0

I would like to have, if possible, a clarification of two passages of the Mishneh Torah in apparent contradiction. In Sefer Nashim, Hilchot Ishut 3,11 Rambam expressly speaks of a lawful consecration through the biah method (sexual intercourse): «A girl [...] can be consecrated through sexual relations with her father's consent.». However in Sefer Nashim, Hilchot Ishut 10,1 it is said that according to rabbinic law a consecrated woman is forbidden to have sexual intercourse with her husband as long as she lives in the paternal house previa makkat mardut (beatings): «According to Rabbinic law, a woman who has been consecrated (i.e., an arusah) is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with her husband as long as she is living in her father’s home. A man who has relations with his arusah in his father-in-law’s home is punished with “stripes for rebelliousness”. Even when [the husband] consecrated [his arusah] by having sexual relations with her, he is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with her again until he brings her to his home, enters into privacy with her, and thus singles her out as his [wife].».

In the first passage quoted, does through sexual intercourse take place in the same house as the father? If so, in the second step mentioned, only a second sexual intercourse is therefore forbidden, but not the first? In fact I noticed “again” in Hebrew sheniyyah thus implying a previous sexual intercourse already occurred precisely with the “consecration” and which cannot be repeated before the nisuin. Is correct? Finally, would the beating be administered only with the second sexual intercourse to the exclusion of the first?

Improve this question
6
  • 1
    Sexual relations in the house of parents or in-laws is forbidden. This is stated in the Shulchan Aruch and your second source. Thus in the first passage quoted, the intercourse would absolutely not take place in the father's house.
    – Alexander
    Sep 16, 2022 at 0:32
  • 1
    It is not true. To remove any doubts, I wrote directly this to Rabbi Eliyahu Touger. Here is his answer unequivocal: «You got it right except that the first instance of intimacy need not specifically be in her father's house. The mention of her father's house here is to exclude her having gone to live with her husband or in the midst of the journey to him together with him». In short, it was exactly as I imagined. He has confirmed completely. What Alexander says is not true.
    – Ootsutsuki
    Sep 16, 2022 at 1:33
  • 1
    Living with in-laws is forbidden, except in the case of a private bedroom. Kitzer Shulchan Aruch Siman 152:12.
    – Alexander
    Sep 16, 2022 at 1:45
  • Sefer Nashim, Hilchot Ishut 3,11 does not speak of cohabitation but of consecration-engagement. The second passage and the one mentioned by Kitzur Shulchan Arukh speak of another thing. Rabbi Touger was very clear.
    – Ootsutsuki
    Sep 16, 2022 at 14:40
  • 1
    I think you are misundestanding something. The Shulchan Aruch can be in contradiction with the Rambam. There is no unequivocal one law, different halachic decisors can be in contradiction. Thus Alexander (quoting Shulchan Aruch) can be correct while R Touger (quoting the Rambam) can also be correct. Also note that in Mishnaic times, young married people were often living in their "father's home" but technically in a different building (a very small house built for them in the courtyard). And yes Judaism is complicated :-> !
    – mbloch
    Sep 17, 2022 at 18:22

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .