Pisqa’ 235163H:243-245; JN2:151-153. 1. “Should a man take a wife, consort with her, and come to hate her” (Dt.22:13) R. Judah says: If he still consorts with her [after coming to hate her], he should receive a [judicially administered] beating! But if not, he doesn’t receive a [judicially administered] beating.
2. “And come to hate her” (Dt.22:13)— on this basis you can teach: If a person transgresses a simple commandment, he will in the end transgress an arduous commandment. If he transgresses: “Love your kinsman as yourself”(Lv.19:18), he will in the end transgress others, such as: “Don’t seek vengeance and don’t harbor a grudge” (Lv.19:18). And then he’ll transgress: “Don’t hate your brother in your heart” (Lv.19:17). And then: 164At this point, F:267, l.8 repeats the citation of Lv.19:18. TA brackets the quotation, which is also lacking in mss Vatican and others. “So that your brother may thrive with you” (Lv.25:36)— until he ultimately spills innocent blood. This is why it is stated: “Should a man take a wife. . . and come to hate her” (Dt.22:13).
3. “And then he will level scandalous charges against her” (Dt.22:13)— is it possible to say that [his complaint is considered] even if he charges: You burned supper!— when she hadn’t burned it? The Teaching mentions [first]: scandalous charges (Dt.22:14), and, a second time: scandalous charges (Dt.22:17). This enables us to draw an analogy from similar Scriptural terms. Just as the scandalous charges noted elsewhere (Dt.22:17) concern a claim against her hymen,165Heb.: ta`anat betulim. That is, a claim that the hymen is not intact due to sexual relations. so, too, the scandalous charges noted here (Dt.22:14) [must concern a claim against her hymen]. Or, perhaps: Just as the scandalous charges noted elsewhere (Dt.22:17), concern the place [covered by] the hymen,166Heb.: maqom betulim. The vaginal canal. Where the hymen is intact, the claimant may resort to the charge that the bride has had anal intercourse. So, too, the “scandalous charge” noted here (Dt.22:14), must concern the place [covered by] the hymen. How do I know that we include a charge of anal penetration167Heb: bi’ah ‘akheret; literally, “unconventional intercourse.” [that nevertheless leaves the hymen intact]? The Teaching states: “And he brought her into disrepute” (Dt.22:14).
4. “This woman I took, and . . . I found no signs of her maidenhood!”(Dt.22:14)— test-cloths168Heb: `eidim; literally, “witnesses.” In this context the reference is to cloths used to detect the presence of blood associated with vaginal penetration. See M. Nid. 1:7. showed that she had already fornicated beneath her father’s roof.
“Should a man take a wife, consort with her, and come to hate her” (Dt.22:13)— Why is this stated? Because it is stated: “The man who despoils a married woman” (Lv.20:10). [The two verses together cover the entire range of possibilities.] It’s all the same whether witnesses came from her husband’s house [where she now lives in marriage], to claim that she fornicated in her father’s house, [and there is reason to suspect her in her husband’s house as well (i.e., Dt.22:14)]. Or : If witnesses came from her father’s house [where she lived prior to her marriage], to claim that she fornicated in her father’s house, [and there is reason to suspect her in her husband’s house as well (i.e., Lv.20:10)]. This suggests that [either way] she is judged at the gate of the city. But, indeed— the verse excludes from the rule a case in which witnesses came to her husband’s house to claim she had fornicated in her father’s house— for she is to be judged at her father’s house! Therefore it is stated: “Should a man take a wife, consort with her, and come to hate her” (Dt.22:13)
R. Ishmael says: Come and see the trouble caused by hatred! For it delivers us into the clutches of slanderous speech.169This large block of text is missing from many early mss. See F:268, n.5.
5. “Then the father and mother of the young lady170Heb: na`arah; literally, “female youth,” from about the age of 13 years and a day (M. Nid.5:4). shall take” (Dt.22:15)— I might infer only that the rule applies to someone with a living father and mother. How do I know how the rule applies if she has a father, but no mother, or a mother, but no father, or neither a father nor a mother? The Teaching states: “The young lady” (Dt.22:15)— the rule applies equally [to a child of one living parent, or if both are dead]. If so, why does the verse specify: “The father and mother” (Dt.22:15)? So that these people, who raised such disgraceful offspring, shall come and be disgraced along with their offspring!
6. “And display the young lady’s maidenhood” (Dt.22:15)— in the conventional meaning [of displaying blood stains on the bride’s night-dress].171Pisqa’ 237 goes into this theme more extensively.
“I gave my daughter to this man” (Dt.22:16)— this teaches that the father has the right to consecrate his minor daughter for marriage [even despite her wishes].
(דברים כב יג) כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא עָלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם בָּא עָלֶיהָ – לוֹקֶה, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.
Pisqa’ 235163H:243-245; JN2:151-153.
1. “Should a man take a wife, consort with her, and come to hate her” (Dt.22:13)
R. Judah says:
If he still consorts with her [after coming to hate her],
he should receive a [judicially administered] beating!
But if not, he doesn’t receive a [judicially administered] beating.
וּשְׂנֵאָהּ, מִכָּן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: עָבַר אָדָם עַל מִצְוָה קַלָּה – סוֹפוֹ לַעֲבוֹר עַל מִצְוָה חֲמוּרָה. עָבַר עַל (ויקרא יט יח) ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״ – סוֹפוֹ לַעֲבוֹר עַל ״לֹא תִקֹּם וְלֹא תִטֹּר״ וְעַל (ויקרא יט יז) ״לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ״ וְעַל ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״ וְעַל (ויקרא כה לו) ״וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ״, עַד שֶׁבָּא לִידֵי שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה.
2. “And come to hate her” (Dt.22:13)—
on this basis you can teach:
If a person transgresses
a simple commandment,
he will in the end transgress
an arduous commandment.
If he transgresses:
“Love your kinsman as yourself”(Lv.19:18),
he will in the end transgress others, such as:
“Don’t seek vengeance and don’t harbor a grudge” (Lv.19:18).
And then he’ll transgress:
“Don’t hate your brother in your heart” (Lv.19:17).
And then: 164At this point, F:267, l.8 repeats the citation of Lv.19:18. TA brackets the quotation, which is also lacking in mss Vatican and others.
“So that your brother may thrive with you” (Lv.25:36)—
until he ultimately spills innocent blood.
This is why it is stated:
“Should a man take a wife. . . and come to hate her” (Dt.22:13).
(דברים כב יד) וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים, יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לָהּ הִקְדַּחְתְּ הַתַּבְשִׁיל וְהִיא לֹא הִקְדִּיחָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים, (דברים כב יז) ״עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים״ – לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה. מָה עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן – טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים, אַף עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים הָאָמוּר כָּאן – טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. אִי מָה עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן – מְקוֹם בְּתוּלִים, אַף עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים הָאָמוּר כָּאן – מְקוֹם בְּתוּלִים, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בִּיאָה אַחֶרֶת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְהוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רָע.
3. “And then he will level scandalous charges against her” (Dt.22:13)—
is it possible to say that
[his complaint is considered]
even if he charges:
You burned supper!—
when she hadn’t burned it?
The Teaching mentions [first]:
scandalous charges (Dt.22:14),
and, a second time: scandalous charges (Dt.22:17).
This enables us to draw an
analogy from similar Scriptural terms.
Just as the scandalous charges
noted elsewhere (Dt.22:17)
concern a claim against her hymen,165Heb.: ta`anat betulim. That is, a claim that the hymen is not intact due to sexual relations.
so, too, the scandalous charges noted here (Dt.22:14)
[must concern a claim against her hymen].
Or, perhaps:
Just as the scandalous charges noted elsewhere (Dt.22:17),
concern the place [covered by] the hymen,166Heb.: maqom betulim. The vaginal canal. Where the hymen is intact, the claimant may resort to the charge that the bride has had anal intercourse.
So, too, the “scandalous charge” noted here (Dt.22:14),
must concern the place [covered by] the hymen.
How do I know that
we include a charge of anal penetration167Heb: bi’ah ‘akheret; literally, “unconventional intercourse.”
[that nevertheless leaves the hymen intact]?
The Teaching states:
“And he brought her into disrepute” (Dt.22:14).
וְאָמַר אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין אוֹמֵר דְּבָרָיו אֶלָּא בַּעֲמִידָתָהּ.
“By saying: this woman” (Dt.22:14)—
this teaches that
he lays his charge before her
only while she stands in his presence.
לָקַחְתִּי וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא מָצָאתִי לָהּ בְּתוּלִים – הֲרֵי עֵדִים שֶׁזִּינְּתָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ!
4. “This woman I took, and . . . I found no signs of her maidenhood!”(Dt.22:14)—
test-cloths168Heb: `eidim; literally, “witnesses.” In this context the reference is to cloths used to detect the presence of blood associated with vaginal penetration. See M. Nid. 1:7. showed that she had
already fornicated beneath her father’s roof.
כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ י) ״אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִנְאַף אֶת אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ״, אַחַת שֶׁבָּאוּ לָהּ עֵדִים בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ וְאַחַת שֶׁבָּאוּ לָהּ עֵדִים בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, מַשְׁמַע שֶׁתְּהֵא נִדּוֹנֵת עַל שַׁעַר הָעִיר? וַהֲרֵי הַכָּתוּב מוֹצִיא אֶת שֶׁבָּאוּ לָהּ עֵדִים בְּבֵית בַּעְלָהּ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ שֶׁתְּהֵא נִדּוֹנֵת עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ! לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה.
“Should a man take a wife, consort with her, and come to hate her” (Dt.22:13)—
Why is this stated?
Because it is stated:
“The man who despoils a married woman” (Lv.20:10).
[The two verses together cover the entire range of possibilities.]
It’s all the same whether witnesses came
from her husband’s house
[where she now lives in marriage],
to claim that she fornicated in her father’s house,
[and there is reason to suspect her
in her husband’s house as well (i.e., Dt.22:14)].
Or :
If witnesses came from her father’s house
[where she lived prior to her marriage],
to claim that she fornicated in her father’s house,
[and there is reason to suspect her
in her husband’s house as well (i.e., Lv.20:10)].
This suggests that
[either way] she is judged at the gate of the city.
But, indeed—
the verse excludes from the rule a case in which
witnesses came to her husband’s house
to claim she had fornicated in her father’s house—
for she is to be judged at her father’s house!
Therefore it is stated:
“Should a man take a wife, consort with her, and come to hate her” (Dt.22:13)
וּשְׂנֵאָהּ, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בּוֹא וּרְאֵה מַה שִּׂנְאָה גּוֹרֶמֶת, שֶׁהִיא מְבִיאָה לִידֵי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע.
R. Ishmael says:
Come and see the trouble caused by hatred!
For it delivers us into
the clutches of slanderous speech.169This large block of text is missing from many early mss. See F:268, n.5.
(דברים כב טו) וְלָקַח אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה וְאִמָּהּ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ אָב וָאֵם, יֵשׁ לָהּ אָב וְלֹא אֵם, אֵם וְלֹא אָב, לֹא אָב וְלֹא אֵם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: נַּעֲרָה, מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה וְאִמָּהּ? הֵם, שֶׁגִּדְּלוּ גִּדּוּלִים רָעִים – יָבוֹאוּ וְיִתְנַוְּלוּ עִם גִּדּוּלֵיהֶם.
5. “Then the father and mother of the young lady170Heb: na`arah; literally, “female youth,” from about the age of 13 years and a day (M. Nid.5:4). shall take” (Dt.22:15)—
I might infer only that the rule applies
to someone with a living father and mother.
How do I know how the rule applies
if she has a father, but no mother,
or a mother, but no father,
or neither a father nor a mother?
The Teaching states:
“The young lady” (Dt.22:15)—
the rule applies equally
[to a child of one living parent, or if both are dead].
If so, why does the verse specify:
“The father and mother” (Dt.22:15)?
So that these people,
who raised such disgraceful offspring,
shall come and be disgraced along with their offspring!
וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת בְּתוּלֵי הַנַּעֲרָה – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ.
6. “And display the young lady’s maidenhood” (Dt.22:15)—
in the conventional meaning
[of displaying blood stains on the bride’s night-dress].171Pisqa’ 237 goes into this theme more extensively.
(דברים כב טז) וְאָמַר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל הַזְּקֵנִים, מִכָּן שֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת לָאִשָּׁה לְדַבֵּר בִּמְקוֹם הָאִישׁ.
“Then the father of the young woman shall say to the elders” (Dt.22:16)
on this basis [we teach that]
a woman has no right to speak in place of a man.
אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָרְשׁוּת לָאָב לְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ קְטַנָּה.
“I gave my daughter to this man” (Dt.22:16)—
this teaches that the father has the right
to consecrate his minor daughter for marriage
[even despite her wishes].