Do the Noahide Laws really promote sexual morality? (Code Yellow)
See Home Page
SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com
SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com
This article is "Code Yellow": Sexual Immorality
Does Noahide Law actually promote sexual morality? Not really. The only clear crimes are homosexual public sodomy and female adultery. Noahides claim that under their system, homosexual male oral sex is legal and that homosexuals can even obtain civil unions (but not marriage contracts). Lesbianism is not illegal, nor is transvestism. Prostitution is legal. A woman is punished for adultery, but a married man can sleep with any unmarried woman he chooses and can take multiple wives. Premarital sex is not illegal. If a Jew sleeps with the wife of a non-Jew, there is no punishment, and if a non-Jew commits adultery, they can escape punishment by converting to Judaism. Additionally, detractors of the Talmud have cited passages (reproduced below) that they claim promote pedophilia, marital rape, incest, bestiality, and necrophilia. The Noahide Laws are not about the spirit of sexual morality; they are legalistic and full of loopholes and exceptions.
Homosexuality Refers To Anal Sex In Talmud
(Oral Sex Not Mentioned)
Now, in the Babylonian Talmud there is a passage in which the male homosexual intercourse would seem to be related to the specific practice of anal coitus:
Sanhedrin 54a
GEMARA: From where do we derive the prohibition and punishment for homosexual intercourse with a male? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13): (….) the phrase “as with a woman [mishkevei isha],” referring to lying with a woman, appears in the plural. The verse teaches you that there are two manners of lying with a woman for which one who engages in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him is punished, vaginal and anal intercourse.
Lesbianism and Prostitution "Lewd" but Legal
Other kinds of vulgar sexuality — lesbian acts, masturbation, harlotry and sex with harlots, and sexual frivolity generally — are regarded as "lewdness." Such acts are patently less than holy and may even be destructive. But it's impossible to characterise them logically as criminal violations of the minimal provisions of this Commandment. (Dallen, 2003, p. 157)
SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.
Transvestism "Revolting" But Legal
Cross-Dressing "A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man; neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.” Humanity isn't unisexual: the conventional outward distinguishing marks between women and men shouldn't be blurred.
Human beings are the only earthly beings to make and wear clothes — or need to. So fashion is a uniquely human thing that can be used either in the service of sexual modesty or immodesty. Cross-dressing is modesty's opposite: the look that's adopted is a look that's erotically charged. "The interchange of dress begets lust and leads to immorality." It blurs modesty's distinction between the masculine and feminine by offering up the cross-dresser — literally, the transvestite — as a new erotic ideal: a woman with the sexual availability and openness of a man, or a man with the feminine allure of a woman. It promotes — at least it partakes — of the extreme gender-confusion of homosexuality.
The licentious age early. — Talmud
Naturally, fashions change, and every society has its own styles. Adornments like long hair, earrings, kilts or pants or neckties don't belong intrinsically to any one sex. But when the members of a community associate any such adornment with one particular sex, those who choose to wear the fashions of the other sex cross an important moral line.
God makes cross-dressing a crime, though not a capital crime, for Israel. Other peoples may approach the problem differently. Because it isn't one of the minimal prohibitions of the Univeral Law, they have no obligation to make such a prohibition part of their law. Yet they should be aware that, in the Lord's words, "whoever" commits this act, of cross-dressing, or transvestism, "is revolting to God." (Dallen, 2003, pp. 168-169)
SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.
Adultery Only A Crime For Women
Adultery is only a crime when a married woman has sex with another man other than her husband
Sexual intercourse of a married woman with any man other than her husband. The crime can be committed only by and with a married woman; for the unlawful intercourse of a married man with an unmarried woman is not technically Adultery in the Jewish law. - Adultery, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/865-adultery
A Man May Have More Than One Wife And May Sleep With Any Unmarried Woman He Wishes
"Beyond this the marriage laws of different nations may differ in their details. But the God of the Universe universally forbids polyandry — the combination of a woman with more than one man.
This prohibition reflects our species' nature. A man needs his mate to be exclusive to him; most women, apparently, can at least function if their mates are only devoted to them. Local cultural expectations aside, it follows that polygamy — meaning in this case polygyny, the combination of a man with more than one (eligible) woman, in or out of a marriage relationship — is not universally forbidden." (Dallen, 2003, pp. 167-168)
SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.
Jews May Invade Gentile Marriages
Noahides Can Escape Adultery Charges By Converting
Noahides who commit adultery with another Noahide may escape execution by converting to full Judaism, but they cannot escape execution if they have committed adultery with a Jew
A Noachid who slays another Noachid, or worships idols, or blasphemes, or has illicit connection with the wife of another Noachid, and then becomes a proselyte, is free from punishment. If, however, he has killed an Israeli (Sanh. 71b; “Yad,” l.c. x. 4). - Noahide Laws, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
Jewish men may have have sex with the wife of a minor or a non-Jew without punishment
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death]. 'The man' excludes a minor; 'that committeth adultery with another man's wife' excludes the wife of a minor; 'even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife' excludes the wife of a heathen … - 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 52b
Marital Rape: Women Are Pieces Of Meat
And Can Be Taken Any Way
Women are like a piece of meat, husbands may take them as they please
“R. Johanan said: The above is the view of R. Johanan b. Dahabai; but our Sages said: The halachah is not as R. Johanan b. Dahabai, but a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife [at intercourse]: A parable; Meat which comes from the abattoir, may be eaten salted, roasted, cooked or seethed; so with fish from the fishmonger. [4]” - 1962 Soncino BablyonianTalmud, Nadarim 20b
FOOTNOTE 4: [This parable serves to express the absence of reserve that may characterise the mutual and intimate relationship of husband and wife without offending the laws of chastity.]
Bestiality In The Talmud
ACCORDING TO TALMUD, ADAM HAD SEX WITH EVERY ANIMAL IN EDEN BUT WAS NOT SATISFIED UNTIL HE SLEPT WITH EVE
R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve. (Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 63a)
SINCE TORAH LEGALLY STATES MEN MUST NOT HAVE SEX WITH HARLOTS “OR” DOGS, IT MAY BE LEGAL FOR JEWS TO HAVE SEX WITH HARLOTS “AND” DOGS AT THE SAME TIME OR PAY HARLOTS TO HAVE SEX WITH DOGS
Raba of Parazika asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal? — Because it is written: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; [16] and it has been taught: The hire of a dog [17]and the wages of a harlot [18] are permissible, as it is said: Even both these — the two [specified in the text are abominations] but not four[20]. (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 26b)
FOOTNOTE 16: Deut. XXIII, 19.
FOOTNOTE 17: Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal adultery.
FOOTNOTE 18: If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he exchanged her for an animal, it could be offered.
FOOTNOTE 20: Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbis.
YET AGAIN, SEX WITH HARLOTS “AND” DOGS MAY BE PERMITTED SINCE THE PROHIBITION IS AGAINST HARLOTS “OR” DOGS
Raba of Parzakaia said to R. Ashi: Whence is derived the following statement which the Rabbis made: Harlotry is not applicable to bestial intercourse? — It is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, and yet we learned that the hire of a dog[29] and the price of a harlot[30] are permitted because it is said, Even both these, two only but not four. (Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 59B)
FOOTNOTE 29: The beast which a harlot receives for her intercourse with a dog.
FOOTNOTE 30: A beast received as the price of a harlot who has been sold.
TALMUD CONSIDERS UNCLE/NIECE MARRIAGE “MERITORIOUS”
“Concerning him who loves his neighbours, who befriends his relatives, marries his sister’s [50] daughter… FOOTNOTE 50: This is a meritorious act, because the affection a man has for his sister will be extended to her daughter, his wife”. (1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 62b)
LOT’S OLDER DAUGHTER IS “REWARDED” FOR SLEEPING WITH HER OWN FATHER FIRST (BEFORE HER YOUNGER SISTER) BY HAVING HER BLOODLINE APPEAR IN ROYAL HOUSE OF ISRAEL
R. Hiyya b. Abin said: R. Joshua b. Korha said: A man should always be as alert as possible to perform a precept, for as reward for anticipating the younger by one night, the elder daughter [of Lot] was privileged to appear in the genealogical record of the royal house of Israel, four generations earlier. (Babylonian Talmud, Nazir 23b – 24a)
INCEST WHERE THE PENIS IS FLACID IS NOT PUNISHABLE SINCE FERTILISATION COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE
That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum. This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains thatif one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated;[19] (Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 55b)
FOOTNOTE 19: Since no fertilisation can possibly result.
THE RABBIS OF THE TALMUD AGREE THAT SEX BETWEEN MOTHERS AND SONS IS PERMISSIBLE AS LONG AS THE SON IS BELOW 8 YEARS OLD BECAUSE HE CANNOT CAUSE CONCEPTION
Our Rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son [a minor], and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, — Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit to the priesthood. Beth Hillel declare her fit. R. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani said in R. Hisda’s name; others state, R. Hisda said in Ze’iri’s name: All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not:[5] their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old, Beth Shammai maintaining, We must base our ruling on the earlier generations, but[6] Beth Hillel hold that we do not. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 69b)
FOOTNOE 5: So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less that eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not.
FOOTNOTE 6: When a boy of that age could cause conception.
INCEST PERMISSIBLE FOR NON-JEWS
https://books.google.com/books?id=9pc0CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kiel, Yishai (2015). "Noahide Law and the Inclusiveness of Sexual Ethics: Between Roman Palestine and Sasanian Babylonia". In Porat, Benjamin (ed.). Jewish Law Annual. 21. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge. pp. 61–63. ISBN 978-0-415-74269-6.
Alongside this legal-theoretical interpretation of the differences between the two Rabbinic centers in terms of natural and positive law, the study puts forward a contextual-cultural reading of the data. This reading situates the Palestinian Rabbinic approach in the context of Greco-Roman and Christian rhetoric, and the Babylonian Rabbinic approach in the context of the ambient Iranian culture. In particular, it focuses on the significance of Pahlavi (Middle Persian) literature for a more nuanced and contextual understanding of Babylonian Rabbinic discourse, by examining the Babylonian Talmud's treatment of the sexual prohibitions in light of the well-attested Zoroastrian doctrine of Xwedoda.3 Although the original Avestan meaning of this term is somewhat unclear,4 in the Pahlavi sources xwedodah is said to refer to endogamous marital unions, especially between father and daughter, mother and son, and brother and sister, and is considered one of the most pious and laudable deeds in the Zoroastrian tradition.5
Adducing the Greco-Roman and Christian writings on incest, which generally promote universal standards of sexual conduct and explicitly condemn Iranian deviation from these norms, as we will see below, sheds light on the Palestinian Rabbinic advocacy of inclusive standards of sexual ethics. On the other hand, we can shed light on the Babylonian Talmud's espousal of exclusive, particularistic sexual norms, and relatively tolerant approach to non-Jewish incest, by adducing the Zoroastrian practice of xwedodah and the related doctrine of moral relativism expressed in the Pahlavi literature. I will argue that the Babylonian Rabbinic discussion of Noahide sexual prohibitions invokes certain legal and theological considerations found in the Pahlavi discourse.
While it is likely that the Babylonian Rabbis witnessed the practice of next-of-kin marriages, and that this in turn influenced their approach to doctrinal issues pertaining to incestuous unions, the Babylonian Talmud does not simply respond to the practice of next-of-kin marriages during the Sasanian period.' I contend, rather, that the Babylonian Talmud actually engages with important strands of contemporary Zoroastrian discourse on xwedodah, discourse preserved in the Pahlavi corpus.
To be sure, the Babylonian Rabbis had no wish, nor were they in a position, to challenge the sexual restrictions listed in Leviticus 18 and 20 (which strictly forbid intercourse between first-degree relatives) insofar as Jewish norms were concerned.8 The prohibitions against incest and certain other sexual unions were widely accepted by the post-biblical traditions, Rabbinic and non-Rabbinic alike, and could hardly have been challenged by the Babylonian Rabbis. Nevertheless, I will demonstrate that alongside the prohibitions that are applied to Jews, the Babylonian Talmud voices novel, often subversive stances on incestuous relations among non-Jews, tolerating such relations to varying degrees. Unlike other non-Zoroastrian discussions of incest, which, for the most part, are polemical and critical, the Babylonian Talmud's approach to next-of-kin partnerships is nuanced and complex. Although occasionally polemical,' the discussion in the Babylonian Talmud is far less critical of the practice of Incestuous unions among non-Jews, and even seems to engage with certain key rhetorical and doctrinal arguments made in the Pahlavi writings.
Necrophilia In The Talmud
SEX WITH CORPSES OF ANIMALS (TEREFAH) AND HUMANS MAY BE PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE PUNISHMENT IS PRESCRIBED FOR PLEASURE, AND ACCORDING TO THE RABBIS ONE DOES NOT OBTAIN PLEASURE FROM SEX WITH THE CORPSES OF HUMANS, THUS IT IS PERMITTED
It is necessary to teach concerning one who commits pederasty with a terefah: for I might think that he is as one who abuses a dead person, and hence exempt. Therefore he teaches that [punishment is generally imposed] because of the [forbidden] pleasure derived, and in this case too pleasure is derived (Whereas there is no sexual gratification in abusing the dead).[17] (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 78a)
FOOTNOTE 17: Whereas there is no sexual gratification in abusing the dead.
INCEST WITH A FLACID PENIS IS NOT CONSIDERED INTERCOURSE, BECAUSE FERTILIZATION CANNOT TAKE PLACE, THE SAME IS TRUE WITH DEAD CORPSES, THUS SEX WITH CORPSES IS NOT TECHNICALLY INTERCOURSE AND IS THUS NOT FORBIDDEN
That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum(Since no fertilisation can possibly result).[18] This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden relatives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated;[19] what, however, can be said, according to him who maintains [that for such an act one is] guilty? — The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman.20 Since it might have been assumed that, as [a wife], even after her death, is described as his kin,21 one should be guilty for [intercourse with] her [as for that] with a married woman, hence we were taught [that one is exonerated]. (Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 55b)
FOOTNOTE 18: Since no fertilisation can possibly result.
FOOTNOTE 19: Shebu. 18a, Sanh. 55a.
FOOTNOTE 20: Even though she died as a married woman.
FOOTNOTE 21: In Lev. XXI, 2, where the text enumerates the dead relatives for whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers to one’s wife.
- MOTHER/SON INCEST
Only sex/incest with boys above eight years old renders women impure
“If a woman sported lewdly with her young son [a minor], and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her, — Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit to the priesthood [4]. Beth Hillel declare her fit. R. Hiyya the son of Rabbah b. Nahmani said in R. Hisda’s name; others state, R. Hisda said in Ze’iri’s name: All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not: [5] their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old, Beth Shammai maintaining, We must base our ruling on the earlier generations, but Beth Hillel hold that we do not.” – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 69b
Footnote 4: I.e., she becomes a harlot, whom a priest may not marry (Lev. XXI,
7).
Footnote 5: So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less that eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not.
-SEX WITH INFANT CAPTIVES
Captive slave girls (proselytes) can be married to priests below the age of three they are “fit for cohabitation”
“It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phinehas surely was with them. And the Rabbis? — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. If so, a proselyte whose age is three years and one day should also be permitted! — [The prohibition is to be explained] in accordance with R. Huna. For R. Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written, Kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him, but if she hath not known, save her alive; from this it may be inferred that children are to be kept alive whether they have known or have not known [a man]; and, on the other hand, it is also written, But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, but do not spare them if they have known. Consequently it must be said that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.” - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 60b
-SEX WITH YOUNG BOYS
Boys between 3 and 0 are not “men” and can be used for sex without sin
“Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old one. [23] What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.[24] What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect].[25] But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.[26]. It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Pederasty at the age of nine years and a day“- 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 54b
Footnote 23: The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated supra
54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor, i.e., less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn.
Footnote 24: I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
Footnote 25: At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
Footnote 26: Lev. XVI I, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three.
Sex with heathen boys defiles Jews beginning at age 9, but not before that
“What is the meaning of the phrase used above: ‘and against this other matter on account of still another matter’? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it should cause defilement by seminal emission[17] so that an Israelite child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with him. For R. Zera said: I experienced great trouble with R. Assi,[18] and R. Assi with R. Johanan, and R. Johanan with R. Jannai, and R. Jannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi over this question: From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? — He replied to me: From a day old; but when I came to R. Hiyya, he told me: From the age of nine years and one day. When I then came and discussed the matter with Rabbi, he said to me: Abandon my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya who declared: From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day, for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission.” – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Abodah Zarah 36b
FOOTNOTE 17: [Even though he suffered from no issue.]
FOOTNOTE 18: He put the following question to him and had difficulty in eliciting a reply.
-THREE YEAR OLD GIRLS READY FOR MARRIAGE AND”COITION”
Three year old available for marriage through “coition” in Sanhedrin 69a
Three year old available for marriage through “coition” in Sanhedrin 69a
“R. Jeremiah of Difti said: We also learnt the following: A maiden aged three
years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her, she becomes his.” - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, 69a
Three year old, marriage through “coition” in Sanhedrin 55b
“A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.”- 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin 55b
Three year old “betrothed by cohabitation”In Yebamoth 57b
“Raba said, We also learned a similar Baraitha: A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation; if a levir cohabited with her, he has thereby acquired her; [9] one incurs through her the guilt of intercourse with a married woman” - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yabamouth 57b
FOOTNOTE 9: She is deemed to be his legal wife.
Three year old girls are “betrothed by intercourse” in Niddah 44b
“MISHNAH. A GIRL OF THE AGE OF THREE YEARS AND ONE DAY MAY BE BETROTHED BY INTERCOURSE; IF THE YABAM HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HER, HE ACQUIRES HER THEREBY; THE GUILT OF ADULTERY MAY BE INCURRED THROUGH HER, AND SHE CAUSES UNCLEANNESS TO THE MAN WHO HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HER SO THAT HE IN TURN CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS TO THAT UPON WHICH HE LIES, AS TO A GARMENT WHICH HAS LAIN UPON [A ZAB]. IF SHE WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST, SHE MAY EAT TERUMAH. IF ANY OF THE INELIGIBLE PERSONS COHABITED WITH HER HE DISQUALIFIES HER FROM THE PRIESTHOOD. IF ANY OF THE FORBIDDEN DEGREES ENUMERATED IN THE TORAH COHABITED WITH HER HE IS TO BE EXECUTED ON HER ACCOUNT, BUT SHE IS EXEMPT [FROM THE PENALTY]. IF ONE WAS YOUNGER THAN THIS AGE INTERCOURSE WITH HER IS LIKE PUTTING A FINGER IN THE EYE. ” - 1962
- ONLY MINORS MAY USE BIRTH CONTROL
Only minors between eleven and twelve years old can use contraception All other ages above and *below* this must not use contraception in Yebamoth 12b
“Three [categories of] women may use an absorbent in their marital intercourse: A minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. The minor, because [otherwise] she might become pregnant, and as a result might die… And what is the age of such a minor? From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under, or over this age must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner. ” - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 12b
Only minors between eleven and twelve years old can use contraception All other ages above and *below* this must not use contraception in Niddah 45a
“Our Rabbis taught: It is related of Justinia the daughter of ‘Aseverus son of Antonius that she once appeared before Rabbi ‘Master’, she said to him, ‘at what age may a woman marry?’. ‘At the age of three years and one day’, he told her. ’And at what age is she capable of conception?’ ‘At the age of twelve years and one day’, he replied. ‘I’, she said to him, ‘married at the age of six and bore a child at the age of seven; alas for the three years that I have lost at my father’s house’. But can a woman conceive at the age of six years? Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman: Three classes of woman may use an absorbent in their marital intercourse: A minor, and an expectant and a nursing mother. The minor, because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother, because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal. A nursing mother, because otherwise she might have to wean her child prematurely, and this would result in his death. And what is the age of such a‘minor’? From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under or over this age must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner” – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 45a
- SEX WITH SLAVE GIRLS
Joshua Tested Girls Virginity With Wine Bottles, Should Have Used Front Plate Test
And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him; whence did they know it? R. Kahana replied: They made them sit upon the mouth of a wine-cask. [Through anyone who had] had previous intercourse, the odour penetrated; through a virgin, its odour did not penetrate. They should have been made to pass before the frontplate! - Yebamoth 60b
The law stipulates that the girls were to be passed before a “frontplate”, the gold plate which was worn by the High Priest on his forehead; if the face of the young girl turned pale it was known that she was a virgin and fit for cohabitation; if it did not turn pale it was known that she was not a virgin and therefore unfit for cohabitation… because according to the Talmud “dropsy is a manifestation of lewdness.” - Yebamoth 60b
Captive Slave Girls May Be Married To Priests Younger Than 3 Years Old
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phinehas surely was with them. And the Rabbis?16 — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. If so, a proselyte whose age is three years and one day should also be permitted! - Yebamoth 60b
Comments
Post a Comment