Three years and one day
Hello, Your Honor,
While studying the Strong Hand, I came across the laws of marriage, and the issue of the sanctification of a minor daughter, which is found in Chapter 3. According to the scripture, a father is given halakhic permission to sanctify his daughter in marriage from the moment she is three years and one day old until she reaches adulthood. I saw another question on the site about ‘the attitude of the halakhic law to pedophilia’ in which you wrote that the halakhic law is separate from morality and therefore has no relation to the moral aspects of rulings. However, especially in this specific halakhic law, it is impossible not to be shocked at the thought of this matter and the halakhic reference that the father receives for such an act. It is difficult for me to accept that the Torah, as a law of life that should not be disconnected from any aspect of humanity, would allow a father to give his daughter to another person in order to have her impregnated at such a young age.
In other words, I can live with the fact that halakha is generally disconnected from morality. But seeing such a halakha without any attempt to prohibit or restrict it makes me feel really bad about the matter.
Are there other aspects of Judaism that prohibit this? Was there even a relationship to the issue in Judaism at the time of Maimonides or before, beyond the halakhic aspect?
I would be happy if you could help me sort this out, thanks in advance.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In this specific case, the halakha does not “not prohibit” as in the example you gave, but actively permits and, in my opinion, also legitimizes the matter. Therefore, I want to return to the question of where there is a non-halakhic approach to the issue, which aggravates the act?
What is the difference between not forbidding and permitting? There is no difference.
Halacha will usually not address a non-halachaic issue. Is what I write also relevant? So here I did.
Beyond that, you are making an anachronistic judgment. What was acceptable at that time is different from what is acceptable today. I assume that the Sages would not have been shocked by this, like all the other people at that time. All sorts of reasons can be presented for this, but I don't see why it matters at all.
[As a side note, I would like to point out that the question contains an error stemming from a reading of Halacha 15 without reading Halacha 28, which denies the sanctification of the entrance to both the great and the small, and says that the temple in the entrance prepares it for a plague of rebellion. Although this does not negate the essence of the question.]
I didn't understand what the mistake was. Even if she doesn't get consecrated at the wedding, after she gets consecrated there are marital relations. “Everyone knows why the bride enters the chuppa”.
What is the difference between not forbidding and permitting?
Where to even begin….
at first
I would love the full answer, for some reason it doesn't appear in the thread.
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%94/
The questioner meant this, and that's where I referred to column 15.
This proverb creates an endless, abysmal hatred towards Judaism throughout the world and there is no excuse that will allow its existence - it is serious and works against us. Any excuse to explain it is doomed to failure and it is important to say that although it has only theoretical medical value, it was decided to remove it because it creates great anger among every Jew and simply remove it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
