The post is called "What size breasts are required for a girl to be an adult?":
According to Halacha a female has three legal stages to her life, based on age: girl, youth, and adult. The legal status is determined by two parameters: age and physical maturity. In terms of age: a female is a girl until the age of twelve, a youth from twelve to twelve and a half years of age, and adult after the age of twelve and a half years. In terms of physical maturity: a female is a girl as long as her breast are immature, a youth when her breasts are as a fruit in the process of ripening, and an adult when her breasts have grown.
The sages were divided on the size of an adults breasts. One said that her breasts were large enough that a sort of crease was formed beneath her breasts, and Rabbi Akiva said that her breasts had grown enough that they incline. Another sage said that the aureole around the nipple begins to darken. A different sage said that her breasts are large enough that if one flattens the nipple is takes time to rise again.
One of the scholars, Samuel, clarified the opinion of the sage who said that a sort of wrinkle is seen beneath the breast. This does not mean that the breasts are very large and so a wrinkle is seen, but that if the girl puts her hands behind her back, a wrinkle is noticeable beneath her breasts.
To authenticate his idea, Samuel examined the breasts of his 12 and a half year old maid. After he examined her he paid her 400 zuz for having caused her embarrassment by forcing her to expose her breasts to him. Samuel was extremely careful about causing embarrassment to his slaves and maids, so he did not give his maid for strangers to sleep with, only his own slaves. In contrast, Rav Nachman was not careful about causing embarrassment to his maids and would give them to others' workers for sex. Rav Sheshet would even give them to gentiles for sex.
Other sages defined the adult woman's physical maturity needed to determined her legal standing. The sage Rabbi Elazar son of Tzadok ruled that her breasts must be large enough that she could sway them. Another sage, Rabbi Yochanan son of Baroka, said that she is mature when her breasts take on a silver tinge. The scholars asked: Is this not a sign of old age and not newly-gained maturity? Therefore he explained his words as meaning "When the top of her nipple splits" (an unclear definition). Another sage, Rabbi Yossi, said that her breasts must sprout a thick nipple with an aureole around it. Another sage, Rabbi Simeon, gave a clue about the adult woman's physical maturity based on her sexual organ: when the flesh of her sexual organ swells and can be noticeably bent, as though it were a spoon.
(Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 47a-b)
Two observations from someone living in the 21st century:
- What business did Shmuel have to examine a 12 year old's breasts and what do the sages spend time discussing little girls' breasts in such detail?
- Why did these kedoishei elyoin give their underage shiksah maid to other men for sexual enjoyment?
My conclusion: Pedophilia and underaged sexual exploitation is not only condoned in halachah. The 'infallible' Amoraim even had their underaged maidservants exploited. So why is everyone so surprised when frum people are into sex with minors?!
Loshon of the Gemorah itself:
Loshon of the Gemorah itself:
"מתני'. משל משלו חכמים באשה: פגה, בוחל, וצמל. פגה - עודה תנוקת, בוחל - אלו ימי נעוריה. בזו ובזו אמרו: אביה זכאי במציאתה, ובמעשה ידיה, ובהפרת נדריה. צמל - כיון שבגרה, שוב אין לאביה רשות בה. איזהו סימנין? ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר: משיעלה הקמט תחת הדד, ר"ע אומר: משיטו הדדים, בן עזאי אומר: משישחיר הפיטומת, רבי יוסי אומר: כדי שיהא נותן ידו על העוקץ והוא שוקע ושוהא לחזור.
גמ'. פגה עודה תנוקת כדכתיב (שיר השירים ב') התאנה חנטה פגיה. בוחל אלו ימי הנעורים, כדתנן - התאנים משיבחלו, ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רב: משילבין ראשיהן. ואיבעית אימא מהכא: (זכריה י"א) ותקצר נפשי בהם וגם נפשם בחלה בי. צמל כמ"ד - יצתה מלאה.
ואיזהו סימנים? ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר: משיעלה הקמט. אמר שמואל: לא משיעלה הקמט ממש, אלא כדי שתחזיר ידיה לאחוריה, ונראית כמי שיעלה הקמט תחת הדד. שמואל בדק באמתיה, ויהב לה ד' זוזי דמי בושתה. שמואל לטעמיה, דאמר שמואל: (ויקרא כ"ה) לעולם בהם תעבודו - לעבודה נתתים ולא לבושה. שמואל מייחד להן, רב נחמן מחליף להן, רב ששת מסר להן לערבי, ואמר להן: אזדהרו מישראל.
רבי יוסי אומר כו'. מאי עוקץ? אמר שמואל: עוקצו של דד. ת"ר, אלו הן סימני בגרות? ר"א בר' צדוק אומר: משיתקשקשו הדדין, ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר: משיכסיף ראש החוטם. משיכסיף? אזקונה לה! אלא א"ר אשי: משיפציל ראש החוטם. ר' יוסי אומר: משתקיף העטרה, ר"ש אומר: משנתמעך
הכף. וכן היה רבי שמעון (בן יוחי) אומר: שלשה סימנין נתנו חכמים באשה מלמטה, וכנגדן מלמעלה. פגה מלמעלה - בידוע שלא הביאה שתי שערות, בוחל מלמעלה - בידוע שהביאה שתי שערות, צמל מלמעלה - בידוע שנתמעך הכף. מאי כף? אמר רב הונא: מקום תפוח יש למעלה מאותו מקום, כיון שמגדלת מתמעך והולך".
wow. i'm absolutely floored.
ReplyDelete> Two observations from someone living in the 21st century:
ReplyDeleteYou are living in the 21st century, and you can’t judge the Amoraim by modern standards. The attitude that sex represents all that is unholy is relatively modern, as is the concept of childhood as a separate stage of life and the idea that children below a certain (usually arbitrary) age shouldn’t have sex or even be thought of sexually.
> What business did Shmuel have to examine a 12 year old's breasts
It was research. I find it more surprising that he actually bothered to check his ideas against reality than that he examined her breasts. I suppose today if there were a legal question to which 12-year-olds’ breasts were relevant, the legislature would consult with a medical expert – who ultimately would be getting his knowledge from someone who had examined a twelve year old’s breasts. Would it be better if you picture Shmuel wearing a lab coat and latex gloves and the girl lying on an exam table?
> and what do the sages spend time discussing little girls' breasts in such detail?
They were discussing indicators of physical maturity in a legal context. Not every mention of breasts is pornographic.
> My conclusion: Pedophilia and underaged sexual exploitation is not only condoned in halachah.
Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Attraction to pubescent children, as the girls described in the gemara clearly are, is not a disorder, is not unusual, and is considered deviant in modern Western society only because of an arbitrary legal age of consent enforced by most governments. Age-of-consent laws exist because we recognize childhood as a separate stage of life and are aware that children don’t have the same decision making capabilities as adults. In the US, age of consent varies by state and is anywhere from 14 to 18 years old. Research has shown that the brain finishes developing in a person’s early 20s, which means all of the legal ages of consent are arbitrary. Thus the amoraim were not engaging in pedophilia and “underaged” is a meaningless charge.
The slavery and sexual exploitation are serious issues.
> why is everyone so surprised when frum people are into sex with minors?!
You really think one has anything to do with the other? There are pedophiles and criminals in every society. I doubt the incidence of sex with minors is higher in the frum community than in any other segment of society. The real issue is the insularity of much of frum society and the reluctance to allow criminals to be brought before a secular court.
I do not find the discussion pornographic, but very down to earth. I find the behavior much more disturbing.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the sages blatantly violated the written Torah where it says one may not prostitute one's maidsersvant or captive. See parashat mishpatim and Ki Tetze. If the master does not legally marry them then they are to go free.
(Not that I'm always such a fan of the written Torah, but you'd think they could at least adhere to that.)
I'm also disturbed at the title of the post, as it focuses on the breasts and not the sexual exploitation which is far more serious. I find the title pornographic, ie the exploitation of sexual imagery to draw the viewers attention.
ReplyDeleteGood answer by G*3...
ReplyDeleteG3:
ReplyDelete- Comparing contemporary life to the amoraim: Of course we can't, but OJ believes in the decline of the generations and in this case this really holds no water.
- Research: Merely checking one girl sounds hardly like 'research' and shows what judgements can sometimes be based on.
- Pedophilia: Got a point there, but everyone nowadays would consider fondling 12 year olds morally despicable.
- More pervasive in hardei society? I agree, there are no statistics. But the exact points you brought up may cause people to feel safer to perform immoral acts, especially if condoned by chazal.
Sara: I agree the title of my posting is a little 'overdone', but not really misleading.
Thanks to you all for your great comments, I really appreciate them!
About the sex thing, first of all the Torah permits slavery, which I argue is not necessarily a bad thing.
ReplyDeletehttp://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/04/slavery-is-it-evil.html
Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet ruled that it is permitted to embarrass a slave. Therefore they felt that it was permissible to command their female slaves to have sex with numerous different slaves or gentiles, rather than assigning them one committed partner, in spite of the embarrassment involved.
Maimonides rules that the law in practice does not follow their opinion. (Laws of Slaves 9:8)
לא יבזהו, לא ביד ולא בדברים
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/c509.htm
It's incidentally amusing to hear all this indignation from a man who himself admits to having visited prostitutes.
Well, here is our kiruv clown again!
ReplyDelete...and the tactics of a kiruv clown include:
- Deflecting criticism by pointing out sins of someone else's past.
- Rationalization of immoral laws.
Seriously: I can't believe you can even THINK about defending slavery and sexual exploitation of minors.
(Shaking his head in disbelief)
Are the Amoraim not supposedly the holy giants of the past who are closer to Torah than we are and "sheal pihem anu chayim"?
> OJ believes in the decline of the generations and in this case this really holds no water.
ReplyDeleteHiskatnu hadoros is more about holiness (whatever that is) and understanding of the Torah than it is about morality, but even granting that it applies to morality, what standards are you using? It doesn’t seem fair to assume that a modern sense of morality is superior and then disparage the amoraim for not measuring up. While I agree that adults shouldn’t be fondling children, some of the taboos of Western society surrounding sex and nudity are just silly
> Research: Merely checking one girl sounds hardly like 'research' and shows what judgements can sometimes be based on.
Remember that we’re talking about the same group of people who thought that Jews and Gentiles had a different number of teeth, and never bothered to check. It’s certainly not scientific, but at least he made an effort.
> Pedophilia: Got a point there, but everyone nowadays would consider fondling 12 year olds morally despicable.
Even a doctor? Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn’t sexual.
> the exact points you brought up may cause people to feel safer to perform immoral acts, especially if condoned by chazal.
Social factors probably do make abusers feel safer, but I doubt that the typical frum person learns this gemara and thinks to themselves, “oh good, I can molest little girls.” It would be great if the gemara specifically forbade sexual abuse, but I don’t think we can hold it against the amoraim that they didn’t. No one else at their time did.
Ignore JP. He’s sex-obsessed. Of course he’s defend sexual slavery and exploitation.
"- Comparing contemporary life to the amoraim: Of course we can't, but OJ believes in the decline of the generations and in this case this really holds no water."
ReplyDeletesure you can't on the one hand, i agree that comparing modern day life to the times of yesteryear is not fair.
However, don't OJ claim that the torah is the source of all morality and that without it we would be lost?
if these morals are universal and timeless, then why can't we compare different eras?
I seem to recall that the atheist Stalin had no problem with huge slave labor camps, so I find atheists critiquing ancient rabbinical ownership of a few domestic servants to be highly hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteRemember: from an atheistic point of view, man is merely a minute, soulless bag of chemicals stuck to a speck of cosmic dust. In a few years, he will disintigrate and be forgotten. He has no more or less importance than a soap bubble.
JP: We are talking about sexual exploitation here, not just 'ownership of a few domestic servants'. It is much worse than owning slave (which in and of itself morally reprehensible).
ReplyDeleteProblem is that you base your morality on the Torah, which has shown in many places to be outdated, if not offensive.
Besides: On what basis do you conclude that I am an atheist?
It's the "kofer" part. Means atheist.
ReplyDeleteSo what's bothering you? According to atheism a person is no more sacred than a bag of garbage.
Since when does kofer mean atheist? A cover can be someone who denies techiyas hameisim (Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah Chapter 3):
ReplyDeleteיד [ו] ואלו שאין להן חלק לעולם הבא, אלא נכרתין ואובדין, ונידונין על גודל רשעם וחטאתם, לעולם ולעולמי עולמים: המינים, והאפיקורוסים, והכופרים בתורה, והכופרים בתחיית המתים, והכופרים בביאת הגואל, והמשומדים, ומחטיאי הרבים, והפורשים מדרכי ציבור, והעושה עבירות ביד רמה בפרהסיה כיהויקים, והמוסרים, ומטילי אימה על הציבור שלא לשם שמיים, ושופכי דמים, ובעלי לשון הרע, והמושך עורלתו.
Not the first times you did not get your facts right. In any case, feel free to stop playing the atheism thing on me.
I'm not sure if I should bother responding to JP, but I guess I will:
ReplyDeleteThe real distinction Jacob is that atheists aren't claiming that atheism makes people morally superior or provides some great moral guidance. The claim is being made that the Taanaim and Amoraim were great moral beacons. So their failings do matter.