The hymen doesn't work that way, bible.

[Iti oj]

The Jews never crucified him.

thats not true the Romans did it at the behest of the Jews

 

[Tumah]

Can I ask where?

A person came to Rabbi Gamliel the Elder and said to him, "Rabbi, I had relations but I did not find blood."
She said to him, "Rabbi, I am from the Dorkati family which doesn't have menstrual blood or hymn blood."
Rabbi Gamliel checked her relatives and found it to be as she said.
-Ketoboth 10a

An adult (male) who had relations with a minor (female)
And a minor (male) who had relations with an adult (female)
And [a woman who got] hit with a stick (in her genitals causing her to lose her hymen)
They receive 200 zuz [if they get divorced (the full amount)].
Ketuboth 11a

As it is taught, 'Someone who marries a virgin, should not consummate the marriage on the Sabbath. And the Sages allow it."
Who are the Sages?
Rabbah says, it is Rabbi Shimon, who holds 'and act that wasn't intended is permitted'.
Abaye said to him, 'but Rabbi Shimon agrees when the result is unavoidable [that it is prohibited].'
He [Rabbah] said to him, 'Not like those Babylonians who are not experts at leaning [to the side to avoid breaking the hymen], rather like those who are experts'.
Ketuboth 6b

I'm also still unclear at how any use of 'virginity testing' is used as there's no way you could rely on the results as indication of anything.

I agree, but I also don't see that a test is necessary anywhere.

 

[Tumah]

thats not true the Romans did it at the behest of the Jews

That's not true. The Sanhedrin did it at their own behest.

 

[Tumah]

I find it appalling that any god would command any such revolting practice at all.

I'm happy for you...?

 

[Iti oj]

 

[Tumah]

I doubt that. With the prolification of acrobatics (specifically splits) as a youth activity as well as bike riding, two other great ways to break the hymen and not done by women back then...
Nope I think this is the case of cultural memes overshadowing biological fact.
And I think if the elders were educated on this subject they would have known that proving virginity is impossible. And there's no way the husband could 'find her not a virgin' or the father could present evidence of virginity. So I wonder why the instruction is there at all.

Proof of court admissible non-virginal status (reason for mention of sheet thrown in at no added fee):

Husband: Hey guys. Man I feel so bad. Last night I consummated my marriage and there was no hymen blood on the sheet. I'm afraid my wife may have been unfaithful while we were engaged.
Friend #1: Ok look. We're known you for a long time and we didn't want to hurt you. But we actually saw her having relations with another guy.
Husband: Are you serious? I can't believe this. Can you prove you were there in court?
Friend #2: Of course. If it will help you out, we're willing to go with you to court.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Proof of court admissible non-virginal status (reason for mention of sheet thrown in at no added fee):

Husband: Hey guys. Man I feel so bad. Last night I consummated my marriage and there was no hymen blood on the sheet. I'm afraid my wife may have been unfaithful while we were engaged.
Friend #1: Ok look. We're known you for a long time and we didn't want to hurt you. But we actually saw her having relations with another guy.
Husband: Are you serious? I can't believe this. Can you prove you were there in court?
Friend #2: Of course. If it will help you out, we're willing to go with you to court.

Husband: I have found my wife not a virgin.
Friend 1: What? How?
Husband: There was no blood on the sheets.
Friend 1: You know that doesn't actually mean anything and that bleeding doesn't happen more often than does right?
Husband: Well I think her dad should show that there was no blood in court.
Friend 1: I just told you that doesn't actually mean anything...
Friend 2: Oh yeah she was totally with this other dude.
Husband: You see?
Friend 2: But going off witness testimony is not very reliable either. How is he going to prove he saw anything? She could die over a communal grudge, her word against theirs. And you still want to use the sheet which means even less.
Friend 3: We'll put her on a keg of wine and see if the vapors come out of her mouth. That'll decide it.

 

[rosends]

But going off witness testimony is not very reliable either. How is he going to prove he saw anything? She could die over a communal grudge. And you still want to use the sheet which means even less

so is your concern over the judicial process and the verifiability of eye witnesses?

 

[Tumah]

Husband: I have found my wife not a virgin.
Friend 1: What? How?
Husband: There was no blood on the sheets.
Friend 1: You know that doesn't actually mean anything and that bleeding doesn't happen more often than does right?
Husband: Well I think her dad should show that there was no blood in court.
Friend 1: I just told you that doesn't actually mean anything...
Friend 2: Oh yeah she was totally with this other dude.
Husband: You see?
Friend 2: But going off witness testimony is not very reliable either. How is he going to prove he saw anything? She could die over a communal grudge, her word against theirs. And you still want to use the sheet which means even less.
Friend 3: We'll put her on a keg of wine and see if the vapors come out of her mouth. That'll decide it.

Not agreeing that witness testimony should constitute as evidence is an entirely different point.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not agreeing that witness testimony should constitute as evidence is an entirely different point.

True. It's a bit off the beaten path anyway. My contention is just that virginity testing is a myth and shouldn't even be mentioned by people with basic biological knowledge, alone a divine guiding intelligence.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

so is your concern over the judicial process and the verifiability of eye witnesses?

That is a concern yes, but that's a discussion for another time I think. Mostly I'm concerned with the concept of physical virginity testing when it is literally a myth.

 

[fantome profane]

Proof of court admissible non-virginal status (reason for mention of sheet thrown in at no added fee):

So you are saying the sheet is just an irrelevant and misleading added bonus. That is fantastic.

 

[Tumah]

True. It's a bit off the beaten path anyway. My contention is just that virginity testing is a myth and shouldn't even be mentioned by people with basic biological knowledge, alone a divine guiding intelligence.

So then what's the problem. No where in the verse does it say that they test her virginity.

 

[Tumah]

So you are saying the sheet is just an irrelevant and misleading added bonus. That is fantastic.

No. One of the factors in determining factors that is potentially the easiest way to establish virginity, is the sheet: if there is blood in the general vicinity of the area that virginal blood is meant to be when consummating with a virgin, there's a pretty good indication that the girl was in fact a virgin. Naturally, that was probably the most common household test, even though it isn't empirical because its so easy to do. On the off chance that there is no blood on the sheet, the husband then has reason to research the possibility that his wife was unfaithful. So the sheet is probably quite relevant by virtue of its commonality.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So then what's the problem. No where in the verse does it say that they test her virginity.

Except you just went on to say that the scripture describes the easiest way to test virginity (via the sheet) when it's patently false. It doesn't in any way, shape or form indicate virgin status. It's literally a myth. So why is it included at all?

 

[rosends]

I would think that in a common case, it would be a good test for virginity but not a great test for non-virginity.

 

[Tumah]

Except you just went on to say that the scripture describes the easiest way to test virginity (via the sheet) when it's patently false. It doesn't in any way, shape or form indicate virgin status. It's literally a myth. So why is it included at all?

Is it literally a myth?
So you're telling me that if the husband finds blood on the sheet near the proper place, that is no indication whatsoever of the status of her virginity?
That's kind of hard to believe.
Which is what I told him.

 

[fantome profane]

No. One of the factors in determining factors that is potentially the easiest way to establish virginity, is the sheet: if there is blood in the general vicinity of the area that virginal blood is meant to be when consummating with a virgin, there's a pretty good indication that the girl was in fact a virgin. Naturally, that was probably the most common household test, even though it isn't empirical because its so easy to do. On the off chance that there is no blood on the sheet, the husband then has reason to research the possibility that his wife was unfaithful. So the sheet is probably quite relevant by virtue of its commonality.

Alright, going through this one more time.

The point is that the hymen can be broken by things other than sexual intercourse, and that sexual intercourse can occur without breaking the hymen.

Do you dispute either of those things?

Nope. The Talmud speaks about both of them.

So the conclusion is that you cannot use the condition of the hymen as a test for "virginity".

Sounds good to me.

So from this exchange it seemed that you understood and agreed that the hymen is not a "virginity detector" and therefore the blood on a sheet is irrelevant. A virgin might not leave blood on a sheet the first time she has intercourse. And a woman who has been sexually active before still might have an intact hymen, a hymen that could in fact rip the next time she has intercourse and leave a blood stain.

So do you understand or do you not understand? The "sheet" is misleading, irrelevant. I don't care how common it is, if you look to the sheet as any indication of virginity then you lack a basic knowledge of anatomy.

Do you understand?

Is it literally a myth?
So you're telling me that if the husband finds blood on the sheet near the proper place, that is no indication whatsoever of the status of her virginity?
That's kind of hard to believe.

Don't care how hard you find it to believe. The blood is not an indication of virginity, not at all.

 

[Thana]

I don't have to assume it's an error. It is an error. There is factually no physical test for virginity. No way the husband could have 'found her' not a virgin while having sex either and no way the father could prove she was one. But if you have an alternative explanation I'd love to hear it.



The study I mentioned starts at 13. 52% non-break. And besides, it wouldn't break if it already broke during a fall or on a horse or doing the splits.

It doesn't break, it tears and I doubt very much that study included minors which is generally who was getting married back then.

And although there is no 100% infallible test, there are tests, obviously.

 

[Tumah]

Alright, going through this one more time.

So from this exchange it seemed that you understood and agreed that the hymen is not a "virginity detector" and therefore the blood on a sheet is irrelevant. A virgin might not leave blood on a sheet the first time she has intercourse. And a woman who has been sexually active before still might have an intact hymen, a hymen that could in fact rip the next time she has intercourse and leave a blood stain.

So do you understand or do you not understand? The "sheet" is misleading, irrelevant. I don't care how common it is, if you look to the sheet as any indication of virginity then you lack a basic knowledge of anatomy.

Do you understand?

No, I don't understand. The lack of blood on the sheet is not proof that she is not a virgin. But finding blood on the sheet is a strong indicator that she was a virgin. It is also not empirical as I established from the Talmud. But its an easy first step and people did it. The verses under discussion are not mandating that her virginity be tested with a sheet. It is saying that the father brought the sheet that people used to show that their daughter was a virgin.
This is clear from verse 20, where it doesn't say, "and there actually was no blood on the sheet, so she is to be stoned". It says, 'they didn't find virginity to the girl'. Even had she been a virgin when she got married, they still wouldn't have found her virginity, because she had already consummated her marriage (which is why the husband is here in the first place). So its obviously referring to some type of investigation into her virginal status before marriage that the elders did.

You want to argue that the sheet is irrelevant because you think it is not indication of virginity. Whether you are right or wrong, doesn't matter. Personally, I think in the case of minors (that is under 13 as the verse is speaking about), you are probably wrong in most cases. But even if I'm wrong, it also doesn't matter because the verse is not telling people to use a sheet. Its just giving a case from what most people did.
What if there was no sheet altogether, does that make the whole passage invalid?
No, because the verse is not telling people to use a sheet. He can use whatever means he has to prove it.

And for when you finish reading the rest of the chapter:
No, it doesn't matter if she was raped in the field or the city.
Yes, the field and the city are relevant, because they provide us with a scenario where she could have been raped and called for help/couldn't have called for help. But any other situation that fits that bill will work as well.