0

This is a follow-up to my previous two questions:

Within the following excerpt, does the term בָּא (which occurs thrice: twice with one meaning, and once with another), include all possible types of intercourse and intimacy, or just some ? If so, then which, exactly? And if some are to be excluded, then what would those be, specifically?

אֲבָל יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית בֵּין קְטַנָּה בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין פְּנוּיָה בֵּין אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה קָטָן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא עַל הַכּוּתִית בְּזָדוֹן הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶהֱרֶגֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדֶיהָ כִּבְהֵמָה

My previous two questions dealt mainly with linguistic matters; this one, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with context and authorial intent.

Could someone well-versed with the Rambam's work in general, or the Mishneh Torah in particular, help clarify the issue?

4
  • 1
  • A related question. – Lucian May 23 at 15:59
  • Why would this definition be different than everywhere else in Halacha? – shmosel May 26 at 7:15
  • @shmosel: In general, I prefer to verify assumptions thoroughly, so as to avoid jumping to possibly unwarranted conclusions. – Lucian May 26 at 7:59
1
+50

I would think that the parameters of "coming upon" here is the same as in other cases, where both partners in the act are Jewish. Those are spelled out in Chapter 1 Halachos 10-12.

2
  • Would those include cases of involuntary relations, for instance ? – Lucian May 27 at 22:45
  • 1
    @Lucian The comparison to bestiality suggests it would. See here for some of the reasoning behind that. – shmosel May 27 at 23:02
1

It is very hard to tell as most commentators struggle to find the source for Rambam's ruling to start with. Normally Rambam's rulings are based on known Talmudic passages, which shed light on the Rambam's opinion. In this case, the commentators struggle to find a source that stands up to scrutiny, which makes it difficult to get to the Rambam's intent. This is also presumably why the later halachic authorities do not mention this ruling of Rambam.

1
  • It seems you have already anticipated my next question, requesting a (partial) translation of the afferent portion from the Maggid Mishneh. – Lucian Oct 20 '20 at 8:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .