Rambam Raavad Laws of Forbidden Relations 3 halacha 8.

 On the way to and from the sea it occurred to me to defend what I wrote in my blog blog about the way the Raavad must understand to the Gemara in Ketuboth 45a. I also thinking of mentioning that the way i understand the Raavad seems at first glance  to disagree with Rav Shach. At any rate, for now let me share the Gemara, and then show how the Raavad understands it. דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלאועל כן אם סרחהואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע  דחידוש הוא דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיהן מקדימים לבית הסקילה [Rava said really when the category changes so does the type of penalty.] actually I think this Gemara is clear. the whole idea of the juxtaposition and comparison of when she has gone into the chupa and not had sex with her husband yet and when she has had sex with her husband is just to say simply that the  case of מוציא שם רע  'ןאי with stoning is different that if she has not had sex with her husband yet and thus is choked. To the Raavad there is no implication about a new law of having a case of stoning because of whole point of the argument of Rava is to get to the last point about ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיהן מקדימים לבית___________________________________________

To defend what I wrote about the way the ראב''ד understands the גמרא in כתובות מ''ה ע''א. Here is the Gemara: דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלא ועל כן אם סרחה ואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע  דחידוש הוא, דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק, ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע, היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה. The whole idea of the juxtaposition and comparison of when she has gone into the חופה and not had יחסים with her husband yet and when she has had יחסים with her husband is just to say simply that the  case of מוציא שם רע   with stoning is different that if she has not had יחסים with her husband yet and thus is choked. To the ראב''ד there is no implication about a new law of having a case of stoning, because of whole point of the argument of רבא is to get to the last point about ולכן הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע הוא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה___________________________________________

להגן על מה שכתבתי על האופן שבו הראב''ד מבין את הגמרא בכתובות מ''ה ע''א. הנה הגמרא: דדחי רבא דבעלמא אמרינן הואיל ואשתני דינא אשתני קטלא ועל כן אם סרחה ואחר כך בגרה תידון בחנק אבל שאני מוציא שם רע דחידוש הוא, דהא נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק, ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה. ומשבגרה הוציאה שם עליה רע, היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה. כל הרעיון של הצירוף וההשוואה של מתי היא נכנסה לחופה ועדיין לא היו לה יחסים עם בעלה ומתי היו לה יחסים עם בעלה זה רק לומר בפשטות שהמקרה של מוציא שם רע עם סקילה שונה מכך אם היא עדיין לא עשתה יחסים עם בעלה ולכן היא נחנקת. לראב''ד אין שום משמעות לגבי דין חדש של מקרה סקילה, כי כל ​​הטענה של רבא היא להגיע לנקודה האחרונה לגבי הדין בנערה מאורסה שזינתה ומשבגרה הוציא עליה שם רע היא וזוממיה מקדימים לבית הסקילה

I see that Charlotte Baumann is defending an approach to the Transcendental Subject based on the Baden School [as opposed to Marburg] in which the categories themselves are the transcendental subject. There is no thinker inside the thinker, reminiscent of the third man problem. ]

And to me it seems possible that this relates to the Kant-Friesian idea of immediate non intuitive knowledge --that is, the source of knowledge is not derived from anywhere, but is a given.

I might mention that Leonard Nelson [founder of the second Friesian school] actually saw that the later Hermann Cohen of the Marburg school was radically disagreeing with Kant.

כתובות מ''ה ע''א רמב''ם אסורי ביאה פרק ג' הלכה ח

 I think what the Raavad is objecting to in Rambam [laws of forbidden relations chapter 3 halacha 8] is that the Rambam claims even if she [the girl] has gone into the chupa [domain of her husband]. and then has sex with someone else. and then comes the case of her husband bringing witnesses that she is stoned.  The Raavad asks on this from a mishna  משנה כיוון שכנסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק [''Once she has gone into the chupa, even though she has not yet had sex with her husband, still she is choked.''] What is the question on the Rambam from this mishna? I think from the words ''even though''. Once she has gone into the chupa, even though she has not yet had sex with her husband, still she is choked.  That is ''even though'', and all the more so if she did have sex with her husband she is choked, not stoned. So you see openly that the chupa changes everything--just like the Torah itself seems clear. Sex with another while betrothed is stoned, but sex with another after the chupa is choked.

The reason the Rambam understands this differently than the Raavad has to be from the gemara in Ketuboth נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנקואלו מוציא שם רע בסקילה and here there is no words "even though". It is clear that the juxtaposition means if she had sex with another after the chupa, she is choked. However  if after that, she had sex with her husband and he brings witnesses then she is stoned. This is like the decision of the Rambam in chapter 3 halacha 8. The Raavad would say that Gemara simply means like the Mishna that as different from this case of sex after the chupa , if she had sex before that she is stoned.

_______________________________________ 

I think what the ראב''ד is objecting to in רמב''םlaws of איסור ביאה פרק ג' הלכה ח' chapter 3 halacha 8 is that the רמב''פ claims even if she [the girl] has gone into the חופה [domain of her husband] and then has יחסי מין with someone else, and then comes the case of her husband bringing witnesses that she is stoned.  The ראב''ד asks on this from a משנה כיוון שכנסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק. What is the question on the רמב''ם from this משנה? I think from the words ''אף על פי''. Once she has gone into the חופה, even though she has not yet had יחסי מין with her husband, still she is choked.  That is ''even though'', and all the more so if she did have sex with her husband she is choked, not stoned. So you see openly that theחופה changes everything--just like the Torah itself seems clear. יחסי מין with another while מאורסה is stoned, but יחסי מין with another after the חופה is choked.

The reason the רמב''ם understands this differently than the ראב''ד has to be from the גמרא in כתובות נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנקואלו מוציא שם רע בסקילה and here there is no words "even though". It is clear that the juxtaposition means if she had יחסי מין with another after the חופה, she is choked. However  if after that, she had יחסי מין with her husband and he brings witnesses then she is stoned. This is like the decision of the רמב''ם in פרק ג' הלכה ח'. The ראב''ד would say that גמרא simply means like the משנה that as different from this case ofיחסי מין after the חופה , if she had יחסי מין before that she is stoned.

_______________________________________

אני חושב שמה שהרב''ד מתנגד לו ברמב''ם הלכות איסור ביאה פרק ג' הלכה ח' זה שהרמב''ם טוען גם אם היא [הילדה] נכנסה לחופה [תחום בעלה] ואחר כך יש יחסי מין עם מישהו אחר, ואז מגיע המקרה שבעלה מביא עדים שהיא נסקלת. הראב''ד שואל על זה מהמשנה "כיוון שכנסה לחופה אע''פ שלא נבעלה הרי זו בחנק." מה השאלה ברמב''ם מהמשנה הזו? אני חושב מהמילים ''אף על פי''. ברגע שהיא נכנסה לחופה, למרות שעדיין לא הייתה לה יחסי מין עם בעלה, היא עדיין נחנקת. כלומר ''אף על פי'', ועל אחת כמה וכמה אם היא עשתה יחסי מין עם אחר ואחר כך עשתה יחסי מין עם בעלה היא נחנקת, לא נסקלת. אז אתה רואה בגלוי שהחופה משנה הכל - בדיוק כמו שהתורה עצמה נראית ברורה. יחסי מין עם אחר בעוד מאורסה נסקלמת, אבל יחסי מין עם אחר לאחר שהחופה נחנקת

הסיבה שהרמב''ם מבין זאת אחרת מהראב''ד צריכה להיות מהגמרא בכתובות נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה בעלמא וזינתא בחנק ואילו מוציא שם רע בסקילה. וכאן אין מילים "למרות". ברור שהצירוף אומר שאם הייתה לה יחסים עם אחר אחרי החופה, היא נחנקת. אולם אם לאחר מכן, היו לה יחסים עם בעלה והוא מביא עדים אז היא נסקלת. זה כמו החלטת הרמב''ם בפרק ג' הלכה ח'. הראב''ד היה אומר שהגמרא פשוט פירושו כמו המשנה ששונה ממקרה זה של יחסי מין לאחר החופה, אילו היה לה יחסי מין לפני כן היא נסקלת.

 I did not realize that along with cockroaches come other wormlike creatures that dig into the skin. They borrow in and emit a protective coating so that even if one puts on some sort of ointment, they are protected. I did not even know they was a problem when I moved into the apartment here. But at some point I saw some around and so discovered their nest. Then cleaned up, and sealed the holes they were getting in through. Bur what takes care of the problem with the worms after they have already dug in? The thing I discovered is doctors are not aware of these kinds of parasites They  will proscribe some ointment for some skin disease which has nothing to do with the actual parasite.  what I have discovered is the first thing is to squeeze the protective coating. Then apply alcohol, iodine, and a very diluted mixture of hydrochloric acid.   Also Peroxide.

 Miracles do not count when the worker of the miracle claims that one should worship some idol. That you see in Deuteronomy 13;   ''When some prophet makes a miracle or predicts some future event (and by that authority) says, 'Let us worship some god besides the one true God', you should not listen, but rather kill that prophet.'' I have pointed out before that worship of people is also idolatry. So the religious people that worship their leaders are also idolaters. I now this sounds harsh, but I have considered the religious world to be in the category of a עיר הנידחת [idolatrous city] for along time.

 Even though the  Rav of Satmer was I think a great tzadik, i did not think his approach to the State of Israel was well founded because if you look at his book על הגאולה ועל התמורה it is stating halacha based on midrash. and midrash is not for halacha. Rather Rav Moshe and Rav Aaron Kotler held the law is the law דינא דמלכותא דינא and that makes a lot more sense to me. [That is from the Gemara in Bava bBatra--The law of the country you are living in is the law,'' and you are required to obey it by the Torah itself. Only when it contradicts Torah law do you go by Torah law.]

 It occurred  to me that there is a sort of difficulty in the Gemara  Ketuboth page 45 and Rambam אסורי ביאה chapter 3 halacha 8 of Forbidden Relations..   What I mean is this/ look at Deuteronomy  22 verse 13 and onwards. There you have the law about a girl 12-12,5 years old who is betrothed נערה מאורסה בתולה  that had sex with another man. This is the law that is known as מוציא שם רע. She is stoned.  Then comes the regular law [verse 22] about a married woman. If she had sex with another man, she is choked.  And then comes a law [verse 23] also about a נערה בתולה מאורסה girl 12-12.5 virgin who is betrothed. She also is stoned, but in the regular place of stoning, not at her father's house. 

Now just looking at the verses alone, you would say everything is simple. A girl had sex while betrothed and so she is stoned, If she  had sex after she got married, she is choked. But there is a special case that she had sex, and then got married --and her husband then brought witnesses and she is stoned at front of her father's house. Now off hand, it looks like the entire difference is when the sex was. If while betrothed, she is stoned. If after married, she is choked. But there is a special case where  it seems the sex was while betrothed, and then she got married, and then he husband brings witnesses, and she is stoned at her father's house even though she is now married. But furthermore --looking at the verses you can see that everything depends on when the sex was, not when the case is brought to court.

But since this is different from the regular case of sex while betrothed, so it is possible   that the sex here was after the chupa but before sex with her husband.

But in the Gemara and Tosphot and Rambam it is clear that sex after she got married, but before sex with her husband and then he brings witnesses, then she is stoned. Everything seems to depend on that the sex was before she had sex with her husband and he brought witnesses, They did not come on their own.

Still from the verses themselves, it looks like the sex was while she was betrothed. 

So even though i do not remember the gemara, still i recall that rava derived from somewhere כיוון דאישתני דינא אשתני קטלא  once her category has changed also her type of death has changed. so that if she had sex while betrothed and then married and then witnesses come she is choked. So from where ever rava derives this law, he has managed to show that there is at least one case where the sex was while she was betrothed and yet the type of death is by choking.  

And Rav Shach has a few paragraphs on that Rambam, so i might try to see what he says and if i can find any clarity about this.