[Avodah] Tzinius and the ILG
Chana Luntz
chana at kolsassoon.org.uk
Tue Feb 27 04:32:40 PST 2007
RJF writes:
> The process of Qidushei Biah precedes Mattan Torah, see
> Rambam Hilkhos Ishus 1:1 . What changed after Mattan Torah was that
marriage
> required its own process, complete with witnesses, and Biah alone was
> not enough to establish exclusivity. Kessef and Shtar were added, and
Biah was
> modified to include witnesses and declaration of intent. (Mahloqes
> Rishonim whether it needed Amirah or not, like Kessef).
>
> Nevertheless, the original method was not entirely abolished.
> However, as there is a perfectly good option available, via Kessef,
or Shtar,
> perhaps Hazal was uncomfortable with someone choosing a
> method that is Parutz, and while the Qidushin is still binding, the
> punishment is Makas Mardus.
>
> The Torah did not permit Pritzus per se, rather it sought to
> eliminate that process altogether, by suggesting a new method, Kessef.
But it could easily have done a direct substitution - ie no more biah,
now kessef. It didn't do this, so I can't see how you get around the
idea that ultimately it permitted priztus.
The same thing would seem to be true by slavery. There was slavery
before matan torah. The Torah took the concept and modified it and
required various elements that were not there before (eg obligation in
mitzvos), but did not ban it entirely. It has been argued, on this list
and elsewhere, that this shows that the Torah is morally in favour of
slavery, and that therefore any notions that we have that slavery is not
necessarly moral are contrary to the moral compass of the Torah. If
this argument were to be true, then the same thing would have to be said
for kiddushin by way of biah - it didn't ban it when it could have done,
therefore it must approve of it. Otherwise you are left with the idea
that there may be concepts that the Torah is morally uncomfortable with,
but that doesn't mean it always bans it, sometimes it leaves it for
later generations, when the time is right, to procribe them out of
existance.
> --Jacob Farkas
Regards
Chana
More information about the Avodah
mailing list