I was having a discussion with a friend, some weeks back, about adultery in Torah. The discussion hinged on the Christian understanding being incorrect (that is to say, that both the man and woman are chayav for adultery). My friend pointed to the language in Devarim 23:18 to disprove both to prove that the peshat is like the Christian understanding (he's quite a fromm Jew) and that pre-marital relations are not specifically assur.
Does this passuk actually serve as a proof that pre-marital relations are assur ?
לֹא־תִֽהְיֶ֥ה קְדֵשָׁ֖ה מִבְּנ֣וֹת יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְלֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה קָדֵ֖שׁ מִבְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
Answer
Rav Hirsch explains that the term קדוש is the complete surrender to the moral good while קדש is the complete surrender to the morally bad. As a result, he says that this forbids all forms of sexual immorality, which would include premarital sex.
In fact, While one of the standard translations of
לֹא־תִֽהְיֶ֥ה קְדֵשָׁ֖ה מִבְּנ֣וֹת יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְלֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֥ה קָדֵ֖שׁ מִבְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
There shall not be a prostitute of the daughters of Israel, and there shall not be a male prostitute of the sons of Israel.
Rav Hirsch translates this pasuk as
There shall be no one dedicated to immorality of the daughters of Israel, and no one dedicated to immorality of the sons of Israel.
He then explains
Just as קדוש is the complete surrender to what is morally good, קדש is the surrender to what is morally low and bad.
...
Immorality is every sexual intercourse which has not had the dedication of קידושין, hence also the so-called marriages of people who are not eligible for קידושין, שאין קידושין טופתים בהם, as then Onkelos translates the concept קדשה and קדש by concrete examples אתתא מבנות ישראל לגבר עבד and לא יסב גברא מבני ישראל אתתא אמתא. The wording of our text demands the same degree of chaste morality in its sons as it does in its daughters, and in their keeping such chaste morality recognizes the justification for the name "children of Israel".
No comments:
Post a Comment