[Avodah] Tzinius and the ILG

[Jacob Farkas]

> On 2/25/07, Chana Luntz <chana <at> kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
>  > 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?

R' Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> Is this not a circular proof?  Perhaps there are circumstances when
> kiddushei biah is not actually immoral, but the Chachamim decided that
> based on societal norms it should be assur?  In other words, perhaps this
> is another example (just like slavery, or polygamy) of something that in
> an absolute (aka D'oraisa) sense is neutral, but when society began to
> view as negative, the Chachamim saw fit to assur it.  The Torah doesn't
> approve of Pritzus; just that in the time of Mattan Torah, kiddushei biah
> was not parutz.

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. The Torah 
was uncomfortable with the old method, and Hazal took note of that, and 
ultimately banished the practice by prescribing a strong punishment.

--Jacob Farkas