Q&A: Three Years and One Day
Three Years and One Day
Question
Hello, Rabbi,
While studying the Mishneh Torah, I reached the laws of marriage, and the topic dealing with the betrothal of a minor girl found in chapter 3. According to what is written there, a father is given halakhic permission to betroth his daughter through intercourse from the moment she is three years and one day old until she reaches maturity. I saw another question on the site about “the attitude of Jewish law toward pedophilia,” where you wrote that Jewish law is separate from morality and therefore does not address the moral aspects in its rulings. Even so, especially with this specific law, it is impossible not to be horrified at the thought of it and at the halakhic backing the father receives for such an act. It is hard for me to accept that the Torah, as a Torah of life that is not supposed to be detached from any layer of humaneness, would permit a father to give his daughter to another man so that he would have intercourse with her at such a young age.
In other words, I can live with the idea that Jewish law is generally separate from morality. But to see a law like this with no attempt at all to forbid it or place limits on it gives me a really bad feeling about the whole matter.
Are there other sides of Judaism that forbid this? Is there any discussion of the issue in Judaism in the time of Maimonides or before, beyond the strictly halakhic aspect?
I would be glad if you could help settle my mind on the subject. Thank you in advance.
Answer
What I had to say, I already said. I do not see why there should be such great shock. Even if it is permitted halakhically, it is forbidden morally. What is the problem with that? For example, the law does not forbid eating human flesh, even though it is disgusting. Does that mean there is something wrong with the law?
Discussion on Answer
What is the difference between not forbidding and permitting? There is no difference at all.
Jewish law usually does not address non-halakhic matters. Is what I write also relevant? Well, then I have addressed it.
Beyond that, you are making an anachronistic judgment. What was accepted in that period was different from what is accepted nowadays. I assume the Sages were not horrified by this, just like all other human beings in that period. You can offer all kinds of reasons for that, but I do not see why it is important at all.
[As an aside, I would note that the question contains an error that stems from reading halakhah 15 without reading halakhah 28, which rules out betrothal through intercourse both for an adult woman and for a minor girl, and says that one who betroths through intercourse is given disciplinary lashes. Even so, that does not negate the main point of the question].
I did not understand the error. Even if she is not betrothed through intercourse, once she is betrothed there are marital relations. “Everyone knows why a bride enters the wedding canopy.”
What is the difference between not forbidding and permitting?
Where do you even begin….
At the beginning.
I would appreciate the full answer; for some reason it does not 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 that one, and there I referred him to column 15.
This saying creates bottomless, endless hatred toward Judaism around the world, and there is no excuse that can justify its existence—it is severe and works against us. Any attempt to explain it is doomed to fail, 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 it should simply be removed.
In my opinion this thing also has to be removed, urgently!!!!! Now I too have gotten into a situation where I have to explain publicly this nonsense that some old man once wrote! This thing really made me lose respect for him, and also feel that all this refraining from physical contact until marriage is no longer worth anything when there is something like this that calls itself Judaism! Horrifying, disgusting, and it must be erased from every possible book.
In this specific case, Jewish law does not merely “not forbid” it, as in the example you gave, but actively permits it and, in my opinion, also gives it legitimacy. So I want to return to the question: where is there any attitude toward the issue from the non-halakhic side, one that denounces the act?