Pisqa’ 235¹

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: ²

“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,³

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,⁴

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 penetration⁵

[that nevertheless leaves the hymen intact]?

The Teaching states:

“And he brought her into disrepute” (Dt.22:14).

“By saying: this woman” (Dt.22:14)—

this teaches that

he lays his charge before her

only while she stands in his presence.

4

“This woman I took, and . . . I found no signs of her maidenhood!”(Dt.22:14)—

test-cloths⁶ 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.⁷

5

“Then the father and mother of the young lady⁸ 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].⁹

“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.

“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].

1. H:243-245; JN2:151-153.
2. At 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.
3. Heb.: ta`anat betulim. That is, a claim that the hymen is not intact due to sexual relations.
4. Heb.: maqom betulim. The vaginal canal. Where the hymen is intact, the claimant may resort to the charge that the bride has had anal intercourse.
5. Heb: bi’ah ‘akheret; literally, “unconventional intercourse.”
6. Heb: `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.
7. This large block of text is missing from many early mss. See F:268, n.5.
8. Heb: na`arah; literally, “female youth,” from about the age of 13 years and a day (M. Nid.5:4).
9. Pisqa’ 237 goes into this theme more extensively.