Joel Brewer
  • Followers 63
  • Following 142
  • Updates 202
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @jeffrey-siegel's Timeline
23 hours ago
The 361st prohibition is that we are forbidden from damaging the reproductive organs of any male, including all species of animals, as well as humans.
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 which follows mention of [animals whose reproductive organs were] crushed by hand or by instrument, pulled loose, or severed — "in your land you may not do this."
[Our Sages2 gave] the explanation of this verse: "among you [i.e. by Jews] it may not be done.(Rather than it being prohibited only in the Land of Israel-J.S.)"
One who transgresses this prohibition — i.e. who castrates one from any species — receives lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are explained in a number of passages in Shabbat and Yevamot.
(Neutering of a female is prohibited by Rabbinic Law.-J.S.)
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @jeffrey-siegel's Timeline
3 days ago
The 360th prohibition is that a man whose reproductive organs have been damaged to the extent that he cannot father children is forbidden from having relations with a Jewish woman.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "a man with crushed testicles or a cut member may not enter the congregation of G‑d."t.

If he had relations with a Jewish woman after kiddushin, he receives lashes.

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the ninth chapter of Yevamot.
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @barnes-family's Timeline
4 days ago
The weather is going to be 39 partly cloudy.
Have a good day bye Kaliyah:)
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @jeffrey-siegel's Timeline
4 days ago
The 359th prohibition is that the motzi shem ra i(a man who claimed his wife was not a virgin when he married her, but she was exonerated by the court) is forbidden from divorcing his wife.

The source of this commandment too1 is G‑d's statement,2 "he may not send her away as long as he lives."

This prohibition is also3 preceded by a positive command, "he must then take her as his wife."

Should he divorce his wife, the law regarding lashes is like that of the rapist,4 as explained in the last chapter of Makkot.5 The details of this mitzvah are explained there, and in the third and fourth chapters of Ketubot.
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer is now following @britane
5 days ago
Joined one month ago

  • Followers 6
  • Following 5
  • Updates 0
Flag This! 0
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @jeffrey-siegel's Timeline
5 days ago
The 358th prohibition is that a rapist is forbidden from divorcing the woman he raped.(If the victim wished to marry him-J.S.)

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "He must then take her to be his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives."

This prohibition is preceded by the positive commandment,3 "He must then take her as his wife." In tractate Makkot it is clearly explained that this is considered a "prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment."

It is also said there, "A rapist who divorces his wife — if he is not a Cohen, he remarries her and does not receive lashes. If he is a Cohen, he receives lashes, and he may not remarry her [since a Cohen may not marry a divorcee]."5

You should keep in mind that even a non-Cohen will receive lashes for divorcing the woman he raped, if he cannot perform the remedial positive command [of remarrying her]. This would be in a case where she died before he remarried her, or she married another man after he divorced her.6 This corresponds to our principle, "If he fulfilled [the remedial positive commandment, he does not get lashes]; if he did not fulfill" [this commandment, he would receive lashes].7

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubot.
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @jeffrey-siegel's Timeline
6 days ago
The 357th prohibition is that other1 men are prohibited from having relations with a yevamah(a woman whose husband has died childless. She must either marry her husband's brother, or undergo the halitzah ceremony) while she is still waiting for the yavam.(Brother in law).

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,4 "The wife of the deceased is not allowed to marry an outsider."

Both the woman and the man are punished by lashes for transgressing this prohibition.

The details of this mitzvah are explained in tractate Yevamot.
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @jeffrey-siegel's Timeline
one week ago
The 356th prohibition is that a man is forbidden from remarrying his divorced wife, if she was married to another man in the interim.1

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He) [that if her second husband divorces her or dies,] "then her first husband who divorced her cannot remarry her."

The punishment for transgression of this prohibition is malkot (lashes).

The details of this mitzvah are explained in a number of passages in Yevamot.
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @jeffrey-siegel's Timeline
one week ago
Negative Commandment 356
The 355th prohibition is that we are forbidden from having relations with a woman without [giving her] a Ketubah (marriage contract)and acquiring her through the kiddushin ceremony.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement1 (exalted be He), "There may not be any prostitutes among Jewish girls."

This same commandment is repeated, but using a different expression, in G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Do not defile your daughter, making her a prostitute." The Sifra says, " 'Do not defile your daughter' — this command is directed towards a man who hands over his unmarried daughter for sexual relations without marriage, as well as a girl who herself has sexual relations without marriage."

Now listen as I explain why the prohibition is repeated with this wording,3 and what the repetition adds. G‑d (exalted be He) has already instructed us in the Torah that a man who has relations with a virgin incurs none of the punishments4, regardless of whether he seduced or raped her. Rather, he must pay a monetary fine and marry the girl that he harmed, as explained in the Torah.5

Accordingly, a person might think that since the offender is only required to pay a fine, therefore this is looked upon as a purely financial case. Therefore, just as a person, if he wishes, is allowed to give away his money to another person, or to forgive a debt, so too, [he might think,] he may take his unmarried daughter and give her to a man to have relations with her. This would be like forgiving a debt due to him, since the 50 silver [shekels which the seducer or rapist must pay] go to the father. Alternatively, a person might think that [since this is purely a financial matter,] he may give his daughter on condition that the man pays a certain amount of money.

Therefore, the Torah prohibited this and said, "Do not defile your daughter by making her a prostitute." The monetary fine only refers to a case where the seduction or rape actually occurred. But it is still completely forbidden for them to engage in sexual relations, even when they both agree.

The Torah also reveals the reason for this prohibition: ["Do not defile your daughter by making her a prostitute,] and you will then not make the land sexually immoral, and the land [will not] be filled with perversion." The explanation of this: seduction and rape occur very rarely, but if the Torah allowed premarital relations when both parties agree, it would occur often and become widespread throughout the world.

This is a fine and wondrous explanation of this verse, and fits all the sayings of our Sages and laws of the Torah.

This prohibition, i.e. the prohibition of [having relations with] an unmarried woman, is punishable by lashes.

The details of this mitzvah are explained in Ketubot and Kiddushin.

(Most other rabbis disagree with RAMBAM, and consider this to be a rabbinic prohibition. - J.S.)
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @jeffrey-siegel's Timeline
one week ago
The 354th prohibition is that a mamzer1 is forbidden from having relations with a Jewish woman.2

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,3 "a mamzer may not enter the congregation of G‑d."

One who transgresses this prohibition receives lashes.

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the eighth chapter of Yevamot and the end of Kiddushin.

("Mamzer", usually translated as "bastard", is a person born as a result of incest or adultery, not one born out of wedlock.-J.S.)
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @jeffrey-siegel's Timeline
2 weeks ago
The 353rd prohibition is that we are forbidden from deriving pleasure from any forbidden partner,1 even without sexual relations, e.g. through kissing, hugging, and the like.

The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,2 "To a close relative, do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations," as if to say, "do not come close to them in any type of closeness which could lead to sexual relations."

The Sifra says, "The phrase, "Do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations," would seem only to prohibit actual sexual relations. How do we know that one may not have other types of closeness? From the verse,3 'Do not come close to a woman who is unclean from being in nidah (menstruant).' This only proves that both relations and closeness are forbidden with a woman who is in nidah. How do we know that the same applies to all forbidden partners? From the verse, 'Do not approach to have forbidden sexual relations.' " There it also says, "What is the meaning of the phrase,4 'Those who do5 [these sexual violations] shall be cut off spiritually'? Since it says, 'Do not approach,' one might think that karet is incurred even for other forms of closeness; the verse therefore says 'those who do,' not 'those who come close.' " The Torah repeats its prohibition of these vulgar acts in the verse,6 'Do not follow any of the perverted customs'

However,7 the two prohibitions,8 "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor the ways of Canaan...," do not just prohibit the "perverted customs' [and therefore repetitions of the prohibition against acts of closeness], but rather the perversions themselves which are listed in the subsequent verses. These two prohibitions therefore include all forbidden sexual relations; but since the prohibition against following "the ways of Egypt" and "the ways of Canaan" includes all their immoral acts,9 and matters of agriculture, raising animals, and social life, the Torah therefore continued by specifying the specific type of sexual relation referred to — this type, another type, and so on. This is clear from the verse at the end of this section,10 "The people who lived in the land before you did all these disgusting perversions." The Sifra says, "I would think [from the ban on following 'the ways of Egypt,' etc.] that one may not construct buildings or plant vineyards like theirs. The Torah therefore adds,11 'Do not follow [any] of their customs' — the prohibition covers only customs which have been practiced by they and their forefathers." And there it explains, "What did they used to do? A man would marry another man; a woman another woman; and one woman would marry two men."

This all proves that the prohibitions against following "the ways of Egypt" and "the ways of Canaan" are of a general nature, covering all forbidden sexual relations. Afterwards, the particular categories are each mentioned separately.

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah to the seventh chapter of Sanhedrin, where it is also explained that the punishment is lashes.

It is also important to know that in any case where sexual relations are forbidden upon punishment of karet, a child conceived from that forbidden union is called a mamzer. G‑d has called this child a mamzer, whether the forbidden union was intentional or accidental — with the exception of a child born from a union when the mother was in nidah. Then the child is not called a mamzer, but a ben nidah. This is explained in the fourth chapter of Yevamot.12
Joel Brewer
@joel-brewer Liked @jeffrey-siegel's Timeline
2 weeks ago
The 352nd prohibition is that one is forbidden from having [homosexual] relations with one's father's brother.

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,1 "do not commit a sexual offense against your father's brother."

One who unintentionally has relations with his father's brother must also bring two sin-offerings, as we explained regarding one's father.2 In tractate Sanhedrin they explain, "according to all opinions, one who has relations with his father's brother must bring two [sin-offerings], as the verse says, 'do not commit a sexual offense against your father's brother.' "

You should know3 that when I use the phrase, "acceptable testimony," I mean that there were two or more valid witnesses who gave the warning; that the testimony was given before a valid Beth Din of 23 members; and that it took place during a time when capital cases could be judged.