Greetings. I am interested in knowing whether the category of a "zonah" in halacha carries with it a social stigma in relation to an unmarried woman who had relations, or is merely a category of individuals, i.e. women ineligible to marry a kohen, in a way similar to a chalela. In other words, does the Torah merely say that such a woman who had relations according to the testimony of witnesses who is called a "zonah" carries the socially deprecating idea of of being promiscuous etc., or is just excluding her from the marriage without any actual social stigma since the Torah does not actually forbid premarital relations per se.
Further to the previous question, until modern times women used to get married by 12 or 13, so they used the mikveh very early. Nowadays women get married much later. Since there is no prohibition for unmarried women to use the mikveh, and some Sephardim have accepted this practice of unmarried women using the mikveh, wouldn't it be a good thing to promote especially among the non-frum to save them from kares?
David Goldman, USA
1) The Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 1:4) writes that anyone who has relations outside of marriage transgresses a Torah prohibition. The Rambam's source is Devarim 23:18: "There shall be no Kedeshah amongst the daughters of Israel."
2) The Beis Yosef (end of Yoreh Deah 183) cites the Rivash (#425) that the reason why immersing in the Mikvah was not instituted for single women is in order that they should not come to commit prohibited relationships, which they might be tempted to think are less serious once the serious prohibition of Nidah has been removed.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you. However, the prohibition against unmarried women was not instituted by a Sanhedrin because in those days single women did go to the mikveh even for a long time after the chorban, and in fact this practice did continue among Sephardim for a long time, even to today. Also among Yemenites.
Also, are there sources in the gemara referring to the position of the Rambam in relation that posuk? Especially since a kedesha was someone who practiced "temple" sexual relations among the pagans.
Onkeles identifies this as a slave who marries a non-slave. And a "zonah" is a category prohibited to a kohen like a divorced woman.
The Rambam, in the Book of Mitzvos (negative commandment #355), writes that someone who has relations without a Kesubah and kidushin, trangresses a negative commandment. Aside from "kadeshah", this warning is doubled in Vayikra 19:29, "You shall not desecrate your daughter to make her a Zonah". Rambam cites the Sifri that this refers to a father who hands over his single daughter for relations outside of marriage, or for a woman who gives herself over for this.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bllom
1) There is a source for the above Rambam from the Gemara in Sanhedrin 76a, which states that the verse, "You shall not desecrate your daughter to make her a Zonah," is referring to someone who gives his daughter over for relations outside of marriage. Rashi writes that he allows her to have relations of Z'nus. This is a source from the Gemara that premarital relations are forbidden by the Torah.
2) Concerning Mikvah usage for unmarried women, we do find in the Gemara in Nidah 32a that girls were immersed in the Mikvah at a very young age if they experienced Nidah bleeding. However, the Gemara states that this was in order that the girl should not make Terumah become Tamei. The Teshuvos ha'Rivash (end of #425) writes that there is no authority who permits relations with a single woman. He writes that this is why Mikvah usage for single women was abolished in the later generations. It was in order that people not mistakenly think that relations are permitted with her.
Dovid Bloom
I thought a "bo al hapenuya" is only an issur d'rabanan (assuming no niddah issue)?
Moshe, there are different opinions among the Rishonim whether "Ba Al ha'Penuyah" is an Isur d'Oraisa or an Isur d'Rabanan, but the Rema (in Shulchan Aruch, Even ha'Ezer 177:5) writes that it is forbidden for a father to give his daughter over for Z'nus, and about this the Torah says, "Do not defile your daughter through promiscuity" (Vayikra 19:29).
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
I don't understand how having relations without a kesubba is a violation when a person is allowed to have a pilegesh instead as discussed by a number of sources including R. Yaakov Emden.
Plus there are other interpretations besides Rambam on these matters.
And how could the Rivash say immersion for girls was abolished when it continued even until modern times among Sephardim and Yemenites?
Finally there were rabbis in Italy even several hundred years ago who were confronted with problems and advocated unmarried girls use the mikveh to avoid kares.
Of course this does not address the issue of pilegesh about which poskim differ from the Rambam. And nowadays fathers don't usually give their daughters. The daughters decide on their own what they are doing autonomously.
And unfortunately because more people wait much later to marry their are risks of kares, which could be avoided at least by the use of the mikveh. And of course nowadays women would anyway reject the very notion of kinyan marriage with the risks of agunahood involved. And of requiring a get like a slave.
Women today are. CEOs, doctors, lawyers, etc. They are not just in passive roles anymore....
David, to a certain extent, our discussion is similar to that between the Rivash and his questioner, over 600 years ago, in Teshuvos ha'Rivash #425. The questioner argued that relations for a single woman are less serious and it is more important to save the Kares of Nidah, while the Rivash answered that if single women were advised to immerse in the Mikvah then, on the contrary, the removal of the Nidah prohibition may tempt them to commit other prohibitions.
The Beis Yosef (of Yoreh Deah #183) cites the Rivash without mentioning any dissenting opinion.
(It should be pointed out that both the Rivash and the Beis Yosef were Sefardi Poskim.)
Even though it is possible that in certain places single women went to the Mikvah, I do not see evidence that this had the backing of a leading Posek.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom