What in the World is a Virgin?- Joy of Text 1:4 by Rabbi Dov Linzer

A VIRGIN — from the place of her hymen.

AND A MAN DID NOT KNOW HER — not in its way (meaning, anally). Because the daughters of the nations would guard the place of their hymens, but abandon themselves from another place. It testifies about this one that she was clean from all [of this] (Genesis Rabbah 60:5).

ואיש לא ידעה, she had not even engaged in fondling with a man. She was extremely chaste.

And the lass was very fair to look upon, a virgin, and no man had known her – We taught “A mukat eitz (lit,, “wounded by a stick,” a woman whose hymen has been torn not through intercourse)– Rabbi Meir states her ketuvah is 200 zuz (the amount for a virgin), and the Sages say that a mukat eitz has a ketuvah of 100 zuz (the amount for a non-virgin). “ (Mishna Ketuvot 1:3).

Rabbi Avahu in the name of R. Eliezer said – the reason of Rabbi Meir is from the words“and a man did not know her” – which implies that [being a virgin means not having had sex, thus] if she is a mukat eitz she is a virgin. The reason of the Rabbis is from the words “a virgin, betulah” – which indicates that if she had been penetrated by a piece of wood, she is not a betulah (since the word betulah is from the same root as betulim, hymen)...

Said Reish Lakish because the daughters of the Gentiles would protect themselves in the place of their “testimony” (the hymen, which would testify to their virginal status), and make themselves available to have sex in the other place (anally). But this one (Rivkah) was a betulah, virgin, from the place of the betulim, the hymen, and “a man did not know her,” from the other place.

Said R. Yochanan – we can infer from the fact that it says “a virgin” that “a man did not know her,” [so what does this last phrase teach]? It is to say that a man did not even proposition her, to fulfill the verse, “Therefore the rod of the wicked will not rest upon the lot of the righteous.”

He may marry only a woman who is a virgin. 14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is degraded by harlotry—such he may not marry. Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife—

§ Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said that Rabbi Abba bar Rav Zavda said that Rav said: Both a virgin and a widow who marry require that the benediction of the grooms be recited. The Gemara asks: Did Rav Huna say that? But didn’t Rav Huna say: A widow does not require that a benediction be recited? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Rav Huna said that a widow requires a benediction, it is with regard to a bachelor who married a widow... The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One recites a benediction for a virgin who marries for seven days and for a widow who marries for one day. What, is it not even in the case of a widow who is married to a bachelor, that one recites the benediction for one day? The Gemara answers: No, it is only in the case of a widow who is married to a widower that the benediction is recited for one day. The Gemara asks: However, one may then infer that in the case of a widow who is married to a bachelor, what is the halakha? The blessing is recited seven days? If so, let the tanna teach the baraita: One recites a benediction for a virgin who marries for seven days, and for a widow who marries a bachelor seven days, and for a widow marrying a widower for one day. Why was the middle case omitted?

“The text reads, ‘Lyings with a woman,” – the two forms of intercourse (vaginal and anal) are linked (are equally considered the Biblical act of intercourse).

"By way of limbs” – a squeezing of the breasts and “threshing” (stimulating the penis to the point of ejaculation) with the other limbs. [Rashi in Sotah (26b) – “lies together with her naked”].

“Has God then forbidden [a wife to her husband] because of mere licentious behavior?” – in other words, it is obvious that to warn her against such behaviors not a type of warning (that were she to violate would make her forbidden to her husband), for the Torah would not make her forbidden to him just because of licentious behavior.

“Kissing” – the member (penis) “kisses” the place of sex (the vagina).

“To exclude the sharpening” – [a case where he] sharpens (excites) and hardens his member (penis) against her flesh, on the outside (without vaginal or anal penetration). In such a case he derives pleasure but she does not, and therefore the verse states “both of them” – to indicate that it is only referring to an act in which both of them derive pleasure. Nevertheless, in the “non-natural way” (anal intercourse), although she does not derive pleasure – this act is included for liability (an act of intercourse regarding adultery and other cases of prohibited sex) based on the verse “the lyings of a woman”

“Is of no consequence” – and the verse had no need to exclude it. There are those who explain (or rather, whose texts read) “acts of Herod” (מעשה הורדוס rather than מעשה חידודים), i.e, necrophilia, as the Gemara relates – that he preserved a dead woman’s body in honey for seven years (so that he could have intercourse with it).

“Who intertwine with one another” – they rub their bodies against one another due to (or “to excite”) sexual lust.

“Are unfit for a kohen to marry” – for a Kohen Gadol, for such a woman is not a full virgin. For although there was no Kohen Gadol in his (Shmuel’s father’s) time, since he considered it to be an act of licentiousness, it was not appropriate that they should engage in it.

“That they should not become accustomed to [sleeping with] a foreign body” – and they will desire to have sex with a man (outside the context of marriage).

Rava said: With regard to these matters, the halakha is in accordance neither with the opinion of the son nor with that of the father. The son, this refers to that opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna, which we just stated. As for the ruling of the father, this is referring to that which Rav Huna said: Women who rub against one another motivated by sexual desire are unfit to marry into the priesthood, as such conduct renders a woman a zona, whom a priest is prohibited from marrying. It was about this that Rava said that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Huna’s opinion. And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that an unmarried man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the sake of marriage renders her a zona, a woman who has had sexual relations with a man forbidden to her by the Torah, this applies only to intercourse with a man, but lewd behavior with another woman is mere licentiousness that does not render her a zona, and therefore she is still permitted to marry into the priesthood.

“Who intertwine” – in the way of intercourse between a male and female, they rub their vaginas against each other…

“Are unfit for a kohen” – because of fornication (and thus in the category of zonah).

[16] A woman who is sick and is a niddah – it is forbidden for her husband to touch her in order to attend to her, for example, to help her get up or to lay her down or to support her. (Rema – there are those who say that if she has no one else to attend to her, it is permissible for her husband to do everything [needed], And this is the practice, if she is in great need for such [assistance].)
[17] If her husband is a doctor, it is forbidden for him to take her pulse.

Rema: But according to what I wrote that it is our practice to allow him to attend to her if she needs him [to do so], all the more so that it is permitted for him to take her pulse if there is no other doctor and she needs him [to do this], and her illness presents a risk.

All these laws (regarding whether a husband can help his wife who is a niddah when she is sick) are only referring to a case where there is no real risk (otherwise, there would be no question that he could do whatever is necessary). Therefore, when she is ill [and there is no risk], the Beit Yosef forbids [the husband to help], and Rema allows it, for such [non-sexual touch] is not in the category of sexual transgression (which cannot be violated even if someone’s life is at risk). This is because this touch is merely to attend to the person, and not for the purpose of sexual pleasure, This is what Rema means when he writes, “Therefore we have the practice [to allow this] if she needs it [greatly],” and he did not limit this to a circumstance where there is a health risk. When it came to taking her pulse, which Beit Yosef forbids, the case is also one where there is no health risk. That which Rema means when he writes that it is permissible if there is no one else to do it “and there is a risk” – the meaning is, that in such a case [of risk], even Beit Yosef would admit that it is permissible, for this entire scenario is taken from the Beit Yosef. But as far as Rema himself is concerned, it is possible that it is permitted even if there is no risk, just as her permitted the previous scenario; he is merely writing that here it is certainly permissible if there is risk (but he does not mean to limit it to a case of risk), so it seems in my humble opinion.
And there are those who write that the husband should put a think cloth over the place where he is feeling for a pulse.

Rem"a: He may do with his wife whatever he wishes. He may have intercourse whenever he wishes, he may kiss any part of her body that he desires, he may have vaginal [typical] or anal [atypical] intercourse, or stimulate himself with other parts of her body... Even though all of this is permissible, anyone who wishes to sanctify himself [by abstaining] from the permitted is called holy.