Issurei Biah - Chapter Twelve

Licentious relations with a gentile man or woman are not included in the scope of this Scriptural prohibition, as stated in the following halachah.

Although the verse the Rambam cites as a prooftext refers to the seven Canaanite nations, all other gentiles are also included as reflected by the verse from Nechemiah.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 16) differs with the Rambam, explaining that the verse should be understood within its limited context, referring only to the seven nations. (The Rambam’s opinion has a source in the Sheiltot D ‘Rabbenu Achai Gaon, while that of the Tur is found in the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol) The crux of the difference is the exegesis of the continuation of the verse cited by the Rambam: “For he shall sway your son away.” Kiddushin 68b quotes Rabbi Shimon as focusing on the motivating rationale for the verse and thus including all those who might sway a person’s heart. Thus it refers to all gentiles. The Sages, however, do not accept this perspective.

Although the verse is contained in the Book ofNechemiah, the Rambam considers Ezra and Nechemiah as one book. See Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:15. Similarly, Sanhedrin 93b states that none of the books of the Tanach are named after Nechemiah.
The verse cited by the Rambam is part of the oath taken by the people to remain true to their faith upon their return to Zion. At that time, the gentiles living in the land were not Canaanites.

The Tur, loc. cit., differs with the Rambam concerning this point as well, stating that there is no concept of marriage between a Jew and non-Jew.

This was a decree passed by the court of the Hasmoneans when they saw that the Jews were sharing intimacy with Greek women (Avodah Zarah 36b). The transgressor is given stripes several times, once for each of the Rabbinic prohibitions he ignored.

According to Scriptural Law, if a Jew engages in relations with a gentile woman in public “the zealous may strike him,” as stated in Halachah 4. The Hasmoneons’ decree, however, applies even when relations were carried out in private. ·

The term zonah is generally translated as “prostitute.” It has, however, a precise halachic definition, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 1.

Note the contrast to the laws applying to a Jewish zonah, as mentioned in Chapter 17, Halachah 2.

The Ra’avad rules that the zealous person must warn the transgressor before striking him. The Maggid Mishneh states that the concept of a warning is relevant only with regard to execution by the court and not to the independent actions taken by a zealous person. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 425:4) quotes the Ra’avad’s view.

I.e., a law which is not commanded by the Written Torah, yet communicated by the Oral Tradition.

As Numbers, ch. 25 relates, the Jews began worshiping idols, because they were lured to by Midianite women. Enraged Moses commanded that the worshipers be executed. Zimri, the prince of the tribe of Shimon, took a Midianite woman and confronted Moses, engaging in relations before him. When Pinchas saw this, he slew Zimri, giving expression to the law mentioned by the Rambam.

Our Sages relate that Pinchas’ javelin went through Zimri’s back and into her gut, killing them both in the midst of relations.

Even if he transgressed already.

Needless to say, a warning must be given and two acceptable witnesses must observe the slaying.

The initiative to slay the transgressor must be totally that of the zealous person. For the court has no obligation - and therefore no license - to exact such punishment.

For the zealous person is considered as a rodef, pursuer, whom the intended victim has the right to slay, as stated in Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 1.

As explained in Chapter 14, Halachah 7, this refers to a non-Jew who accepted the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants.

The Maggid Mishneh writes that ifhe was given “stripes for rebellious conduct” by the court, he is no longer liable for karet. Our Sages (Makkot 23b) state a similar concept with regard to a person who receives lashes for the violation of a Scriptural prohibition. The Rambam extends the idea to include a person who is punished on the basis of Rabbinic decree.

This applies even if relations are conducted in private.

As interpreted by Yevamot 22b, 23a.

Indeed, Horiot 13a states that a mamzer who is a scholar receives precedence over a High Priest who is unlearned.

For adultery is prohibited to gentiles.

Note the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh who questions the source for the Rambam’s ruling, arguing that the passage from Numbers cannot be interpreted as definitive proof.

See Chapter 1, Halachot 16-18.

If, however, she is younger than three, the relations are not considered significant.

From that age onward, sexual relations in which he engages are. significant, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 13.

Who advised the Midianites and the Moabites to have their women seduce Jewish men to provoke God’s wrath.

See Chapter 14, Halachah 9.

I.e., the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, as indicated by the conclusion of this halachah and the following halachot.

And not lashes, as is the punishment for the violation of a Scriptural commandment.

Were there to be a Scriptural prohibition involved, it would not be relaxed in the case of a servant.

So that the offspring will be the master’s.

Forbidding such relations to a Hebrew servant (Ma’aseh Roke’ach).

Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

Who composed the standard Aramaic translation of the Torah.

The Rambam does not fully accept the view of Onkelos. For Onkelos defines the scope of the Biblical prohibition as including these relations and the Rambam does not, as evident from the fact that the Rambam does not consider these relations as punishable by lashes. (The Rambam also has a different conception of the prohibition of relations with “a promiscuous woman”; see Hilchot lshut 1:4.) Nevertheless, the Rarnbam uses the view of Onkelos as support for his condemnation of this act (Mayim Chayim; see also Beit Shmuel 16:6). ·

In contrast to relations with a gentile woman (Halachah 4).

In contrast to marriage to a gentile woman (Halachah 1).

When explaining this possibility the Talmud gives the example of women who gave birth together in a cave. Today, unfortunately, such confusion has happened in hospitals.

Otherwise, because of the doubt, neither of the children would be able to marry. They could not marry a Jewess, for perhaps they were servants, nor a maid-servant, for perhaps they were Jews (compare to Hilchot Avadim 7:7).

Since we do not know which is the servant and which is the master, they must both free each other. And thus the servant will certainly have been freed by the master.
Before they reach adulthood, however, it is impossible for one to free the other, because a minor may not free a servant.

In this instance, the Rambam does not say that the owner must free the offspring, because there is no obligation for a woman to marry and bear children.

Thus they are forbidden to marry a priest, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 3 (Maggid Mishneh ).

As described in Chapter 13.

At which time his conversion process is completed.

I.e., there is no difference between a convert and a native Israelite with regard to any matter of Jewish observance.

But not a priest (Maaseh Rokeach).

The rationale for this leniency is explained as follows. The Torah explains the reason for this prohibition: “Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the way.” Now it is not appropriate for women to greet travelers with food. Hence, since the sin does not apply with regard to women -· the consequence of it - the prohibition against marrying into the Jewish people also does not apply with regard to them.

They may, however, marry women who converted to Judaism or freed maid-servants. Shaar HaMelech also states that these individuals may even marry maid-servants who were not yet freed.

Indeed, Ruth the maternal ancestor of King David - and ultimately of Mashiach - was a female Moabite convert. Initially, and indeed for several generations, there were questions whether she and her descendants were allowed to marry within the Jewish people. Ultimately, however, the ruling stated by the RaJnbam was accepted throughout the Jewish community. See Yevamot 76b.

Rashi differs and maintains that the child’s status depends on that of its mother. Thus if the mother is. a second generation Egyptian convert, the child is a third generation convert and is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:4) quotes both views.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that the intent is that everyone knows that birth involves both a man and a woman. Hence the child must be the third generation of both the male and the female.

Who has converted.

The Maggid Mishneh refers to Yevamot 78b and maintains. that this ruling applies only when the offspring are male. If they are female, they are not considered as Ammonites (and hence, permitted). Instead, they are considered as Egyptian and forbidden for three generations, i.e., we follow the greater blemish. This view is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4:7).

This also can be considered as applying only when the offspring are male. If they are female, some opinions considered them as permitted (as a female Amrnonite) and others as Egyptian [Rama (Even HaEzer, Loc. cit.)].

This ruling depends on the Rambam’s interpretation of the prohibition: “You shall not intermarry with them” mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. As explained, according to the Rambam, the verse applies to all gentiles, not only Canaanites, and only before they convert. Once they convert, all gentiles - except the four nations mentioned in the previous halachot - may marry freely among the Jewish people. The other authorities, by contrast, maintain that the prohibition applies to the Canaanite nations alone and after conversion. Otherwise, they maintain, it is unnecessary, for there is no concept of marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew.

Note Joshua, ch. 9, which relates how the Gibeonites deceived the Jewish people and established a covenant with them.

Because of the deception they perpetrated.

For the narrative in Ezra speaks of a time when the Temple had already been destroyed.

As related in II Samuel, ch. 21, there was a famine for three years in Eretz Yisrael. Through prophetic vision, David learned that the reason for the famine was Saul's oppression of the Gibeonites (exactly what Saul did to oppress them is a matter of discussion among the Rabbis). David asked the Gibeonites what they desired to be appeased for this oppression. They answered that they wanted to slay seven of his descendants. David handed over seven of Saul's descendants to them and they hung them and left their corpses on the gallows. For this act of cruelty, David decreed that they should never marry among the Jewish people. For Israel should be characterized by kindness and mercy. See Chapter 19, Halachah 17, which further develops this theme.

I.e., in order to thwart the possibility· of local peoples organizing rebellions against him, Sannecherib destroyed the national identity of people by exiling them from their native lands and forcing them to intermingle with other peoples.

This principle applies in many instances when forbidden and permitted substances or individuals become mixed together. See for example, Yoma 84b, Zevachim 73a,b.

The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 4: 10) quotes this ruling, but states that according to the opinion of Rabbenu Asher, Sannecherib did not succeed in erasing the identity of the Egyptians and the prohibition against marrying their converts still applies.