Rashi notes, this is a figurative expression:
and they shall spread the garment This is a figurative expression, meaning: they shall clarify the matter as [“clear”] as a [new] garment. — [Sifrei 22:92, Keth. 46a]But in that same gemara in Ketubot 46a, it is actually a dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, with the latter claiming it as literal.
ופרשו השמלה
That is, it was a reform issued by the Torah to the existing practice of the time. Back then, an accusation would condemn the girl. And further, would condemn a girl who lost her virginity before betrothal, and before marriage. Since she married under the presumption of being a virgin, disproof of this presumption would lead to death. Even though the Torah itself would not demand the death penalty in such a case. (In saying this, Shadal is sidestepping issues of literal reading vs. practiced halacha: avoiding saying that the Torah was speaking of a betrothed woman who cheated; or that the Torah demands the death penalty for a single woman who had intercourse out of marriage.) Here, it innovates to protect the woman that such proof is accepted, even though it might be possible to fake this proof.
The gemara records this in practice, usually with practical monetary results: The ketuba for a virgin is 200 while a non-virgin 100 zuz. But it accepts all sorts of excuses in this regard for the loss (or non-sensing) of the hymen. And some women, records the Talmud, used to bring in a stained kerchief in order to fake it.
Nowadays, I have not heard of any such case brought before a bet din: because they do not rule on capital matters; (because there is no time between betrothal and marriage anyway, though this is irrelevant); because practically, the ketuba is not really collected; or because our society has evolved out of this.
At any rate, Muslims apparently do keep this. And it is for all women, where they must prove they are virgins, to the female relatives of the groom. And there are all sorts of negative repercussions which result. All of which gives good backing, IMHO, to Shadal's explanation. Though I think it possible that since the Koran was post-Torah, they took a literal interpretation of it and ran with it.
Anyway, here is a news article about it, and about a trend in which they undergo an operation to restore the hymen, so as to be able to show the bloody sheets, and so as not to get murdered in an honor killing:
It is a drastic and costly measure but as she takes her husband's hand in marriage, she knows it is one which may - quite literally - save her life.
The horror and outrage that would ensue if it was discovered she had already slept with a man would be so damning that her own strictly religious relatives might kill her rather than face public shame.
"My virginity was restored in a delicate operation just last week, and I honestly view it as life-saving surgery," says Aisha.
"If my husband cannot prove to his family that I am a virgin, I would be hounded, ostracised and sent home in disgrace. My father, who is a devout Muslim, would regard it as the ultimate shame.
"The entire family could be cast out from the friends and society they hold dear, and I honestly believe that one of my fanatically religious cousins or uncles might kill me in revenge, to purge them of my sins. Incredible as it may seem, honour killings are still accepted within our religion.
...
"But as I said goodbye to my future husband and flew back to Birmingham, I really started to panic about my virginity.
"Muslim tradition demands that on my wedding night, my bridegroom will take the bloodied sheets to show his mother and aunts to prove that his bride is pure.
"If I do not bleed, the wedding will be annulled, and I will be sent home in disgrace.
"This was all I could think about. How could I fool my own husband and his family into believing that I was pure?"
Through friends, Aisha heard of a new operation to "restore" a torn hymen, and, in her desperation, she went onto the internet to find out more.
4 comments:
Doesn't the case of Mefateh explicitly rule out the possibility that the Torah applied the death penalty to women who had intercourse before marriage?
Also, isn't the question of why we don't concern ourselves with these issues pretty much addressed in the Ran on the Rif in Ketubot - since today erusin and nisuin are performed consecutively, there is no chance that the woman was mezanah while married, so all we have is the question of meqah taut, and this would be the kind of din that non-semuchim don't deal with anyway because it doesn't involve monetary loss.
1) Yet Shadal believes (rightly or wrongly) that pashut peshat of "Bet Aviha" is when entirely single. He makes the distinction that this woman passed herself off as a virgin.
2) I agree about erusin and nisuin, as mentioned above. I'll have to see the Ran inside -- any pointers?
1) Mefateh is an extremely strong kushya against this interpretation, inasmuch as it demonstrates that premarital relations are not, per se, a terribly grave sin as they are considered in Shaaria. Shadal would have us believe that the woman was considered hayevet mita simply for deceiving the husband, which seems extraordinarily unlikely. Not to mention that there is a major contradiction between this section of the Torah and the repeated emphatic statement that a person can only be condemned to death on the testimony of two witnesses.
2) The Ran discusses related points on the first couple of amudim of Rif on Ketubot...I would have to look inside to get an exact mareh maqom.
3) By the way, unrelated to this but pursuant to a discussion we had about "Bnei Haelohim" in Beresheet, in teaching Sefer Shemuel recently I was reminded of a prooftext for the traditional view that "elohim" means judges - Eli's rebuke of his sons in the second chapter:
"If a man sins against another man, the judges [elohim] will judge him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who will pray for him?"
This seems to be an unmistakable use of "elohim" in the sense of human authorities.
(Granted, though, the JPS doesn't translate this way, choosing to read "u-fillelo" as "pardon him", yielding 'God will pardon him'. But this is a difficult interpretation, especially since the name used for Hashem changes mid-passuq for no apparent reason.)
Just to clarify on pt 1, Shadal writes:
כדי לתת שלום בבית ולהציל ממיתה נערה שזינתה בבית אביה , אשר לפי התורה אין לה עונש , רק לפי מראה עיני אנשי הדורות ההם
so he does not think that this strict practice is Din Torah, but rather what people in context might do. (And indeed, we see Muslims doing this today.)
About 2, I'll also look to see if I can find it. Makes sense, in general.
I have to think about point 3.
Post a Comment