshlosha drachim: b'kesef, u b'shtar, ou  b'biah, min
hatorah aval hachachamim asru l'kadesh b'biah mishum pritzus"

Now what does this say about what the torah allows versus prohibits?  As
in, what was the Torah thinking of, allowing kidushin by way of biah?
Does the Torah permit pritzus, and it takes chazal to assur it?  Why on
earth did it not assur kiddushin by way of biah in the first place?

It seems to me reasonably safe to say, based on this example, that the
fact that something is permitted d'orisa does not necessarily mean that
the HQBH approves of it (even begrudgingly) - or do you disagree?

> Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana