Kiddushin – “Betrothal”

 

Kiddushin – “Betrothal” – You’re Mine, All Mine!

• • We move on to the last book in Seder Nashim, the Book of Women, with an in-depth dive into the betrothal process. Judaism has, traditionally, a three-step process towards marriage – engagement, betrothal, and marriage ceremony, respectively shidduchin, kiddushin, and nissuin. The first is akin to what we think of as modern engagement, an asking, an acceptance, and a verbal commitment to each other. The second is more formalized, it’s a contract ratifying that commitment, and, at the time, making the woman off-limits to any other man (under penalty of death for both her and another suitor) – men were, at the time, allowed polygamy, though that changed around the year 1000CE. And the last, completely formalizes the marriage and creates financial liability on the part of the man for his wife. While an engagement can simply be broken, albeit with whatever hard feelings and such may accompany it, neither betrothal nor marriage can be broken without a formal termination of the contract, like the get we just finished with in the last tractate.
  • 8/15/23, Chapter 1, Page 2 – Acquisition. That’s the keyword here. A man acquires a woman to be his wife. A woman cannot acquire a man, and her only way of acquiring herself, at the time, was through divorce or widowhood. The man, on the other hand, could acquire her through money, a contract, or sex. Before we get up in arms about the first, money, it’s made clear that it’s a token coin, not a purchase, and it’s given to her, not to someone else – a custom that later became… an engagement ring. Sex, too, is covered briefly at this point, noting that a woman can be “taken” by a man, via intercourse – consensual, or not.
  • 8/16/23, Page 3 – The rabbis double down on the trio of methods for becoming betrothed noted on the opening page of this tractate – money in the form of a token coin, later an engagement ring, a written contract, or via sexual intercourse. They point out that the opening statement says, more than once, “there are three ways to betroth a woman”. So no “what abouts”. Symbolic tokens of love or agreement are out. Verbal contracts don’t count. Just getting to first, second, or third base, nope. Three methods. This is the way.
  • 8/17/23, Page 4 – One of the things I haven’t talked about is that while the rabbis on this Talmudic council wax poetic and meander onto tangents and explorations of what ifs, they don’t just make things up out of whole cloth. When they give their opinions, they have to back them up with logical reasoning that has as its basis a passage from the Torah. Today’s page is a discussion of which parts of Deuteronomy back up the three methods of “acquiring” a woman through betrothal.
  • 8/18/23, Page 5 – Why the particular three methods for “acquisition” of a bride? Yes, all three can be found in some form in Torah, but why these in particular. The rabbis discuss, and argue, that all three – money, a document, and/or sex, create pleasure and positivity. And that is considered key to entering into betrothal and then marriage. There is some discussion over how a document provides pleasure, which winnows down to that it creates a positive expectation of stability and happiness in the future.
  • 8/19/23, Page 6 – The rabbis decide one point needs clarifying… while it’s all well and good to give a woman a token coin (or ring), a document of betrothal (which she, perhaps can’t read, as women at the time generally didn’t receive the education men did), or have sex with her, it’s incumbent on the man to state that he’s doing this for betrothal purposes. Otherwise, from her perspective, it may simply be a gift, an unidentified piece of paper, or just having a little fun in bed. We’re back to “intention matters”, which I’m beginning to think sums up much, if not all, of the Talmud.
  • 8/20/23, Page 7 – A woman can betroth a man with money too. But why would she? Obviously, because a woman would rather have a man, any man, than be alone, and if no one’s proposing, she’s got to make it happen. And while a man can marry more than one woman, a woman can’t do the reverse. And no, she’s not like a sacrifice, where the whole animal is committed, but only a portion burned. Yes, that was the comparison they went to. And why? Because, you see, women have a bit more intelligence than a sacrificial animal. A bit.
  • 8/21/23, Page 8 – An IOU is not considered sufficient to complete a betrothal. Unless it’s backed up by collateral, and even then, maybe not. More or less, the sages come down on the side of, let the woman and her family decide if the guy is trustworthy enough that an IOU will be paid, down the line.
  • 8/22/23, Page 9 – A man gives a woman a gift or money or document and announces that since she took the item, she is his betrothed. She accepted it, but didn’t state that she agreed to the condition. Rabbis’ verdict? She’s not betrothed. No one is obligated to accept conditions on something that they were freely handed. Take note all you people who put those legal disclaimers at the bottom of your random emails telling me about my obligations of what to do and not to do with the information in your email. You sent it. I got it. I have no obligations.
  • 8/23/23, Page 10 – Although most of today’s page is a debate about whether the start or end of intercourse is when betrothal occurs, I’m focusing on a throw-off line. Betrothal by intercourse can be consummated with a girl as young as “three years and one day”. Now, yes, people lived shorter lives back then, and mid to late teen marriages were common. But three years old??? Less, by the way, than three years and a day old, it’s considered as if they didn’t have sex, and they’re not considered betrothed. Again, three years old???
  • 8/24/23, Page 11 – If a man buys a slave and doesn’t do his “due diligence”, later finding out that his slave has some hidden flaw, either physical or of character, this does not negate his purchase. After all, you know how slaves are. If a man betroths a wife and doesn’t do his “due diligence”, later finding out that his wife has some hidden flaw, either physical or of character, this does not negate his betrothal. After all, you know how women are. Funny, no one mentions the man’s hidden flaws, or how men are.
  • 8/25/23, Page 12 – How much is a woman worth? That’s to say, how much money is enough to exchange for a betrothal? Upfront we were told it was a token of exchange, not about the value of either the token or the woman. But on today’s page, different camps of rabbis argue over whether the minimum value is one gold dinar or one silver peruta. While in base metal, these are worth about $1.85 and $0.02 in today’s terms, the comparison used was how many dates it could buy. The fruit, not the social sort.
  • 8/26/23, Page 13 – A man takes something personal from a woman. She demands it back. He says he’ll give it back if she agrees to be betrothed. She grabs it away from him without saying anything. Is she betrothed? Rav Nahman, and others, say “no”, it was under duress. Rava, one of the most famed Talmudic scholars says “yes”, if she didn’t state she wasn’t agreeing to the condition, she’s betrothed. While I understand his logic, I’d argue he was wrong, she didn’t “accept willingly”. Silence is not consent.
  • 8/27/23, Page 14 – Slaves, wives, acquisition, freedom. All I can say is it was a very different world in Judaism back then, one that thankfully, but for all but a small group of ultra-orthodox, has been left in the past long ago.
  • 8/28/23, Page 15 – Considering what this tractate is about, this is heading in weird directions. The discussion is over an indentured servant, i.e., someone who is working to pay off a debt. The question arises, if someone pays off his debt, does he now become indentured to that person, or is he free and clear. Surprisingly, the rabbis predominately come down on the free and clear side – an indentured servant is not a slave to be sold, so paying off his debt is simply an act of charity or kindness.
  • 8/29/23, Page 16 – I can’t tell whether the Talmudic council is gearing up a long-winded logical argument for the acquisition of a wife based on the practices involved in slave acquisition, or, are using the accepted practices of acquiring a wife to create a list of accepted practices for acquiring a slave or indentured servant. Either way, they’re really digging in to comparing them. Will this lead to one of those conclusions, or are we being setup for a sudden reversal and separation of the two due to some Torah passage to be revealed?
  • 8/30/23, Page 17 – It’s worth being reminded, as today’s page does, that a “slave” in the context that the Talmud is talking about is more like what we would call an “indentured servant”. There are rules, including things like
  • quality of life, time off, conduct toward, healthcare, and a fixed end of service time. Remember from our earlier readings that every seventh year, all “slaves” are freed, and given a payment to get them started back on their regular life. It’s interesting that in a modern translation, the translators continue to use such a loaded word.
  • 8/31/23, Page 18 – What is the value of a human being? The rabbis confront this when determining, well, the punishment for a thief. If the thing he stole is worth less than or equal to his own worth, then he can’t be sold into servitude; only if what he stole is worth more than his own. Among the things that bother me is that it seems their determination of a man’s worth is left subjective; that they even discuss the idea that a person can be worth more or less than an object; and, that they start down the path of the value of a bride to be, based on her past sexual and marital history. Among the things….
  • 9/1/23, Page 19 – I knew we were headed somewhere like this. If a young girl is sold into servitude, she becomes the property of her new master to do with as he wishes. Can he force her into marriage with himself or his son without her consent? The rabbis, for once in this arena sensible, say, no, this is a place where we bend the rules. Because marriage will make her a free woman with power to consent, she therefore has a say in it, even if, as a slave, she normally wouldn’t.
  • 9/2/23, Page 20 – A maidservant cannot be sold to any man who falls into the category of forbidden sex, such as her father, brother, nephew, uncle, son, etc. What fascinates me is that the conversation the Talmudic scholars undertake begins from the assumption that part of a maidservant’s duties include sex with her master/owner. They don’t mention it directly, but it’s a pretty straight line to be drawn as to the reason for this prohibition.
  • 9/3/23, Page 21 – There is something going on behind the scenes here, which I imagine we will get to, as that’s the way the Talmud seems to work. Not satisfied with the slavery metaphor or rule translation to the betrothal process, the rabbis now turn to real estate. Yes, real estate, another “property”, and start down the road of whether land that has been lost due to debts or similar situations can be redeemed by or transferred to, close relatives. The very folk that were eliminated in regard to betrothal in the slavery argument.
  • 9/4/23, Page 22 – I don’t know why we’re suddenly off of slaves and real estate and now onto soldiers capturing women. Well, woman. A soldier who defeats an enemy can take his enemy’s wife or servant as (one of) his own wives. But only one. He can’t acquire more than one woman in this manner. Good to know there are some boundaries.
  • 9/5/23, Page 23 – I’m going to take a pause on slaves for a moment, as I was struck by a reference to an ancient sage, Rabbi Yehuda… of India. Though I couldn’t find a ton of info out there, Yehuda appears twice in the Talmud, once on today’s page and once in an upcoming tractate. There are few explorations of who he was out there on the internet. What fascinated me was one discussion mentioning that even back in those times, India and Israel had a connection, and parts of the Talmud include both Sanskrit and Tamil words!
  • 9/6/23, Page 24 – We’re back to slavery. Among of the things that Jewish law includes is a ban on causing injury to a slave. Anything that causes loss of function or could be construed as could cause loss of function is pretty much an automatic emancipation for the slave, whether it was intentional or not. That’s good, and I foresee that we’re headed somewhere with this line of thought in regard to marriage. That’s good as it bans seroius abuse, but bad because it gives an abuser a line in the sand he knows he can go right up to.
  • 9/7/23, Page 25 – For purposes of determining damage or blemishes to a slave, the Talmud now defines the 24 extremities of the human body – 20 fingers and toes, 1 nose, 2 ears, 1 penis; or, for women, 2 areolae. Apparently men’s areolae don’t count. Except Rabbi Yehuda says, “oh yes they do!” And Ben Azzai says the tongue counts. No one stops to add up these numbers to see what the total actually is, and they go with 24, despite that it could be from 24 to 27. Math was always contentious.
  • 9/8/23, Page 26 – Once again, I can feel the setup coming. On today’s page the rabbis discuss the various methods of acquiring real estate. Those are, by buying it, or by receiving it via document, or via possession – the last seeming to range from squatters’ rights to invasion and hostile takeover. I note the similarity to the methods of betrothal covered earlier in this tractate.
  • 9/9/23, Page 27 – When it comes to land acquisition, of the three methods, money is considered more binding than a document which is considered more binding than occupying. I can just see where this is headed with betrothal. Then again, I could be pleasantly surprised and the rabbis will announce that the two aren’t the same. Yeah. Right.
  • 9/10/23, Page 28 – The rabbis start from a posed question, “Can a husband require his wife to swear an oath about her sexual behavior and history from prior to their betrothal and marriage?” Interestingly, they immediately head into the world of insults, taking the question as insulting to his wife; noting that questioning someone’s lineage, their free status, their parentage, or their moral character, are all punishable offenses if based on nothing but a suspicion, without evidence. We’re on hold until tomorrow to see where this goes….
  • 9/11/23, Page 29 – A father, according to the Talmudic folk, is obligated to certain things in regard to a son. First, to circumcise him. Then, to teach him Torah. to marry him off, and, to teach him a trade. Some also say, to teach him to swim. Two stand out – teaching him Torah, which must be done before marrying him off, because once he has a wife, and then children, he will not have time to study Torah. And, a trade, because without that, the father may as well have taught him banditry, as that will be, apparently, his only option.
  • 9/12/23, Page 30 – According to the Sages, with all this teaching, the Torah has 5888 verses, Psalms has 8 more, 5896, and Chronicles has 8 fewer, 5880. All of these are on the curriculum. There is some question as to whether a father needs to also teach his son the commentaries (Mishna) and Talmud. I’m thinking 17664 verses are quite sufficient. I’m also curious as to why they don’t get all analytic about 5888. Seems like the sort of thing they’d usually do a deep dive on.
  • 9/13/23, Page 31 – The rabbis flip the question from the last couple of days around. What are a son’s obligations to his parents? While “honor thy mother and father” is the starting point, they’re clearly focused more on later in life, i.e., to make sure your parents are fed, clothed, and housed. What I find a bit disturbing is that they discuss this as some sort of onerous burden, one even suggesting that the lucky son is one who never had to know his biological parents, and therefore isn’t obligated to care for them.
  • 9/14/23, Page 32 – The question arises as to who funds the care of an elderly parent. Some come down on the side of “inheritance”, i.e., using the parents’ own money, while the son merely gives up his time; others say the son must come up with the money, because there must be a cost to him. Both, it seems, agree, that if funds are a bit short, it’s okay to dip into the poor-box, the funds set aside by tithing for the poor. I guess that’s sort of an early version of welfare, just self-directed.
  • 9/15/23, Page 33 – When you are in the presence of one of your seniors, you stand and show respect. Except, of course, when you’re both in the bathhouse, naked, in front of each other, then you can show your respect without standing. Sometimes the images and jokes just write themselves. Gay friends, if need be, explain this to your straight friends.
  • 9/16/23, Page 34 – You may remember from way, way back in the third tractate, Eruvin 33-35, there was a discussion about using prepared food to mark out the limits of the eruv, the shared public space. Today, we find out that you can’t use mushrooms or truffles for those dishes, because they provide no nutritional value. First off, no, that’s not true. Second off, they knew about truffles?!
  • 9/17/23, Page 35 – There are positive mitzvot and negative ones, some are time-bound, some are not. While men are obligated to all 613 of them, women are exempt from some of them, some of the time, except when they’re not, which seems to be up to f individual rabbinic interpretation. This leads to a discussion of the economic value of a woman in the event of her being killed by someone’s animal, given that, after all, she hasn’t kept all the mitzvot. Which also assumes, obligation or not, that men do.
  • 9/18/23, Page 36 – Self-mutilation is assumed to be bad. And I don’t mean things like “cutting”, but here, the rabbis are talking about everything from tattoos and piercings (including ears) to shaving one’s head. It does take a slightly deeper dive to get to that they’re talking about when these acts are performed for religious, or more specifically, idolatrous, reasons, because many of these practices were those of the surrounding “pagan” religions. Which is good, because I’ve been shaving my head for decades.
  • 9/19/23, Page 37 – 26 of the 613 mitzvot only apply within the boundaries of Israel (as defined in biblical times). So those living outside of Israel are only bound by 587 mitzvot. The heart of today’s page focuses on a geo-political world that the Talmudic rabbis likely hadn’t envisioned. Do land-based mitzvot apply to any Jew living in the physical land as defined at the time, or, do they only apply if the entity Israel is up and running as a Jewish state, and its modern borders? Quite a timely debate 1600 years later.
  • 9/20/23, Page 38 – Continuing in regard to land based rules, the rabbis first argue over exactly when the Jews in the Exodus stopped eating manna. Supposedly it fell, daily, for forty years (what a boring diet!), until the day Moses died. Yet, there are texts that indicate they continued to eat it for about six weeks after entering Canaan, later Israel. Though nothing is specifically noted, apparently rather than a daily ration, six weeks worth of manna fell on Moses’ last day. I await to see the import of this.
  • 9/21/23, Page 39 – I love when these readings bring up a topic that I’ve never considered before. Today’s discussion is primarily about mixed plantings in fields, but it suddenly occurred to me that it sounds like Levitical law forbids crossbreeding of any sort. And, it turns out as I took a further look, it does. There have apparently been all sorts of modern day discussions about hybrid plants, grafted plants (wine grapes?!), genetic engineering, and their kosher status. Interestingly, as my people do love to eat, the rabbinate have ruled, repeatedly, that while you can’t participate in crossbreeding, the resulting produce is a-okay.
  • 9/22/23, Page 40 – Rabbi Hanina bar Pappi was desired by a local woman with some power over him. In order to escape her attentions, he did some sorcery to cover himself in scabs and boils. She did some sorcery to undo that. He went and hid in a bathhouse that he knew had demons in it, to prevent her from entering, plus invoked some angelic protection. Two things: First, sorcery? Wasn’t that outlawed way back? Second, apparently, at least for men, “just say no” to unwanted attentions doesn’t work. Yet they still think it will work for women.
  • 9/23/23, Chapter 2, Page 41 – Popular media often suggests that young people in certain cultures are “victims” of arranged marriages, often with people they’ve never even met. I can’t speak for all cultures or all situations, but I know that in the ultra-orthodox Jewish world multiple meetings are involved. That’s emphasized on today’s page as the rabbis make it clear that no one be betrothed until they’ve had a chance to see any physical or behavioral “repulsiveness” in a prospective partner before agreeing to the betrothal.
  • 9/24/23, Page 42 – We’re back to the sages’ ever popular minors, deaf-mutes, and imbeciles. When it comes to inheritances, or acquisition of objects, they are not considered sufficiently responsible to manage their own affairs, and a steward is appointed by their father or the court, depending on the situation, to handle distribution of monies and properties. It is noted that they are not to be given anything that might be considered dangerous or used for dangerous purposes, and if they are, the steward takes the consequences.
  • 9/25/23, Page 43 – Yesterday’s page led into a discussion towards the end and on to today’s page, meandering through various examples, from orphans to thieves to borrowers and lenders. What it all boiled down to, in my mind, is that if someone, in this case a bride to be, is not of an age, or maturity, or competence, to make legal decisions for herself, and her father or another appointed agent makes them, and something goes wrong with the betrothal or marriage, the father/agent is held responsible.
  • 9/26/23, Page 44 – I know that betrothal can occur via sexual intercourse, and it doesn’t have to be consensual… though the caveat on that is that in such a case, rape, the woman has to demand the betrothal, and the rapist is obligated to pay a fine, marry her, and support her for the rest of her life. Today’s page focuses on a minor, a girl, and whether her father or agent can demand the betrothal on her behalf. It seems they can, but she has the right to then back out of the marriage when she reached adulthood.
  • 9/27/23, Page 45 – Premise: a father can’t sell his minor daughter to a close relative as a maidservant. Reason: A close relative can’t marry the girl, and, obviously, no man buys a maidservant unless he intends to have sex with her, resulting in betrothal, which results in marriage, therefore, a paradox. Query from a newbie rabbi: Umm, couldn’t a maidservant just be a maidservant rather than a sex object? Response: Laughter all around the room.
  • 9/28/23, Page 46 – Not all the power in these situations rests with the man, though it often seems that way in these readings. But, it seems, if a woman and man have intercourse, and he then announces their betrothal to her, she can say… no. And she can still claim he seduced her and has to pay the fine for seducing an unmarried woman. And she can do this more than once. It appears that the Talmud sanctions the so-called “oldest profession”, as long as the niceties are observed.
  • 9/29/23, Page 47 – Although the betrothal “fine” after intercourse can be paid by forgiving a loan that the woman or her family has, it cannot be paid by giving her or them a loan, since it’s assumed that she or they will have to pay it back, and with interest. It’s interesting that this even comes up, as I have to assume someone(s) tried this out for it to have come before the Talmudic rabbis as a question.
  • 9/30/23, Page 48 – You may recall that other than intercourse, which the rabbis have been dwelling on for some time, another method of betrothal is with a document, essentially, a contract for marriage. Here, in a short tangent, the sages note that the document must be written on “paper of value”, and an official examination of the paper used may be in order to decide if the promise is valid. That’s to say, I’d guess, that a hastily scrawled proposal on a bar napkin is not to be considered binding.
  • 10/1/23, Page 49 – If a man misrepresents… lies… about his wealth, his social status, his education, his family, his… well, anything… prior to a woman accepting betrothal, the betrothal is considered invalid if the woman chooses not to accept him based on the accurate information when found out. She does need to find out before the actual marriage ceremony. Due diligence!
  • 10/2/23, Page 50 – Creating their own self-relevance is on the table today, though none of the rabbis would recognize it as such. A man doesn’t want to divorce his wife, free his slave, or, perform any of a variety of tasks that he feels would be detrimental to his life. The rabbinical court orders him to do so. But the Torah tells us that if it’s not really in his heart, it’s not really valid. The sages say, “is we say it must be done, it’s because we’ve interpreted the divine word, therefore it’s a mitzvah, and so his compliance with our ruling is part of his desire to be right with God, ergo, valid”.
  • 10/3/23, Page 51 – A basic principle of betrothal via intercourse is espoused in today’s read. In the usual roundabout way that the sages approach things, it’s stated that if a man is prohibited by the various rules of relationships from having sex with a particular woman, then he is also prohibited from betrothing and marrying her, and vice versa. Excuse the crude phrasing, but “if you can’t f* her, you can’t marry her”. And vice versa.
  • 10/4/23, Page 52 – When we first started into the subject of betrothal, one of the methods was by “money”, though it was quickly pointed out that that meant any sort of token of real value (engagement ring, for example). But today the discussion is around things that range from stolen goods (sometimes allowed, sometimes not, very convoluted) to a bag of onions or the sediment from beer making. I guess, depending on one’s economic status and/or trade, these might well be considered valuables.
  • 10/5/23, Page 53 – A man can’t use money or valuables promised to someone else, owed to someone else, tithed to the poor, or offered as sacrifice to the Temple, to pay for a betrothal. You’d think this would be obvious, but apparently it needed to be said. No double dipping!
  • 10/6/23, Page 54 – Intentionality once again rears its head. In regard to yesterday’s discussion that money promised for another purpose, like a debt, tithe, or sacrifice, the rabbis note that they’re only talking about when it’s been done intentionally. So, accidentally taking money from the poor-box, collection plate, or Temple, to use for a betrothal promise, is A-OK. Because that could happen.
  • 10/7/23, Page 55 – Oh, the sages are on a tear. Their dander is up. Their fuses are blown. Their nails are spat. Their scenery is chewed. Their pickles are frosted. The whole idea that someone might use something that was consecrated… i.e., given to the Temple priests and/or said sages… has sent them into a rabbit hole of denouncing various misuses of sacrificial items. No drinking from consecrated vessels, no riding consecrated animals! Do not bend our shape!
  • 10/8/23, Page 56 – I’m getting curiouser and curiouser as to where this conversation is headed in regard to betrothal. The rabbis are still on consecrated and promised goods, now delving into someone selling them for cash (and there’s a side mention of them using that cash as betrothal money – a clue to where this is headed). In a series of analogies, they put the legal responsibility for such illicit sales equally on both the seller, and whomever buys the goods. Fences and pawnshop owners beware!
  • 10/9/23, Page 57 – If a man or woman has intercourse with an animal, that animal becomes forbidden, and cannot be used for food, for sacrifices, nor betrothal. This seems a moot point, since by Levitical law, both the person and animal involved are to be immediately killed.
  • 10/10/23, Page 58 – Rabbi Shimon has had enough. All these “you can’t use this for betrothal” stuff is, according to him, a bunch of made up crap by self-important, sanctimonious colleagues. He says, none of this is in the Torah, it’s all imaginative creations and extensions of what the Torah actually says, and none of these things are actually prohibited by God. Shimon later wrote the Zohar, the founding text for the mystical Kabbalistic movement. He doesn’t seem very popular with his colleagues.
  • 10/11/23, Chapter 3, Page 59 – I have just finished binge-watching the Netflix series Lupin, loosely inspired by the early 20th century Arsene Lupin Gentleman Burglar books. Thoroughly enjoyable. And timely for today’s page, which, when boiled down to its essence, admonishes those who set out to do something deceitful to communicate their intentions to their intended target, in advance. Just as a courtesy, and to be, well, a gentleman about it.
  • 10/12/23, Page 60 – A woman can accept as many betrothals as she wishes, even a hundred, opine the rabbis. But, she can’t follow through with marriage unless she receives a “divorce” document releasing her from each and every other betrothal. So much paperwork! And, it’s not clear why any of the men would feel obligated to give her such a document, since they aren’t limited to a single betrothal or marriage. Sounds like shooting herself in her own foot.
  • 10/13/23, Page 61 – The rabbis spend a long time discussing the status of a field that has crevices and boulders. At issue is the square footage of the field, as to whether the crevices and boulders, areas which cannot be planted, are counted in the overall area assessment. The upshot is, “no”, which would have interesting real estate and tax consequences, but in this case is used as a metaphor for considering the value of a betrothal gift that is, shall we say, less than perfect, and therefore, potentially, insulting to the woman being betrothed.
  • 10/14/23, Page 62 – Oh Rava, where do these ideas come to you from? You take a perfectly clear sentence, God saying “you shall be devoured by the sword” in response to the chieftains of Sodom and Gomorrah refusing to repent, and turn it into a dietary admonition. The illogical turnabout of being devoured from the insides by being forced to eat whole grain barley bread, coarse salt, and onions sounds more like a personal problem than anything God intended to convey. Hire a better cook. Also, this does not appear to have anything to do with betrothal.
  • 10/15/23, Page 63 – The rabbis recommend, strenuously, against what was apparently a common enough practice to have come up in their discussions. To whit, offering betrothal to a married woman “to take effect on the death of your husband”. Their concern, rightfully it seems to me, is that either the woman, or her new intended, might help the current husband along the path to his demise. Pretty sure this is the plot of more than one movie.
  • 10/16/23, Page 64 – Fathers can only make legal promises for their daughters who are still minors. That’s pretty much it for today’s page. Numerous examples are given, most coming down to that if a father makes a promise on behalf of “my eldest daughter”, legally, it is automatically assumed he meant his eldest minor daughter, as he has no power to promise for any who have reached the age of majority.
  • 10/17/23, Page 65 – As the rabbis argue on about the meaning of eldest, middle, and youngest daughters, when the mix includes minors and adults, one lone voice pops up from the back of the room. Rav Adda bar Mattana, whom I don’t recall encountering on these pages before (and there seem to be very few citations under his name when I search), suggests that perhaps, in the interests of clarity, a father might use the name of the daughter he’s talking about. The others roll their eyes, laugh, and carry on with the arguments.
  • 10/18/23, Page 66 – Amidst a conversation about sullied animals and people, there’s a side note about eating salty foods during times of great import. In particular it’s noted that these were favored by our people during the building of the Temple. And if you look at a lot of historically Jewish food, salty ones pop up regularly, both in ritual (dipping things in salt water for Pesach), and in our comfort foods – cured fish, gefilte fish, our trinity of pletzlach, bagels, and pretzels! Hey, we even have our own salt!
  • 10/19/23, Page 67 – In Judaism, being considered Jewish runs through the maternal family, versus religions where it is paternal. However, if both parents are converts or children of converts, being considered Jewish runs through the father’s family. It’s not made clear why, though almost feels, reading their conversation, like they decided that since in the religion the people converted from it’s paternal lineage, they’d go with that. Which sort of implies that converts aren’t 100% Jewish, contrary to Torah teachings.
  • 10/20/23, Page 68 – You will be pleased to know, that while it is prohibited to have intercourse with a woman while she’s menstruating, it’s not considered as serious of a prohibition as, say, adultery, or bestiality. Those are punishable by death, whereas the former is only punishable by lashes. So, there’s that.
  • 10/21/23, Chapter 4, Page 69 – Mamzers. Though loosely we take it to mean “bastards”, that’s not accurate, as it refers to a child born from one of the forbidden relationships, like incest, rape, underage, and others. And it’s an inheritable status. The rabbis discuss getting rid of the label – you sell yourself into slavery and then your master frees you, and you become a freeman rather than a mamzer. But only before you have children, because otherwise, they remain mamzers by inheritance.
  • 10/22/23, Page 70 – Calling someone out for flaws in their lineage, for flaws in their character, is probably a sign that those flaws exist within yourself. The rabbis were talking about projection psychology more than a millennium before Sigmund Freud was even born. I wonder what else he copied from the Talmud?
  • 10/23/23, Page 71 – Money buys lineage. The rich and powerful families have enough money and influence to make sure that even if everyone knows about forbidden liaisons and mamzer offspring, no one will talk about them. This conversation track leads to a litany of the Talmudic rabbis musing out loud with “I know about this one family, I can’t say their name, but…” stories. It’s all very Game of Thrones.
  • 10/24/23, Page 72 – No one righteous dies without someone else righteous being born to replace them. Though no numbers are mentioned here, this is, I’d assume, a reference to the mystical “36”, which we’ve encountered references to at a couple of points in these readings, but won’t get to the meat of the matter until tractate Sanhedrin, which looks to be about a year from now.
  • 10/25/23, Page 73 – If a baby is found abandoned, it is assumed to be a mamzer, the result of an illicit union. Why? Because a woman who gets pregnant from an extramarital affair will simply claim the child as her husband’s. The only reason she would abandon the baby would be if circumstances were such that she couldn’t do so – she was unmarried, or her husband was overseas during the relevant time period. This relates to the tractate them in that a mamzer cannot betroth certain classes of women later in life.
  • 10/26/23, Page 74 – Men and women with flawed lineage can marry each other. Men and women with unflawed lineage cannot marry someone who has flawed lineage. Except when they can, which gets more intricate than it’s worth exploring if you’re not planning out your family’s future lineage. Something that was much more important 1500 years ago than it is today for most folk.
  • 10/27/23, Page 75 – If a priest sleeps with a widow (this seems awfully specific), she becomes disqualified to marry a priest, and any children resulting from their intercourse are considered of flawed lineage. Nothing, of course, happens to the priest’s status, and all I can envision now is priests on the prowl, looking for widows to sleep with because they won’t be forced to marry them or acknowledge their children.
  • 10/28/23, Page 76 – The children of Samaritans… well, the Samaritans, all of them, were apparently mamzers because somewhere back at the beginning of this half Jewish, half gentile sect, the founder or one of the founders, slept with his sister, and their offspring were the first generation of the lineage. So, Jews can’t marry Samaritans.
  • 10/29/23, Page 77 – I won’t even have to really comment on this one, let the Talmudic rabbis speak for themselves: “What is notable about the priest? He is notable in that he is a male, and in no case is a male priest profaned by engaging in forbidden intercourse.” Okay, one comment. The woman, and any children that might come from this intercourse, of course, are basically shunned from polite society.
  • 10/30/23, Page 78 – The High Priests are held to a higher standard than the regular priests we saw on page 75. If they have intercourse with a widow or divorcee, they receive two floggings, and if a child results from the intercourse, a third flogging. The prophet Ezekiel tried to expand this to all priests later on, because he wanted them all held to a higher standard. What’s missing in all this is just exactly why sleeping with a widow or divorcee is such a negative thing for priests. It is speculated that this relates to assumed virginity.
  • 10/31/23, Page 79 – I’m not sure whether the rabbis are making a case for or against arranged marriages. They point out that a father, or agent, for a woman will focus on lineage and not on suitability as a partner, while a woman who chooses her own betrothed is more likely to focus on the prospects for a long, happy marriage with a suitable partner, but not pay attention to lineage. I do give them credit for not dismissing the woman’s perspective as irrelevant, which I fully expected them to do.
  • 11/1/23, Page 80 – A married man cannot be secluded with two women, because it is assumed that he will be unable to resist his natural urges and will have sex with one or both of them. A married woman can be secluded with two men, because it is assumed that either or both of the men will prevent the other from having sex with her out of respect for her marital status. Yeah….
  • 11/2/23, Page 81 – Seduction and/or rape culture must have changed a fair amount since the days of the Talmudic rabbis. Remember, yesterday, two men can’t be secluded with a woman… we expand on this today. Three men are fine, as no one of them would dare try something while another is there. Two men aren’t, because “if one of them moves away to go urinate, the other one will be unable to stop himself from having intercourse with the woman during that time.” Seriously, what…?
  • 11/3/23, Page 82 – A bachelor cannot be a schoolteacher. At first it is surmised that this is because he might seduce a child, but no, the rabbis say, it is because he might find himself alone with one of their mothers and not be able to control himself and have sex with her. Also, at first it is surmised that a bachelor cannot work on a farm because he might molest an animal; nor sleep with another bachelor in the same bed, because they might engage in gay sex. No, the rabbis say, we don’t have to worry about Jews and bestiality or homosexuality, that will never happen. A) they don’t provide an alternative reason for why neither of these things are allowed, and B) you, Talmudic rabbis, really don’t know anything about men, women, or children, do you? This is the perfect ending to this tractate for me.

Go back to Gittin – Divorce Document

Go forward to Bava Kamma – The First Gate

Go back to Main Page