B"H
Since Chanuka is about the miracle that G-d wrought through the heroic deeds and actions of the few (the Hasmonaeans), I wanted to bring down here one of their decrees.
But first, the Torah says: "Lo Tinaf" (Do not commit adultery). Rabbi Saadia Gaon says that this prohibition incorporates within it all those prohibitions regarding illegal connexions, and not just adultery.
By the time of the Hasmonaean Dynasty (167 B.C.E. - 41 B.C.E.), the priest kings made it a decree that he who has marital relations with a gentile woman is guilty over the act as though he had had intercourse with a menstruate woman, and with a bondwoman, and with a married man's wife! Thus is it written in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 36b), and thus has it been quoted by Rav Achai of Shabcha in his "She'iltoth" (section "Balak," paragraph # 133). The same prohibition regards Jewish women who have connexions with gentile men, though it would seem that the reason they were not expressly named in this prohibition is because the Sages mentioned only the common occurrence of these affairs - which were usually perpetrated by Jewish men.
Some may counter this by saying, having relations with a Nidda is Kareth; A Bondwoman is stam issur, while a married woman is Kareth! How could they all have been made equivalent?"
You should know that there is a general rule about decrees and enactments. Even though the Rabbis decreed that if a man had relations with a non-Jewish woman he is culpable thereby as if he had relations with a menstruate woman, and with a married man's wife, etc., this does not mean that the halachic ramifications are the same for both. In reality, you could not punish that man like you could with a man that slept with another man's wife! This is a general rule when it comes to all decrees. Some might ask, moreover, what purpose then is there to decree that it was as if he had connexions with a married man's wife when in reality it was not permissible to punish them? This was a safeguard; a way of drawing men away from doing such acts. Perhaps, too, such persons would be ostracized by the community, and looked upon as if they had actually slept with another man's wife.
On the other hand, as early as Pinchas the son of El'azer the son of Aharon, we find: "Ha-bo'el Aramith Kenaiim Pog'im Bo." (Paraphrased: "Zealots come and avenge themselves of that man who lives promiscuously with a gentile lassie!" By living together "promiscuously" is implied here that they had had intimate relations.) Of course, this refers to when the two are caught in the very act, and only when one is moved to act the part of a zealot – without his having been told to do so! Yet, had no one seen them sleep together, no man is permitted to harm them in this case.

Sincerely,
David

The Gemarah there in Avodah Zarah says that if going on a regular non-jew is from the Torah or a Rabanan decree depends on the argument between the Chachumm and R’ Shimon. According to R’ Shimon it’s Doraisah of Lo Sischatan and the Rabanan hold that the Torah only prohibited the 7 nations that lived in Canan, so other non-Jews are only D’Rabanan.

The Gemarah in Sanhedrin 82a that if the zelot didn’t get to him, then the Boyal the non-Jew gets Karais and this is how it’s Paskined in Rambam Hilchos Isuurei Biya 12:6

To reconcile the Rabanan in Avodah Zorah and the Gemarah in Sanhedrin is that it’s only from the Torah if it’s done in public (or when the public knows about it (Aidei Yichud Hayn Hayn Aidei Biya) ) but if done privately, then it’s only a Rabinic decree. This seems like the Shita of Tosfos in Yevamos 16b D"H K’Savar that says that it’s permitted from the Torah in private.

B"H
Rav Chaim, Shalom!
Your insights here are very enlightening! You've said that the Chachomim (Sages) in Avodah Zarah hold the opinion that the prohibition of "Lo Thithchaten Bom" (לא תתחתן בם)in Devorim 7:3 applies only to the seven nations of Canaan - just as the verse there would imply, but that the prohibition of consummating marriages with the other nations is only a rabbinic prohibition (D'Rabanan). You've cited an apparent contradiction elsewhere, where we find (in Sanhedrin 82a) the Sages saying that a Jew is liable to extirpation (Kareth) if he has coitus with any non-Jewish girl, clearly implying thereby that having such connexions is a thing prohibited by the Law (Doraisah). For there can be no Kareth (extirpation) without infringing upon a prohibitive biblical command, &c. Meaning, the Issur (prohibition) of doing so is not a rabbinic prohibition, but rather, it has been taken from the Torah itself!
Then you went on to try to reconcile the two conflicting opinions, &c.
First, I have a question about the opinion of the Sages, our Rabbis. If they hold that the prohibition of "Lo Thithchaten Bom" (Devorim 7:3) - "You shall not consummate marriages with them" - applies only to the seven nations of Canaan, and that by the Torah itself it was permitted to have connexions with non-Jewish persons, then what will they say about children who were born from a non-Jewish mother, but had a Jewish father? Would such children, from the standpoint of the Torah, still be considered Jewish by virtue of their father? We all know that the same teaching (in Devorim 7:3) is used by us to show how only a child born from a Jewish mother is to be considered a Jew, though he might have had a gentile father. But now that the Sages hold the opinion that the above passage refers strictly to the Canaanites, and not to other nations, then it stands to reason that they would have no qualms about a child being Jewish whose mother was a gentile and his father a Jew - that is, from the standpoint of the Torah itself, although the child's father (being Jewish) would have acted contrary to a rabbinic command. Can this be said to be true about the Sages, or do they intrepret the same verse in two different ways?

For those of the Global Yeshiva who are unfamiliar with the teaching that shows where a child is considered Jewish when his mother is Jewish, I have endeavored given the source below, namely:
Parashas Ve-Ethchanan (Devorim 7:3) which says about the Canaanites, "You shall not consummate marriages with them, nor shall you give your daughter to his son or take his son for your daughter, since he will turn away your son from following me." By looking very closely and diacritically at the wording of the text, it says "...since he (the Canaanite father) will turn away your son (i.e. the child born to your Jewish daughter) from following me." Here, we see that G-d still reckons the child to be Jewish by calling him, "your son" - id est, even though such unions were forbidden. G-d calls him "your son," implying that he is still an Israelite because he was born from a Jewish mother. However, the opposite is not true. The Torah does not say, "...for she (the Canaanite mother) will turn away your son." In this case, the child would no longer be considered your son, but rather a gentile. (Cf. Yevamoth 76a; Numbers Rabba 19:3).
Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

Rav Chaim,
Do you mean Torah did NOT prohibit the other nations for marriage, pelagash or what? Can a Jew have a non-Jew pelagash from nations other that the 7 nations? The reason I ask is that I once had a Jewish medical student who moved in with a shiksa. He was frum and when I asked what he was doing he said she was only a roommate and his posek said he could do it. Now this was a medical school where I was a visiting professor and it was really out of the way. There were no other Jews there. I was amazed that a posek would make such a ruling and never really followed up on it. Could your assertion here be the rationale for such a ruling.

David Ben Avraham,
Isn't an unmarried Jewish woman considered a menstruant anyway, until she has her first mikveh? So according to your analysis, coitus with an unmarried Jewish woman would also be as bad as coitus with a non-Jewish woman. Are these equivalent?

quote:

unmarried Jewish woman considered a menstruant anyway

I think I heard the exact opposite, that a young woman who menstruates does not have menstrual impurity until she has been been with a man.

And this is part of how there is never any issue of a father and daughter touching like handing things to each other, and similarly why young women, even those who knead challah dough, are not permitted to use the mikvah.

Rob,
But I didn't think there was an issue with a father passing articles to her adult married daughters either. No?

Quote "But now that the Sages hold the opinion that the above passage refers strictly to the Canaanites, and not to other nations, then it stands to reason that they would have no qualms about a child being Jewish whose mother was a gentile and his father a Jew - that is, from the standpoint of the Torah itself, although the child's father (being Jewish) would have acted contrary to a rabbinic command. Can this be said to be true about the Sages, or do they intrepret the same verse in two different ways?"


Excellent Question!

I think the difference is between a commandment and a "Chalos" (for lack of a better word, I’ll loosely translate as a transaction.). The commandment of not marrying, there could be a reason why the Torah was particular that it would apply to one group over the other. By what the result of the child, which is a transaction, we see the Torah reveals to us by one nation. Since in the transaction, there is no real reason to make a difference between them. If we see from the 7 nations that from the mother is a Jew and from the father it isn’t, it’s probably because that’s the Metzious of such a union, that we go after the mother for Jewishness.

Quote "Do you mean Torah did NOT prohibit the other nations for marriage, pelagash or what? Can a Jew have a non-Jew pelagash from nations other that the 7 nations? The reason I ask is that I once had a Jewish medical student who moved in with a shiksa. He was frum and when I asked what he was doing he said she was only a roommate and his posek said he could do it"

No matter if it’s D’oraisah (which the Rambam Paskins like R’ Shimon that says it’s Doraisah) or D’rabanan, it’s unconditionally prohibited. There is no Heter of Yichud with a Shiktza, and the "Posek" was probably the Yetzer Harah.

Quote "I think I heard the exact opposite, that a young woman who menstruates does not have menstrual impurity until she has been been with a man.

And this is part of how there is never any issue of a father and daughter touching like handing things to each other, and similarly why young women, even those who knead challah dough, are not permitted to use the mikvah."

No, at any time they’re a Nidah and are prohibited. The reason that the father can touch the daughter is because there is no feelings (of that type) to the daughter. Or else, even without being a Nidah, he’s prohibited to do anything with her because she’s his daughter and daughters are prohibited to cohabit even worse than a nidah. So we anyhow must go on that parents (and to some sense siblings) there is no such feelings for, so they didn’t prohibit touching.

Those who make Challah, there is no difference if they would go to the Mikvah, since they’re anyhow Tamey Mais and the Challah would be Tameh anyhow.

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

unmarried Jewish woman considered a menstruant anyway

I think I heard the exact opposite, that a young woman who menstruates does not have menstrual impurity until she has been been with a man.

Dear Rob, and our friend, Moshe!There is no question about it! The Sages made it a decree long ago that all unmarried Jewish girls and women have the same status as a Niddah (menstruate) in order to distance young men from approaching unto them in a depraved and carnal manner. Even David Ha-Melech, after the incident between Amnon and Tamar, "assar 'al ha-yichud," that is, made an enactment prohibiting grown boys and men from being left alone under a common roof with a girl or woman. This prohibition, as we know, did not apply to a man and his daughter, or to a mother and her son.
Neither did the decree of the Sages which made all unmarried women equivalent to "Niddah" mean that the same strictures we find with a married man and his menstruate wife would apply to unmarried women as well. For example, a man could pass on an object, in hand, to any unmarried girl - which thing a man could not do with his menstruate wife. The decree of the Sages was only a preventive measure.
Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

Originally posted by MosheYisraeli:
... So according to your analysis, coitus with an unmarried Jewish woman would also be as bad as coitus with a non-Jewish woman. Are these equivalent?

Moshe,
If a Jewish man should have relations with an unmarried Jewish girl, he has transgressed only a rabbinic command. But if a Jewish man should assay to do such a thing with a gentile girl or woman, by one opinion of the Sages (Sanedrin 82a), he has transgressed a biblical command.

Rav Chaim,, may G-d protect him, has attempted to reconcile the two conflicting opinions of the Sages, based upon Tosefos in Yevamos 16b, s.v. "Kesavar," namely: the Torah permits connexions with a gentile woman when it is not done openly, but prohibits it when such an act is done in public. So far their words.
With all due respect to the greatest expositors of our laws, and after kissing their feet, it would seem easier to have reconciled the two conflicting statements made by the Sages by explaining it this way:
1) Where they say (in Avodah Zarah) that the prohibition of connexions with gentile women (other than the Canaanites) is only a rabbinic prohibition, but from the standpoint of the Torah it is permitted, this would refer to before the decree made by the Hasmonaeans.
2) Where they say (in Sanhedrin 82a) that one is liable to extirpation (Kareth) for having slept with a gentile woman, this would refer to after the decree made by the Hasmonaeans - when they made sleeping with a gentile woman tantamount to sleeping with a menstruate, a thing punishable by extirpation! (They never meant to say that it was literally a prohibition taken from the Torah. For if this had been the case, they would have had no need for "zealots" to inflict punishment upon the transgressor when the Beith Din, itself, could have done the same thing!) This is my most humble opinion.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

David,
Do all the poskim today accept the Hasmonean rulings?

B"H
Moshe,
To the best of my knowledge, no "posek" has ever disagreed with the Hasmonaean decree.
Sincerely,
David

David,
Before the Hasmonean decree, wouldn't gentile women (those NOT from the 7 nations) been prohibited on different grounds...i.e. because marriage couldn't be secret and the children wouldn't have been Jews? Further, was not "promiscuity" an issue, if relations with gentile women were not intended for marriage?

quote:

Further, was not "promiscuity" an issue,

Are you sure there is a Torah restriction on heterosexual promiscuity for men?

As discussed in other threads, we have decrees since those times against polygamy and concubines, and a general specific prohibition against wasting seed, but I'm not sure that absent those decrees if there would be a prohibition.

Rob,
Why did Phineas perform the "bloody" act of slaying a man of Israel in the middle of coitus with a Midianite woman? He was immensely rewarded, was he following a Torah injunction?

B"H
Dear Moshe, and Rob, Shalom!
What we saw happen with Phineas (פינחס) when he killed Zimri ben Salu and Cozbi, the daughter of Tzur, was actually an Oral Teaching delivered to Moses at Sinai, namely, "Ha-bo'el Aramith Kenaiim Pog'im Bo," and was NOT considered a prohibition derived from the written Law (Torah) itself. So does the Talmud say in Avodah Zarah 36b. Oral Teachings are not numbered with the 613 Mitzvoth. Yet, even then, it says there that zealots have the authority to kill a man who lives promiscuously with a gentile woman when he does so in public (i.e.בפרהסיא), which Maimonides in Issurei Bi'ah 12:4explains to mean before 10 persons of Israel. The same Gemara (Avodah Zarah, ibid.) goes on to say that the disciples of Hillel and Shammai came along later (when they made the eighteen enactments) and outlawed connexions with gentile women, even when done in secret. To which, a rebuttal was made, namely, the Hasmonaeans had done this before them! They explain there, if I'm not mistaken (since my Gemara is not open before my eyes), that what the Hasmonaeans did there was to rule against marriages with gentile women, but the disciples of Hillel and Shammai (in their eighteen enactments)ruled even against "zanuth" (promiscuity). If I'm mistaken in this, I'll correct myself. My Gemara is not open while writing these lines.
Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

Why did Phineas perform the "bloody" act of slaying a man

One pshat I heard was that the Bas Kol heard after this incident, when many were shocked that Pinchus had killed a Prince, was needed because were it not for the uniqueness of the situation, such as specific peace he brought about, it was an illegal action for which Pinchus would be subject to the death penalty of the earthly court.

Would you agree that the biggest problem was with the avoda zara, not the promiscuity?

Quote ") Where they say (in Sanhedrin 82a) that one is liable to extirpation (Kareth) for having slept with a gentile woman, this would refer to after the decree made by the Hasmonaeans - when they made sleeping with a gentile woman tantamount to sleeping with a menstruate, a thing punishable by extirpation!"

The reasons why this distinction cannot be made are as follows..

1. The Gemarah learns the Kareis from a Pasuk in Malachai, which was written 400 years (around) before the Chashminaim. (Even though it’s learnt from Navi, it still could be from the Torah as a halacha L’Moshe Misinai and only recorded in the Navi. This we see in Sanhedrin 22b the Gemarah asks how can they learn different Halachos from a Pasuk in Yechezkel, until Yechezkel came around how did they know it? It was Halacha L’Moshe Misinai (G’Marah G’Miri) and Yechezkal just made a reference to it in the Pasuk.)



2) We know that Kanayim Poygim Bo is definitely a Doraisah, we learn it from Pinchus. How can we have such a punishment for an act that is permitted? Must be that the act itself was a sin. So we see that there is least a concept that there is some type of sin in at least some form of marrying a non-Jew from the Torah.