Preparing video...
0:00 / 0:00
Day #72–Rambam DAILY Sefer HaMitzvos
237 views
Day 72: Negative Commandment 355 For more classes from Rabbi Shais Taub visit https://www.soulwords.org/ 👉 Share & Connect: Follow on Instagram: instagram.com/rabbi_shais_taub Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@rabbi_shais_taub Subscribe to WhatsApp: https://wa.me/15164953021/?text=Subscribe 👉 Support our work at: https://www.soulwords.org/donate/ --OR-- PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/soulwordspayments CashApp: https://cash.app/$soulwords Venmo: https://venmo.com/u/soulwords
Categories:Torah/Chassidus
Comments
Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
Barack Hashem is day number 72 of our
daily study of ramen sefer mitsus this
corresponds to
chapters 8 9 and 10 in the daily study
of three chapters of mishna Torah so
we're
continuing's laws of matrimony marriage
how to enter into marriage and we have
the same Mitzvah as yesterday negative
commandment 355 the prohibition against
intimacy outside of marriage
the number explains something
interesting
he explains why the prohibition
is stated the way that it is
um the prohibition is specifically
stated
lysia cadasha nice Israel there shall
not be a prostitute among the daughters
of Israel that's
Deuteronomy 23 18.
so why is that the formulation for the
prohibition at least in its uh
scriptural origin
so that I'm explains that and we have
not learned these laws yet but we will
God willing soon
there is a punishment
for a man
who is intimate with a woman
either by force
or through
um
seduction
and the the penalty is a monetary fine
so without getting into why that is the
penalty
I just want to explain to you something
that the rambam explains
he explains that a person might think
that since
having illicit relations with a single
woman
is punishable through a monetary fine
so then
I can just
make a business transaction and instead
of being fined after the fact I'll just
pay for that service
um and a person might rationalize that
that's
perfectly fine according to Toyota that
that is precisely why when it comes to
prohibit uh licentious
intimate relations outside of marriage
um it formulates it exactly this way
that it should be clear
that you cannot even if both parties
agree to this
you cannot make a business transaction
of
engaging in intimate relations and uh
certainly goes without saying the same
applies also if there's no business
transaction but even if one were to
rationalize that somehow it's
permissible because there's a a
trade-off
um
he is told that that is erroneous
thinking and in fact this type of
relationship is confined only to
marriage and is otherwise prohibited
okay we'll see you for more tomorrow God
willing