2

I was listening to this lecture by Rav Herschel Schachter and near the end he parenthetically mentioned that there's an opinion of the Maharam MiRotenburg and Tosafos HaRosh in Yevamos that there's no kares if someone has adultery with an arusa (betrothed woman), only with a nesuah (fully married woman). He says besides being a surprising opinion, it's in conflict with the underlying premise of a gemarra somewhere.

This would make adultery with an arusa more strict than with a nesuah, as there is no atonement if done unwittingly (see Kesubos 37b).

Where is this Maharam MiRotenburg and Tosafos HaRosh in Yevamos? He didn't specify. As well, what gemarra is he referring to which has a premise against this novelty?

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    Just to clarify for future readers: it’s still forbidden regardless, and if there are witnesses, the couple will still be stoned. The issue at hand is regarding kareis and kareis alone.
    – DonielF
    Aug 1, 2018 at 2:38
  • שפחה חרופה לפי ההגדרה של רבי עקיבא. אין כרת, אבל יש קרבן אדם בתנאי שהיא מסעדה וחייב מלכות. היא ארוסה לעבד עברי
    – kouty
    Aug 1, 2018 at 3:33
  • Kesubos37b:אלא מיתות חמורות שלא ניתנה שגגתן לכפרה - Rashi: מיתות חמורות ומאי נינהו כגון העושה חבורה באביו או גונב נפש מישראל שאין כפרה כתובה בשגגתו שאין כרת בזדונו דליחייב חטאת בשגגתו Here we see that. Aveiros without Kareis are more severe
    – yosefkorn
    Aug 1, 2018 at 18:35

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

The Tosafot HaRosh is in Yevamot (34a) quoting R. Meir of Rothenburg.

(Though in a resp. by R. Chaim of Vienna, son of the 'Ohr Zarua', (§164, beginning) he claims that RMR reconsidered his position.)

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    Also perhaps worth noting, for the sake of learning, I believe R. Schachter is fond of the Avne Nezer and he too deals with this quote of RMR in a resp. (EH §3). (Anecdotally, IIRC, I once heard -in his lecture or a secondary source- that he had read through a lot of the AN responsa.)
    – Oliver
    Aug 1, 2018 at 3:49
  • Thanks. Do you know the answer to part two of my question?
    – robev
    Aug 1, 2018 at 13:29
  • @robev I'd be inclined to guess San. 50a but need to listen to RS's comment in the lecture.
    – Oliver
    Aug 1, 2018 at 14:17
  • All he says is this opinion is כנגד a הנחה in the gemarra
    – robev
    Aug 1, 2018 at 14:18
  • @robev In that case I can't be sure, only guess. Sorry. (Maybe the Tashbe"tz quoted by Rasha"sh Yev. 34a can help you. See also Cheshek Shlomo ibid; the R. Nathanson, which the latter quotes is here n. 151.)
    – Oliver
    Aug 1, 2018 at 14:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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