While no longer practiced and even already forbidden during the time of the Gemara (see 12b), one original method to establish a marriage bond was through sexual intercourse with the intention of consummation. Our Gemara on Amud Aleph delves into this process and examines when exactly the marriage bond is formed:

A question was posed to the Sages: Does the initiation of intercourse effect acquisition, or is it the completion of intercourse that effects acquisition? Does the moment of betrothal occur at the beginning or the end of intercourse?

Although this might appear overly meticulous, the Gemara presents practical halakhic distinctions. For example, if the sexual act couldn't be completed, would the woman be considered married due to the initiation, or would she still be able to marry someone else? (The "beginning" of the sexual act refers to genital contact without full penetration.)

The Gemara also presents another case where the timing matters:

"Alternatively, there is a difference with regard to a High Priest who acquires a virgin through sexual intercourse. If only the end of intercourse effects acquisition, she is no longer a virgin at the time of the betrothal. Consequently, a High Priest cannot acquire a woman through intercourse, as marrying a non-virgin is prohibited for him (Leviticus 21:14)."

Why is a High Priest forbidden to marry a non-virgin? The Chinuch (272) explains that the High Priest should ideally maintain the highest standards in thought and marriage. A woman with prior sexual connections could introduce elements foreign to the marriage due to past attachments. While this standard may not apply to regular priests and has only a faint adulterous implication, it holds heightened significance for the High Priest.

The Chidos Yaakov (Kovetz Birchos Shlomo Kesser Torah 448, also quoted in Sefer Daf Al Daf) raises a question about the Chinuch's explanation. If so, why would the scenario in our Gemara be problematic? Even if the completion of intercourse signifies the marriage, and she's technically not a virgin due to the initiation of intercourse, her connection remains only with one man.

I do not agree with this presumption behind question. Any reason for a Torah rule is based on symbolic ideas. Even with exceptions, the law still applies. Moreover, the Chinuch makes this point earlier in Mitzvah 73 in regard to his proposed health reasons for the prohibtion of eating Tereifa. He suggests that the Torah's laws and reasons are general principles to prevent excessive exceptions that could erode its foundation.

This theological principle underscores the human aspect of Torah. Despite God's ability for fine distinctions, humans must uphold the Torah, which wouldn't endure if overrun by exceptions rather than basic principles.

In the Guide for the Perplexed (III:34), the Rambam echoes this idea, stating that the Law focuses on generalities to promote spiritual and social health for society. He even says that occasionally, a Torah rule may benefit most but harm some individuals or circumstances:

"It's necessary to understand that the Torah doesn't focus on the rare, unusual, or limited cases, but rather teaches general principles. It ignores the occasional injury to an individual through a maxim or divine precept. The Law is divine, and its natural benefits may sometimes inadvertently cause harm in isolated instances. This is clear from our discussions and others."

The Rambam emphasizes that not every individual will fully benefit from the Torah's instruction. Just as nature's forces produce general benefits but sometimes lead to isolated injury, the same applies to the Law. While exceptions may arise, one must recognize the overall intention of the Law. Just as in making healthy choices for physical well-being, anomalies don't negate the argument for wise decisions in spiritual practices.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)