Missionary Renegade

Positive Commandment 221

The 220th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the law of a seducer.1

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "If a man seduces a virgin...."3

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubos.

Positive Commandment 221

FOOTNOTES

This refers to a case where the woman was single. If she had already received kiddushin (see first footnote to P213), the transgression would be one of adultery; see N347.

Ex. 22:15.

He must pay a fine of 50 shekels and is required to marry her. The marriage takes place only if the girl consents.

Positive Commandment 218The Law of the Rapist

"She shall be his wife. . . . He may not send her away all the days of his life"—Deuteronomy 22:29.

One who rapes [a virgin] must marry the maiden [if she so desires].

Full text of this Mitzvah »

The Law of the Rapist

Positive Commandment 218

Positive Commandment 217

The 218th mitzvah is that a rapist is commanded to marry his victim.1

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Because he violated her, he must then take her to be his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives."

It is explained in tractate Makkos3 that the prohibition on the rapist not to divorce her, i.e. "he may not send her away," is considered "a prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment." Our Sages stated there,4 "Why [should a rapist who marries his victim, and then divorces her, and then marries her again not receive lashes]? This is a prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment?!" This statement demonstrates that G‑d's statement, "He must then take her as his wife," counts as a positive commandment.

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubos.

Positive Commandment 217

FOOTNOTES

As in P220, the marriage takes place only if she consents, and he must pay a fine.

Deut. 22:29.

15a.

The Rambam now proves that this verse contains two separate mitzvos, a positive commandment (that he marry her), and a prohibition (that once he marries her, he is never allowed to divorce her).

The Gemara is discussing the types of prohibitions for which the punishment is lashes. When a positive commandment can "remedy" the prohibited act (lav she'nitak l'aseh), one does not receive lashes as long as that remedial act is performed. For example, there is a prohibition against leaving sacrificial meat beyond the prescribed time. Should one leave the meat too long, there is a positive commandment to burn the meat. As long as the meat can still be burned, one is not lashed for the prohibition.

The Gemara then postulates a distinction: perhaps this principle applies only in such a case, where the prohibition (e.g. leaving the meat) always comes before the positive act (burning it). Perhaps when the positive act can come first (called "a prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment"), one does receive lashes.

This the Gemara disproves with our mitzvah, regarding which we know clearly that one does not receive lashes since he can always remarry her. It therefore asks: "[According to your reasoning,] why [should he not receive lashes]?" — being that the positive commandment comes first.

The point of quoting this passage is to bring the phrase, "a positive commandment," which shows that marrying her counts as a mitzvah.

Negative Commandment 358Divorcing a Rape Victim

"She shall be his wife. . . . He may not send her away all the days of his life"—Deuteronomy 22:29.

As explained in Positive Commandment 218, one who rapes [a virgin] must marry the maiden [if she so desires]. He may never divorce her [without her consent].

Full text of this Mitzvah »

Divorcing a Rape Victim

Negative Commandment 358

Negative Commandment 357

Negative Commandment 359

The 358th prohibition is that a rapist is forbidden from divorcing the woman he raped.1

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "He must then take her to be his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives."

This prohibition is preceded by the positive commandment,3 "He must then take her as his wife." In tractate Makkos4 it is clearly explained that this is considered a "prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment."

It is also said there, "A rapist who divorces his wife — if he is not a Cohen, he remarries her and does not receive lashes. If he is a Cohen, he receives lashes, and he may not remarry her [since a Cohen may not marry a divorcee]."5

You should keep in mind that even a non-Cohen will receive lashes for divorcing the woman he raped, if he cannot perform the remedial positive command [of remarrying her]. This would be in a case where she died before he remarried her, or she married another man after he divorced her.6 This corresponds to our principle, "If he fulfilled [the remedial positive commandment, he does not get lashes]; if he did not fulfill" [this commandment, he would receive lashes].7

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubos.

Negative Commandment 357

Negative Commandment 359

FOOTNOTES

After he marries her — see P218 above.

Deut. 22:29.

P218.

. 15a. See note to P218 for an explanation of this passage. It is quoted here because it uses the term, "prohibition," which indicates that it counts as one of the 365 prohibitions.

Since he is unable to perform the "remedial" positive commandment of remarrying her, it is not considered a lav she'nitak l'aseh. See note to P218.

In which case, he is forbidden from later remarrying her. See N356.

See Kesef Mishneh, Hilchos Sanhedrin 16:4.

Positive Commandment 219The Slandering Husband

"She shall be his wife; he may not send her away all the days of his life"—Deuteronomy 22:19.

In the event that a man slanders his newly-married virgin wife, falsely accusing her of infidelity, we are commanded to follow the pertinent laws detailed in the Torah. This includes lashes for the husband, and his obligation to remain married to this wife [if she so desires].

Full text of this Mitzvah »

The Slandering Husband

Positive Commandment 219

Positive Commandment 218

Positive Commandment 220

The 219th mitzvah is the law of a motzi shem ra [i.e. one who marries a virgin and falsely accuses her of having relations between the kidushin1 and the n'suin] — that we are commanded to give him lashes, and that he remain married to her, for he also2 is instructed,3"He must then take her as his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives."

It is explained in tractate Makkos4 that this prohibition, is like that of a rapist, i.e. it is considered a "prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment."

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubos.

Positive Commandment 218

Positive Commandment 220

FOOTNOTES

. In Jewish law, there are two steps to a marriage, kiddushin and n'suin. After the first step of kidushin, they are considered husband and wife, but they may not yet live together as such until after n'suin. During Talmudic times there was a twelve-month period between the two stages, but today they are performed together. See P213.

. As the rapist in P218 above.

Deut. 22:19.

15a.

Negative Commandment 359Divorcing the Defamation Victim

"He may not send her away as long as he lives"—Deuteronomy 22:19.

As explained in Positive Commandment 219, a husband who slanders his newly-married virgin wife, falsely accusing her of infidelity, must remain married to the wife [if she so desires]. He may never divorce her [without her consent].

Full text of this Mitzvah »

Divorcing the Defamation Victim

Negative Commandment 359

Negative Commandment 358

Negative Commandment 360

The 359th prohibition is that the motzi shem ra is forbidden from divorcing his wife.

The source of this commandment too1 is G‑d's statement,2 "he may not send her away as long as he lives."

This prohibition is also3 preceded by a positive command, "he must then take her as his wife."

Should he divorce his wife, the law regarding lashes is like that of the rapist,4 as explained in the last chapter of Makkos.5 The details of this mitzvah are explained there, and in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubos.

Negative Commandment 358

Negative Commandment 360

FOOTNOTES

. As in N358 above.

Deut. 22:19.

. As in P218 above.

See N358 above.

15a.

• 1 Chapter A Day: Bikkurim Bikkurim - Chapter 9

English Text | Hebrew Text

Jewish Practice

Learning & Values

Community & Family

Inspiration & Entertainment

More Sites

Tools

Learning & Values Daily Study

Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Bikkurim - Chapter 9

Video & Audio Classes

SIE Rambam - 9th Perek: Laws of first fruits (18:38)
Listen Download
Yehoshua B. Gordon - Rambam: Bikkurim, Chapter 9 (34:31)
Watch Listen Download

BothEnglishHebrew

Bikkurim - Chapter 9

It is a positive commandment for anyone1 who slaughters a kosher domesticated animal to give a priest the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw,2 as [Deuteronomy 18:50] states: "This is the judgment [due] the priests...." These are universally known as "presents."

This mitzvah is practiced at all times, whether at the time the Temple is standing or not, whether in Eretz Yisrael or in the Diaspora,3 with regard to ordinary animals and not consecrated ones.

מצות עשה ליתן כל זובח בהמה טהורה לכהן הזרוע והלחיים והקיבה שנאמר וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים ואלו הם הנקראים בכ"מ מתנות ומצות זו נוהגת תמיד בין בפני הבית בין שלא בפני הבית ובכל מקום בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ ובחולין אבל לא במוקדשין:

There is an obligation to separate the above-mentioned presents from all consecrated animals that had a permanent blemish4 before they were consecrated and were redeemed.5 If, by contrast, they had a temporary blemish6 before their consecration or they were consecrated when they were unblemished, but afterwards, they became blemished,7 and they were redeemed, they are exempt from these presents.8

כל הקדשים שקדם מום קבוע להקדישן ונפדו חייבין במתנות ואם קדם מום עובר להקדישן או שהקדישן תמימים ואחר כך נולד בהם מום ונפדו הרי אלו פטורין מן המתנות:

If there is an unresolved doubt whether an animal is a firstborn,9 there is certainly an obligation to give the presents [from it to the priest].10 [The rationale is:] If it is a firstborn, it must be given to a priest in its entirety. If it is not a firstborn, the presents must be given to a priest.

If a question arises with regard to the status of two animals11 and a priest took one because of the doubt, the second one is exempt from the presents. [The rationale is that] it is considered as an animal which a priest acquired and then gave to its owners, because of its blemish.12

If, however, there is an unresolved doubt whether an animal is the tithes of the herd,13 it is exempt in all situations. [The rationale is that] when one desires to expropriate property from a colleague,14the burden of proof is on him.15

ספק בכור חייב במתנות מכל צד שאם בכור הוא כולו לכהן ואם אינו בכור מתנותיו לכהן ואם נסתפק בשנים ולקח הכהן האחד מספק הרי השני פטור מן המתנות עשאוהו כמי שזכה בו הכהן ונתנו במומו לבעליו אבל ספק מעשר פטור מ"מ שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה:

When an animal that was consecrated and then disqualified because of a blemish16 became mixed with other animals - even one with 100 - if one person owns all of them,17 they are all exempt [from the obligation of the presents]. [The rationale is that the status of] each one is doubtful and when one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.18 If one person was slaughtering all the animals, only one [set of] presents is exempt.19

בהמת קדשים שנפסלה במומה ואינה חייבת במתנות שנתערבה בבהמות אחרות אפילו אחת במאה בזמן שכל בהמה מהן לאחר כולן פטורין שכל אחד ואחד ספק והמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה היה אחד הוא השוחט את כולם פוטר מתנות אחת מהן בלבד:

We are required to separate presents only from a kosher domesticated animal,20 [as indicated by Deuteronomy, loc. cit., which] states: "If it be an ox or a sheep."21 If a hybrid is born from a sheep and a goat, there is an obligation for presents to be given.22 We separate all23the presents from a ko'i24even though its status is undetermined.

When a male deer mates with a goat and it gives birth, there is an obligation [to give] half the presents [to a priest]. [This is derived from the above prooftext]: "If it be... a sheep," i.e., even if it is only part sheep.25[When, by contrast,] a male goat mates with a deer, the offspring is exempt from the presents.26

אין חייב במתנות אלא בהמה טהורה בלבד שנאמר אם שור אם שה כלאים הבא מכבש ועז חייב במתנות והכוי אף על פי שהוא ספק מפרישין ממנו כל המתנות צבי הבא על העז וילדה הולד חייב בחצי מתנות שנאמר אם שה אפילו מקצת שה תיש הבא על הצביה הולד פטור מן המתנות:

Whether a person slaughters an animal for consumption by Jews, by animals, by dogs, or for medical purposes, there is an obligation [to give] the presents.27

אחד השוחט לאכילת עכו"ם או לאכילת כלבים או לרפואה חייב במתנות:

There is an obligation [to separate the presents from] an animal belonging to partners, as [the above prooftext] states: "those who slaughter28 the animal."

בהמת שותפין חייבת שנאמר זובחי הזבח:

When a person purchases an animal with the produce of the Sabbatical year, he is obligated to [give] presents [to a priest].29

Priests and Levites are exempt from the presents, as [the above prooftext] states: "from the people." It is questionable whether the Levites are considered as part of "the people" or not. Therefore [the presents] are not taken from them.30 If, however, a priest took them, he need not return them.31

הלוקח בהמה מפירו' שביעית חייב במתנות כהנים ולוים פטורים מן המתנות שנאמר מאת העם וספק הם הלוים אם הם בכלל העם או לא לפיכך אין נוטלין מהם ואם נטל הכהן לא יחזיר:

When does the above32 apply? When one slaughters for his own sake. [Different laws apply to] a priest who is butcher, who slaughters [animals] and sells them in the marketplace. We grant him two or three weeks.33 Afterwards, we expropriate the presents from him and grant them to other priests.34

If he established a butcher shop to sell meat, we do not wait at all. Instead, we expropriate the presents from him immediately. If he refrains from giving them, we place him under a ban of ostracism35 until he gives them.

בד"א בשוחט לעצמו אבל כהן טבח ששוחט ומוכר בשוק ממתינין לו שתים ושלש שבתות מיכן ואילך מוציאין ממנו מתנות ונותנין אותם לכהנים אחרים ואם קבע בית מטבחיים למכור אין ממתינין לו אלא מוציאין ממנו מיד ואם נמנע מליתן מנדין אותו עד שיתן:

A person who slaughters an animal for the sake of a priest or a gentile is exempt from [the obligation to give presents].36

A person who enters into a partnership with a priest [in the ownership of an animal] must mark his portion, so that he will leave the presents in the portion of the priest. If he does not mark his portion, he is obligated [to give] these presents, because the fact that the priest is his partner is not a matter of public knowledge.37Accordingly, if the priest was standing with him in the butcher store and dealing and negotiating with him,38 he is not required to mark [his portion].39

When a person enters a partnership with a gentile [in the ownership of an animal], he need not mark his portion.40 [The rationale is that] as a rule, a gentile will speak excessively and inform everyone that he is [the Jew's] partner, even if [the Jew] is not present at the time of the sale.

השוחט לעכו"ם ולכהן פטור מן המתנות והמשתתף עם הכהן צריך שירשום חלקו כדי שיניח המתנות בחלק הכהן שאם לא ציין חלקו חייב במתנות מפני שאין הכל יודעין שהכהן שותף לו לפיכך אם היה הכהן עומד עמו במטבחיים ונושא ונותן עמו אינו צריך לרשום והמשתתף עם העכו"ם אינו צריך לרשום שסתם עכו"ם מרבה דברים ומודיע לכל שהוא שותף ואע"פ שאינו עמו בשעת מכירה:

[If, when negotiating a partnership agreement41 regarding the ownership of an animal,] a priest stipulates to [his partner, an Israelite,] that they are partners with the exception of the presents, the presents belong to the priest. Since the priest stipulated "with the exception of...," he left himself the portion of [the animal containing] the presents. Hence, they are his.42

If, however, the priest told the Israelite: "...on the condition that the presents are mine," the presents belong to the Israelite and he may give them to any priest he desires. Even though [the priest] stipulated that they were his, [the animal] is not exempt from [the obligation to give] the presents.43 For by saying "on the condition that...," he did not leave himself [the ownership of] the presents. Since he did not leave himself a share in their ownership, he did not acquire them through this stipulation.44

יא

התנה הכהן עמו שהוא שותף חוץ מן המתנות הרי המתנות לכהן כיון שאמר לו חוץ הרי שייר לו הכהן חלק במתנות ולפיכך הם שלו אבל אם אמר לו הכהן ע"מ שהמתנות שלי הרי המתנות של ישראל זה ונותנן לכל כהן שירצה אף על פי שהתנה עמו שהן שלו לא נפטר מן המתנות שהאומר ע"מ לא שייר לו בעצמן של מתנות כלום הואיל ולא שייר לו בהן שותפות לא קנאן בתנאי זה:

If a priest was a partner in [the ownership of] the head, he is exempt from [giving] the jaw. If he is a partner in the front leg, he is exempt from the fore leg. If he is a partner in the digestive organs, he is exempt from the maw.45

If the priest told [the Israelite]: "The entire animal is mine, but the head is yours," he is obligated to give the jaw, for the portion that must be given belongs to the Israelite.

יב

היה הכהן שותף בראש פטור מן הלחי שותף ביד פטור מן הזרוע שותף בבני מעיים פטור מן הקיבה אמר לו הכהן הרי הבהמה כולה שלי והראש שלך חייב בלחי שהדבר החייב הרי הוא של ישראל:

[The following laws apply when] a gentile converts and he is in the process of having an animal slaughtered. If it was slaughtered before he converted, he is exempt.46 If [it was slaughtered] after he converted, he is obligated. If there is a doubt concerning the matter, [we follow the principle]: When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him.47

יג

גר שנתגייר והיתה לו בהמה שחוטה אם נשחטה עד שלא נתגייר פטור ואם אחר שנתגייר חייב ואם ספק פטור והמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה:

It is permitted to partake [of the meat] of an animal from which the presents were not separated. [The situation] is not analogous to tevel48 [The rationale is that] the presents due to be given the priests are separate and distinct.49It is forbidden for an Israelite to partake of the presents themselves without the permission of a priest. If he transgresses and partakes of them, damages them, or sells them, he is not liable to make financial restitution.50 [The rationale is that] this is money that has no known plaintiff.51 A person who purchases them - even though he is forbidden to do so - is permitted to partake of them, because when the presents to the priests are stolen, the theft effect a change in ownership.

יד

בהמה שלא הורמו מתנותיה מותר לאכול ממנה שאינה דומה לטבל שהרי מתנות כהונה מובדלין והמתנות עצמן אסור לישראל לאכלן אלא ברשות כהן עבר ואכלן או הזיקן או מכרן אינו חייב לשלם מפני שהוא ממון שאין לו תובע ידוע והקונה אותם אע"פ שאינו רשאי ה"ז מותר לאכלן מפני שמתנות כהונה נגזלות:

If one tells a butcher: "Sell me the digestive organs of a cow," and there were presents52 among them, [the purchaser] should give them to a priest,53but [the seller] need not decrease the price [accordingly].54 If [the purchaser] bought [the organs] by weight, he should give them to the priest and deduct their value from the butcher's [due].55

טו

אמר לטבח מכור לי בני מעיה של פרה והיו בה מתנות נותנן לכהן ואינו מנכה לו מן הדמים לקחם ממנו במשקל נותנם לכהן ומנכה לטבח מן הדמים:

When a person sends meat to a friend and there were presents56 in [the parcel], the recipient need not be concerned that [the sender] transgressed and stole them.57

In a place where there are no priests,58 one should determine their financial value and partake of them, [so as not to cause] a priest a loss.59 He should then give the money to any priest he desires.

טז

המשלח בשר לחבירו והיו בה מתנות אינו חושש שמא עבר זה וגזלן מקום שאין בו כהן מעלה המתנות בדמים ואוכלן מפני הפסד כהן ויתן הדמים לכל כהן שירצה:

If a person wants to give the presents to only one priest, he may do so. If he wants to divide them [and give them to several], he should not give half the maw or half the foreleg to one [priest]. Instead, he should give the foreleg to one, the maw to another, and the jaw to two others. [This is inferred from Deuteronomy 18:4]: "And you shall give it to him," i.e., give him a portion that is a significant present.60If [he is giving presents] from an ox, he may divide them into portions,61 provided each portion is a significant present.

יז

הרוצה ליתן המתנות לכהן אחד נותן ואם רצה לחלוק אותן לא יתן חצי קיבה לאחד או חצי זרוע אלא זרוע לאחד וקיבה לאחד ולחיים לשנים שנאמר תתן לו שיהיה בה כדי מתנה ואם היו של שור חולק אותן חתיכות והוא שיהיה בכל חתיכה כדי מתנה:

What is meant by the foreleg? The right foreleg,62 The portion from the upper-joint until the ankle joint; two limbs, one connected with the other. The jaw refers to the jaw bones until the large ring of the protrusion of the gullet with the tongue between the bones.63 All of this is given to the priest.

יח

אי זהו הזרוע זרוע של ימין מן הפרק של ארכובה עד כף של ידו שהן שני איברים זה מעורה בזה והלחיים מן הפרק של לחי ועד פיקה של גרגרת טבעת גדולה עם הלשון שביניהן הכל לכהן:

[When giving the jaw and the foreleg to the priest,] we do not pour boiling water on the hide [to remove the hair], nor do we skin it. Instead, we give it to [the priest] with its skin and wool. [We give a priest] the maw with the fat upon it64and the fat within it. The priests have already accepted the custom of leaving the fat of the maw for the owner.65

יט

אין מולגין אותן ואין מפשיטין אותן אלא יתנו לו בעורן ובצמרן והקיבה בחלב שעליה ובחלב שבתוכה וכבר נהגו הכהנים להניח חלב הקיבה לבעלים:

A women of the priestly family may partake of the presents even if she is married to an Israelite, because they are not consecrated. Moreover, her husband may partake of the presents for her sake.

A challalah,66 by contrast, may not partake of the presents, because challalim67 are not in the category of priests.68 If a priest desires to sell the presents, to give them as gifts, even to a gentile, or to feed them to the dogs, he may, for they are not consecrated at all.69

הכהנת אוכלת המתנות אף על פי שהיא נשואה לישראל מפני שאין בהן קדושה ולא עוד אלא הבעל אוכל מתנות בגלל אשתו אבל חללה אינה אוכלת שאין חללים בכלל כהנים ואם רצה הכהן למכור המתנות או ליתנן במתנה אפילו לעכו"ם או להאכילם לכלבים מאכילם שאין בהן קדושה כלל:

[The following rules apply when there is] a priest whose friends [continually] give him presents. If he desires to transfer ownership of them to a friend who is an Israelite,70 he may, even though they did not enter [the priest's] domain. Thus [the priest's] friends may slaughter [their animals] and give the presents to the Israelite who acquired them. [This applies] provided the Israelite is in difficult straits and does not have the means to buy meat and the priest who transfers the meat to him is his friend. If, however, the priest is the Israelite's attendant or his hired worker or employee, he may not transfer ownership [of the presents] until they enter his domain.71[This is a safeguard,] lest he compel him to do so.

כא

כהן שהיו לו חברים שנותנים לו המתנות אם רצה לזכות בהן לישראל חבירו ה"ז מזכה לו ואע"פ שלא באו לידו ויהיו אותם החברים זובחים ונותנין המתנות לזה הישראל שזכה בהן והוא שיהיה הישראל זה בדוחק ואין לו לקנות בשר ויהיה הכהן שזכה לו חבירו אבל אם היה הכהן שמשו של ישראל זה או שכירו או לקיטו אינה מזכה לו עד שיבואו לידו שמא יזכה בעל כרחו:

A priest should not grab the presents, nor should he even request them verbally. Instead, if he is given them72 in a respectful manner, he may take them.73 When there are many priests at the slaughter house, the modest ones withdraw and the gluttons take them. [Even though] a priest is modest, [if] it is not known that he is a priest, he should take [the presents] to let it be known to everyone that he is a priest.

The priests should only eat the presents as they are roasted, with mustard on them,74for [Numbers 18:8] states [that the gifts to the priests75 were given them]: "for distinction." Hence, [they should] be eaten in a manner befitting a king.

כב

לא יחטוף הכהן המתנות ולא ישאל בפיו אלא אם כן נותנין לו בכבוד נוטל ובזמן שהם רבים בבית המטבחים הצנועים מושכין ידיהם והגרגרנים נוטלין ואם היה כהן צנוע ואין מכירין אותו שהוא כהן ה"ז נוטל כדי שיודע לכל שהוא כהן ואין הכהנים אוכלין המתנות אלא צלי בחרדל שנאמר למשחה כדרך שאוכלים המלכים:

FOOTNOTES

I.e., other than a priest or Levite (see Halachah 8).

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 143) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 506) include this commandment among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Chulin134b states that the priests merited these gifts in recognition of the heroism of Pinchas in stopping the Jews' lewd behavior with the Midianite women.

This is a matter of debate among the commentaries. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 61:21) quote the Rambam's view, but also mention the opinion of Rashi and Rabbenu Meir of Rutenberg who maintain that this mitzvah is not practiced in the Diaspora. They conclude that this latter view is observed. The Sefer HaChinuch, loc. cit., writes that in the abstract, he agrees that the law should be observed in the present era as well, but "we do not have the power to compel the butchers to observe it." See also the Responsa of the Chatam Sofer, sec. 301, where he writes that he would observe this mitzvah.

These blemishes are listed in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, ch. 7, Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach, ch. 2.

Since they are permanently blemished at the time of their consecration, it is obvious that they will ultimately be redeemed and used for ordinary purposes, not as a sacrifice. Hence it is never considered that their actual bodies became consecrated. Once they are redeemed, they are like any ordinary property. Hence the obligation to separate the presents falls upon them (Radbaz).

Such blemishes are listed in Hilchot Issurei Mizbeach 2:7.

Even permanently.

In such a situation, the consecration of the animal encompasses its actual body. The rationale is that in the first instance mentioned in this clause, the blemish is not permanent. Hence, it does not block the consecration. And in the second instance, the blemish comes after the consecration already took effect. And since the consecration affected the actual bodies of the animals, it continues to have an effect even after the animals have been redeemed. They are considered as pesulei hamukdashim and are exempt from this obligation (Radbaz, based on Bechorot 15a).

A sheep that had not given birth before gave birth to two offspring, a male - which would be separated as a firstborn - and a female which would not - and it is not known which of them was born first. See Hilchot Bechorot 5:1. Alternatively, a firstborn animal became mixed together with other animals [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 61:20).

A priest to whom a firstborn animal is given is not obligated to separate the presents and give them to another priest. In the instance described above, the Israelite who is the owner of the animal may retain possession of it, for we follow the principle: "When one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him." Thus since a priest cannot prove that the animal was a firstborn, it remains the property of the owner. Nevertheless, he must give the presents to a priest based on the rationale presented by the Rambam.

E.g., a sheep that had not given birth before gave birth to two males. Thus one of them is certainly the firstborn and must be given to a priest. The question is which one. Hence the weaker one is given to the priest and the other one remains the property of its owner, but may not be slaughtered until it receives a disqualifying blemish (Hilchot Bechorot, loc. cit.).

I.e., in exchange for giving the priest the weaker animal, the priest forfeits his claim on the other animal. Hence, although there is a possibility that it is an ordinary animal and the presents must be given to the priest, to obtain those presents, the priest is required to prove that claim and he cannot. Hence, the owner may retain possession.

Which the owner must offer as a sacrifice (Hilchot Bechorot 6:4). Were this to be the case, he would not be required to give the presents to a priest.

In this instance, the priest desires to expropriate the presents.

I.e., we cannot obligate him to give the presents to a priest, because unlike the firstborn, the priest has no claim to the animal as a whole.

It is exempt from the obligation to separate the presents as stated in Halachah 2.

17.

Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text differs slightly.

18.

In this instance, the priest desires to expropriate the presents.

19.

Because he knows that only one animal was consecrated and then disqualified.

20.

If, however, he slaughters a kosher wild animal (e.g., a deer) or a kosher fowl, he is not required to give the presents to the priest.

21.

More particularly, the Hebrew term seh can refer either to a sheep or a goat.

22.

For even though it is a hybrid, it is definitely a domesticated animal and hence, there is an obligation for presents to be given.

23.

Not only half.

24.

Generally - and indeed, this interpretation is indicated by the standard published text of Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 1:13 - a ko'i is defined as: "a mixed species that comes from the mating of a kosher domesticated animal and a kosher wild beast." Accordingly, the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 61) questions the Rambam's ruling for it appears to contradict his own statements in the continuation of this halachah. Rav Yosef Caro (in his Kessef Mishneh to the Mishneh Torah and his Beit Yosef to the Tur) explains that the Rambam understands the term ko'i as referring to an independent species that we do not know whether to classify as a domesticated animal or as a wild beast. He maintains that the proper version of Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot is "any animal whose classification as a domesticated animal or as a beast is doubtful is a ko'i" and he maintains that Hilchot Shechitah 14:4 serves as proof of this interpretation.

25.

Chulin 132a explains that since it is only part sheep, only part of the presents are granted. We do not take the species of the father of the animal into consideration.

26.

For, as in the previous law, we do not take the species of the father of the animal into consideration. Although this matter is not determined definitively, since "when one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him," the priest cannot claim the presents definitively either (Siftei Cohen61:10).

27.

Presents need not be separated when an animal is killed without ritual slaughter - or when the ritual slaughter is performed improperly and the animal is forbidden to be eaten (Tosefta, Chulin 9:1). Nevertheless, if the slaughter is performed properly, the presents must be given to a priest, regardless of the reason for which the animal was slaughtered. This is derived from a comparison to the covering of the blood after the slaughter of an animal (Ra'avad).

28.

The use of the plural term implies that the law applies even if there are many for whom the animal is being slaughtered (seeChulin 136a).

29.

For even though that produce must be destroyed at the appropriate time, while it is in a person's possession, it is his personal property. See Bechorot12b.

30.

As above, when one desires to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is on him. And it is impossible for a priest to prove that the Levite is obligated.

From Chulin 131a, it is obvious that a Levite does not have the right to receive presents (Siftei Cohen 61:12).

31.

For now they are in the possession of the priest. He may therefore retain them, for the Levite cannot prove that he is exempt.

The Rambam's view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 61:23). The Rama maintains that since the law is that a priest is not entitled to take it, if he takes it by force, he is required to return it. This difference of opinion reflects a divergence on an issue of a greater scope. See Hilchot Bechorot5:3, where the Rambam rules that when there is a question concerning whether an animal is a firstborn or not, a priest is not permitted to take possession of it. If he takes possession of it, however, it is not expropriated from him. In that instance as well, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 315:1) follows the Rambam's approach and the Rama differs.

32.

That the priests are exempt from giving presents.

33.

During which he is allowed to keep the presents for himself.

34.

Since he sells the meat, he is acting on behalf of others and they are not absolved from the obligation of giving the presents. See the gloss of Rav Yosef Korcus who debates whether this is a Scriptural Law or a Rabbinic decree.

35.

See Hilchot Talmud Torah, ch. 6.

36.

We are speaking about a situation where the animal belongs entirely to the priest or the gentile. It is the ownership of the animal, not the identity of the slaughterer which is significant. Since neither the priest nor the gentile would be required to give these presents, a slaughterer who acts on their behalf is also exempt.

37.

Hence, if he does not give a priest the presents, people will suspect him of withholding them.

38.

And thus it is evident that they are partners.

39.

The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 61) differs with the Rambam, explaining Chulin 133a,b (the Rambam's source) differently. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro elaborates in support of the Rambam's interpretation (even though at the outset, he states that the interpretation of the Tur appears more appropriate to the simple meaning of the passage. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah61:25), he follows the Tur's interpretation.

40.

And we nevertheless assume that the presents were in the gentile's portion.

41.

Rashi (in his commentary to Chulin 132a, the source for the Rambam's ruling) and similarly, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 61:29) interpret this as referring to a sale and not a partnership agreement.

42.

Even if they were not marked [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 10:3)].

43.

The Radbaz explains that the rationale is that his stipulation runs contrary to the Torah - for the Torah requires that the presents be given - and whenever a person makes a stipulation that runs contrary to Torah law, the stipulation is nullified. Hence, it is as if the stipulation was never made and the priest's partner must separate the presents as stated in the previous halachah.

44.

The commentaries note an apparent contradiction between the Rambam's ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Ma'aser 6:19 where he states:

When a priest sells a field to an Israelite and tells him: "[I am selling it] on the condition that the tithes from it belong to me forever," they belong to him. [The rationale is that] saying "on the condition that" is tantamount to setting aside for himself [the portion of the field] where the tithes [grow].

Although there are explicit Talmudic sources for both rulings, their logic appears contradictory. Among the resolutions offered is that here, the Rambam is speaking about the ownership of an animal, while in Hilchot Ma'aser, he is speaking about landed property and the principles of ownership are different in these two instances.

45.

The new concept taught by this halachah is that one can be exempt from part, but not all, of the presents.

46.

Because at that time, he was not obligated, as stated in Halachah 10.

47.

Hence, the convert may retain possession of the presents. As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 8, Halachah 9, when a similar situation arises concerning challah, the Rambam rules that the convert is liable to separate the dough. Nevertheless, a distinction between the two can be made because of the severity of that prohibition.

48.

In which instance, it is forbidden to partake of the produce until the terumahand the tithes are separated.

49.

In contrast to the produce where the terumah and tithes must be separated from the produce as a whole.

50.

I.e., he has no legal obligation to make financial restitution. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro questions whether the person has a moral and spiritual obligation to make restitution and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah61:15), he rules that he does.

51.

There is no one priest who can claim that the presents are his and they must be returned to him, for until they are given, the owner has the right to give them to any priest he desires.

52.

I.e., the maw.

53.

For they belong to him.

54.

Since it was obvious that the maw was among the organs he purchased, the purchaser should have realized that it was not included in the price. Instead, he was paying him for the remainder of the meat (Kessef Mishneh).

55.

Since the maw did not belong to the butcher - for it must be given to the priest - he had no right to sell it (ibid.). See also the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 10:4) which states that it is forbidden to buy the presents, because by doing so, one would be aiding theft.

56.

I.e., some of the organs that have to be given the priest.

57.

For we do not suspect that a person sinned. Instead, the recipient assumes that the sender purchased the presents from a priest; alternatively, there were no priests in the area and he followed the advice given in the following clause.

58.

And thus there is no one to give the presents to.

59.

For if he sets them aside, they will spoil. There is no difficulty in doing so, for the presents are not consecrated at all.

60.

See the notes of Rav Kapach to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 10:4). There he writes that the original version of the Rambam's Commentary did not contain this law, but the later version did.

61.

For even a portion of the organs of an ox are of a significant size.

62.

The Turei Zahav 61:1 states that this is derived from the fact that the prooftext speaks of "the foreleg," i.e., the important one. An animal's foreleg is comprised of three bones. According to the Rambam, the lower two are given to the priest. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin10:4).

63.

Chulin 134b states that one should take the jaw until the place where the animal is slaughtered. See the accompanying diagrams.

64.

This fat is forbidden to be eaten (Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 7:6).

65.

Chulin 134b explains that this is an act of generosity on the part of the priests. Since the presents are their personal property without any sanctity at all, they can do with them as they see fit. From the wording of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 61:4), however, it appears that this custom is not universally accepted.

66.

In Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 19:1 describes a challalah as a woman born from relations forbidden to the priesthood or a woman who is forbidden to the priesthood who engaged in relations with a priest.

67.

The term challal refers to the offspring of relations forbidden to a priest.

68.

Hence, just as the presents may not be given to a challal, they may not be given to a challalah.

The concept that challalim are not priests applies in many contexts. See Hilchot Nesiat Kapayim 15:5, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 19:5, Hilchot Terumah 6:7, et al.

69.

The Siftei Cohen 61:5 states that a priest should not give or sell them to gentiles or feed them to dogs unless they are no longer fit for human consumption.

70.

The Rambam's source (Chulin 133a) mentions that the recipient of these presents must be a Torah scholar. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 61:14) also mention that point. Apparently, the Rambam thinks that it is not an absolute necessity.

71.

Once they are given to him, however, there are no restrictions on what he may do with them.

72.

Turei Zahav 61:12 states that this is derived from the word "and you shall give" in the prooftext. Implied is that the presents should be given. They should not be taken by the priests on their own initiative.

73.

See parallels in Hilchot Terumah 12:18.

74.

If, however, a priest prefers to eat them in another manner, he may. It is not an obligation to partake of them in the manner described (Tosafot, Chulin132b).

75.

This verse does not speak about the presents of meat explicitly, but rather the portions of the sacrifices given to the priests. Nevertheless, the concepts can be derived one from the other. See Rashi, Chulin, loc. cit..

Audio: Listen | Download | Video Class

• 3 Chapters A Day: Naarah Betulah Naarah Betulah - Chapter One, Naarah Betulah Naarah Betulah - Chapter Two, Naarah Betulah Naarah Betulah - Chapter Three

English Text | Hebrew Text

Naarah Betulah - Chapter One

Introduction to Hilchos Naarah Betulah

They include five mitzvot: three positive commandments and two negative commandments. They are:

1) That a seducer [of a virgin maiden] be fined;
2) That a man who rapes [a virgin maiden] should marry her;
3) That the rapist should not divorce the woman he marries;
4) That the wife of a man who issued a slanderous report about her should remain married to him forever;
5) That a man who issues a slanderous report about his wife should not divorce her.

These mitzvot are explained in the chapters that follow.

הלכות נערה בתולה - הקדמה

יש בכללן חמש מצות. שלש מצות עשה. ושתי מצות לא תעשה. וזהו פרטן:

א) לקנוס המפתה.
ב) שישא האונס אנוסתו.
ג) שלא יגרש האונס.
ד) שתשב אשת מוציא שם רע תחת בעלה לעולם.
ה) שלא יגרש מוציא שם רע את אשתו:

וביאור מצות אלו בפרקים אלו:

When a man seduces a virgin,1 he is fined 50 sela'im of pure silver.2 This is called a k'nas ("fine"). The same law applies if he rapes her.

Payment of this fine is one of the Torah's positive commandments,3, as [Deuteronomy 22:29] states: "The man who raped her must give the maiden's father 50 silver pieces."

מי שפיתה בתולה, קונסין אותו משקל חמישים סלעים של כסף מזוקק - וזה הוא הנקרא קנס; וכן אם אנס אותה. וקנס זה, מצות עשה של תורה, שנאמר ונתן האיש השוכב עימה לאבי הנערה, חמישים כסף (דברים כב,כט).

What is meant by a seducer, and what is meant by a rapist? A seducer is one who enters into relations with a girl with her consent; a rapist is one who takes her by force.

Whenever a man entered into relations with a woman in a field, we operate under the presumption that he raped her, and apply those laws4 unless witnesses testify that she entered into relations with him willingly.5 Whenever a man enters into relations with a woman in a city, we operate under the presumption that she consented, because she did not cry out, unless witnesses testify that she was raped - e.g., he pulled out a sword and told her, "If you cry out, I will kill you."

ואיזה הוא מפתה ואיזה הוא אונס - מפתה, לרצונה; ואונס, שבא עליה בעל כורחה. כל הנבעלת בשדה - הרי זו בחזקת ודנין אותה בדין אנוסה עד שיעידו העדים שברצונה נבעלה. וכל הנבעלת בעיר הרי זו בחזקת מפותה מפני שלא זעקה עד שיעידו העדים שהיא אנוסה כגון ששלף לה חרב ואמר לה אם תזעקי אהרוג אותך:

When a girl who was seduced does not want to marry the seducer, or her father does not want to give her in marriage to him,6 or if [the seducer] does not want to marry her, he may pay the fine and depart. We do not force him to marry her.7

If they do desire [to wed], and he marries her, he does not pay a fine.8 Instead, he writes her a ketubah, as is written for other maidens.9

When, however, a woman who is raped or her father do not desire that she marry the rapist, they have that prerogative. [In such an instance,] he must pay the fine and depart. If she and her father desire [that the marriage take place], but he does not desire, we force him to marry her, aside from paying the fine, as [Deuteronomy 22:29] states: "He must take [the maiden] as his wife"; this is a positive commandment.10

Even if the girl is lame, blind, or afflicted with leprosy,11 he is forced to marry her and he may never take the initiative in divorcing her,12 as [the above verse continues]: "He may not send her away as long as he lives." This is a negative commandment.13

המפותה שלא רצתה להנשא למפתה. או שלא רצה אביה ליתנה לו. או שלא רצה הוא לכנוס. ה"ז נותן קנס והולך ואין כופין אותו לכנוס. ואם רצו וכנסה אינו משלם קנס אלא כותב לה כתובה כשאר הבתולות. אבל האנוסה שלא רצה היא או אביה להנשא לאונס הרשות בידם ונותן קנס והולך. רצתה היא ואביה ולא רצה הוא כופין אותו וכונס ונותן קנס שנאמר ולו תהיה לאשה הרי זו מצות עשה. אפילו היא חגרת או סומא או מצורעת כופין אותו לכנוס ואינו מוציא לרצונו לעולם שנאמר לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו הרי זו מצות ל"ת:

[This girl] is not granted a ketubah. For our Sages instituted the requirement of a ketubah so that [a husband] will not consider divorce a frivolous matter. [In this instance this is unnecessary, because] the man cannot divorce [his wife].

ואין לה כתובה שלא תקנו חכמים כתובה לאשה אלא כדי שלא תהיה קלה בעיניו להוציאה וזה אינו יכול להוציאה:

If the girl he raped was forbidden to him,14 even if the prohibition stems from a positive commandment, or she was a sh'niyah [or forbidden by other Rabbinic prohibitions],15 he should not marry her. Similarly, if he discovers adulterous behavior16 on her part after he marries her, he should divorce her. [These concepts are implied by the phrase: "He must take [the girl] as his wife" [which our Sages interpreted to mean]: "She must be fit to be his wife."

היתה אנוסה זו אסורה עליו אפילו מחייבי עשה ואפילו שניה ה"ז לא ישאנה. וכן אם נמצא בה דבר זמה אחר שכנס ה"ז יגרשנה שנאמר ולו תהיה לאשה אשה הראויה לו:

When a High Priest rapes or seduces a virgin maiden, he should not marry her, because he is commanded to marry a virgin,17and at the time he marries this girl she is not a virgin.18 If he marries [this girl], he must divorce her.

כהן גדול שאנס בתולה או שפיתה אותה הרי זה לא יכנוס מפני שהוא מצווה ליקח את הבתולה ובשעה שישא זו אינה בתולה ואם כנס יוציא בגט:

Although it is said with regard to a rapist: "He may not send her away as long as he lives," since [this prohibition] is preceded by a positive commandment, as it is said, "He must take [the girl] as his wife," the Torah made the prohibition [rectifiable] by the observance of the positive commandment. Thus, this is a negative commandment [whose violation] can be rectified by [the observance of] a positive commandment. Lashes are not given [as punishment for the violation of such a commandment] unless one does not fulfill the positive commandment, as will be explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin.19

Therefore, when a rapist violates [this prohibition] and divorces [his wife], he is compelled to remarry her and is not punished by lashes. If, however, his divorcee dies or is consecrated by another man20 before he remarries her, or if he is a priest, who is forbidden to marry a divorcee, he should be punished by lashes. For he transgressed the negative commandment, and is unable to fulfill the positive commandment associated with it.21

אע"פ שנאמר באונס לא יוכל לשלחה כיון שקדמו עשה שנאמר ולו תהיה לאשה הרי זה נתקו לעשה ונמצאת זו מצות לא תעשה שנתקה לעשה שאין לוקין עליה אלא אם לא קיים עשה שבה כמו שיתבאר בהלכות סנהדרין. לפיכך האונס שעבר וגירש כופין אותו להחזיר ואינו לוקה. מתה גרושתו קודם שיחזירנה או נתקדשה לאחר או שהיה כהן שאסור בגרושה הרי זה לוקה שהרי עבר על ל"ת ואינו יכול לקיים עשה שבה:

Neither a rapist nor a seducer is liable to pay the fine unless he engages in relations in the ordinary fashion,22 and the relations are observed by witnesses.23 A warning is not necessary.24

At what age is a girl fit to be paid a fine? From the age of three25 until she reaches the age of bagrut.26 If a man engages in relations with a girl less than three years old, the relations are not significant.27 If he engages in relations with her after she reaches the age of bagrut, he is not fined. For [Deuteronomy 22:28] states: "A virgin maiden," thus excluding a girl who has reached maturity.

אין האונס או המפתה חייב בקנס עד שיבוא עליה [כדרכה] ובעדים ואינו צריך התראה ומאימתי יהיה לבת קנס מאחר שלש שנים גמורות עד שתבגור. נבעלה בתוך שלש שנים אין ביאתה ביאה. בא עליה משבגרה אין לה קנס שנאמר נערה בתולה לא הבוגרת:

Whether or not [a girl's] father is alive, a fine must be paid.28

A fine need not be paid [because of relations] with the following women: a bogeret, a girl who has dissolved a marriage through mi'un,29 an aylonit,30 a mentally incompetent girl, a deaf mute,31 a girl who was reputed to have conducted herself immodestly while young, concerning whom two witnesses testify that she sought sexual relations with them,32 a girl who was married and divorced, but is still a virgin maiden.33

When, by contrast, [a girl] is divorced after merely being consecrated,34 a fine must be paid - and she is entitled to it35 - if she is raped. If she is seduced, she is not entitled to a fine.36

ואחת שיש לה אב ואחת שאין לה אב יש לה קנס ואלו שאין להן קנס הבוגרת והממאנת והאילונית והשוטה והחרשת. ומי שיצא עליה שם רע בילדותה ובאו שנים והעידו שתבעה אותן לזנות עמה. והמגורשת מן הנישואין ועדיין היא נערה בתולה אבל המגורשת מן האירוסין אם נאנסה יש לה קנס וקנסה לעצמה. ואם נתפתתה אין לה קנס:

[The following rules apply with regard to] a convert, a girl who was taken captive, and a [Canaanite] maidservant who was freed:37 If she was converted, redeemed or freed before she reached the age of three, she is entitled to a fine.38

If she was three years old [or older] when she was converted, redeemed or freed, she is not entitled to a fine. Since relations that she engages in at this time are significant, she is placed into the category of non-virgins.

הגיורת והשבויה והמשוחררת אם נתגיירה ונפדית ונשתחררה והיא בת שלש שנים או פחות יש לה קנס. ואם היתה בת שלש שנים ויום אחד כשנתגיירה או כשנפדית או כשנשתחררה אין לה קנס הואיל וביאתן ביאה הרי הן כבעולות:

[The following rules apply when] the virgin [who was raped or seduced] was forbidden to the rapist or the seducer. If the prohibition was punishable by karet - e.g., she was his sister, his aunt, in the niddah state or the like - or she was forbidden by virtue of a negative commandment [that does not involve either karet or execution], he is not liable for a fine if he was given a warning.39[Instead,] he should be lashed. [The rationale is that] a person is never punished [for the same transgression] by both lashes and a monetary assessment.

If he was not warned, since he is not to be given lashes, he should pay the fine.

יא

היתה בתולה זו אסורה על האונס או המפתה אם היתה אחת מחייבי כריתות כגון אחותו או דודתו והנדה וכיוצא בהן או שהיתה מחייבי לאוין אם התרו בו הרי זה לוקה ואינו משלם קנס שאין אדם לוקה ומשלם. ואם לא היתה שם התראה הואיל ואינו חייב מלקות הרי זה משלם קנס:

[When the girl raped] was forbidden because of a positive commandment, or she was a sh'niyah or forbidden because of another Rabbinic commandment, [the rapist] is obligated to pay the fine whether he was warned against the transgression or not, because he is not punished by lashes.

יב

היתה מחייבי עשה או שנייה וכיוצא בהן שאסורה מדברי סופרים. בין התרו בו בין לא התרו בו חייב בקנס שאין כאן מלקות:

[When the girl raped] was forbidden because of a prohibition punishable by execution by the court - e.g., she was his daughter, daughter-in-law,40 or the like - he is not liable for the fine, regardless of whether or not he received a warning.

[This is derived from Exodus 21:22, which] states: "If there will not be a [fatal] accident, he should be punished."41 Implied is that if there is a [fatal] accident, no punishment should be levied.42 [This applies] although the woman was killed unintentionally, [i.e.,] the man did not intend to strike her,43 as it is written [Ibid.]: "If men strive and a woman receives a blow...." This teaches that with regard to a [fatal] accident, Scripture did not differentiate between an intentional and unintentional act to free him from monetary obligation.

And [Leviticus 24:18-21] says: "A person who [fatally] strikes an animal shall reimburse [its owner] for it, and one who [fatally] strikes a man must die." Just as Scripture did not distinguish between intentional and unintentional action for killing an animal to make him liable for payment, so too, it did not distinguish between intentional and unintentional action for killing a person to free him from financial obligation.

יג

היתה מחייבי מיתת בית דין כגון בתו ואשת בנו וכיוצא בהן בין התרו בו בין לא התרו בו פטור מן הקנס שנאמר ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש הא אם היה שם אסון אין שם עונש. ואע"פ שהריגת האשה בשגגה שהרי לא נתכוונו לה שנאמר כי ינצו אנשים ונגפו אשה הא למדת שלא חלק הכתוב באסון בין שוגג למזיד לפוטרו מן התשלומין והרי הוא אומר מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת מה מכה נפש בהמה לא חלק הכתוב בין שוגג למזיד לחייבו בתשלומין אף מכה נפש אדם לא חלק הכתוב בין שוגג למזיד לפוטרו מן התשלומין:

This law applies with regard to every transgression that is punishable by execution by the court. There is no financial obligation.44

יד

וכן הדין לכל עבירה שיש בה מיתת בית דין שאין בה תשלומין:

If [a girl] dies after she [was seduced or raped], [the seducer or the rapist] is not liable for the fine, [as implied by Deuteronomy 22:29]: "the man who raped her must give the maiden's father...." [The verse states] "the father of the maiden," and not "the father of the dead maiden." [This applies] when she dies before the case came to court.45

טו

בא עליה ומתה הרי זה פטור מן הקנס שאמר ונתן האיש השוכב עמה לאבי הנערה לא לאבי המתה והוא שתמות קודם שתעמוד בדין:

FOOTNOTES

Between the ages of three and twelve and a half, as evident from Halachah 8. See Ramah (Even HaEzer 177:1).

See Hilchot Eruvin 1:12 and Hilchot Shekalim 1:2, where the Rambam describes the weight of this coin. According to the figures he gives in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bechorot 8:8), in contemporary measure a selais 19.2 grams. According to the Piskei Siddur of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, it is 20.4 grams.

See Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 220), which describes this mitzvah as "the commandment we have been given with regard to a man who seduces [a virgin]." (See also Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 61.)

Both in the Mishneh Torah and in Sefer HaMitzvot, the payment of the fine by a seducer, a rapist and one who issues a slanderous report appears to be included in the same mitzvah (Nachalat Efrayim).

Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:8 states that the cases involving laws governing a seducer and a rapist are to be tried by judges with semichah, a qualification that is not possessed by Rabbinical judges in the post-Talmudic period. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 177:2) states that in the present age, a seducer and a rapist should be compelled to satisfy the girl's father for the damage they have caused.

As mentioned in the following halachah, a rapist must marry the woman he raped, while a seducer need not. And, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 1, a rapist must also reimburse the woman for the pain and embarrassment he caused her.

The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, explaining that unless there are witnesses to the relations, the woman has no way of proving her claim against the man. The Migdal Oz explains that this refers to an instance where witnesses saw the man and the woman engage in relations from afar and were not able to determine whether she was seduced or raped.

The assumptions mentioned by the Rambam are based on the passage (stated with regard to a consecrated maiden, Deuteronomy 23:24-27): "This is the law when a virgin maiden was consecrated to one man and another man meets her in the city and has relations with her. Both of them should be executed, [i.e., we assume the girl consented]... because she did not cry out in the city.... If the man encountered the maiden who was consecrated in the field..., the girl has not committed a sin... for the man attacked her in the field..., where there was no one to come to her aid."

Exodus 22:16 states: "If her father refuses to allow him to marry her...," and Ketubot 39b explains that the girl is also given the option of rejecting the man.

The simple meaning of the passage from Exodus implies that the seducer should marry the girl, but Ketubot 40a explains that this is not a binding obligation.

He does, however, pay damages, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

I.e., she is given a ketubah of 200 zuzim, as is given to other virgin maidens (Hilchot Ishut 11:4), despite the fact that she was not a virgin at the time of the marriage (Ma'aseh Rokeach). Mishneh LaMelech explains that this concept is derived from Exodus 22:16, which states: "he must pay the usual dowry money for virgins."

Tosafot (Yevamot 60a) and the Nimukei Yosef differ and maintain that the girl is given a ketubah of only 100 zuzim as is given to non-virgins.

See Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 218). See also Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 557).

In this halachah, the Rambam uses the Biblical term tzara'at, although generally he uses the Rabbinic term mukeh sh'chin. See Chapter 3, Halachah 4, and the conclusion of Hilchot Ishut.

If, however, the woman wants to be divorced, the rapist may divorce her [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 177:3)].

See Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 358). See also Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 558).

The Torah does not require him to marry a woman with whom there is any prohibition whatsoever.

For all Rabbinic prohibitions have the source in the Torah's commandment to observe the rulings of our Sages.

For a husband is forbidden to engage in marital relations with an adulterous wife, as stated in Hilchot Ishut 24:17. See the Beit Shmuel 177:4, who emphasizes that the intent is that witnesses observed the actual commission of adultery, not merely immodest behavior that suggests adultery.

Naarah Betulah - Chapter Two

The fine of 50 silver pieces represents merely the payment for the pleasure of sexual relations. In addition, a seducer is obligated to pay for embarrassment and damages1 in addition to the fixed amount mentioned by the Torah.

A rapist, moreover, also pays for the pain [he caused the girl]. [A seducer is not required to make this payment,] because a girl who willingly engages in relations does not [suffer] pain. A girl who is raped does, as reflected by [Deuteronomy 22:29]: "because he violated her."2

חמשים כסף של קנס הם דמי הנאת שכיבה בלבד. וחייב המפתה ליתן בושת ופגם יותר על הקנס הקצוב בתורה. יתר עליו האונס שהוא נותן את הצער. שהנבעלת ברצונה אין לה צער ואנוסה יש לה צער. וכן הוא אומר באנוסה תחת אשר עינה:

Thus, a seducer makes three payments: the fine, and compensation for embarrassment and damages. A rapist makes four payments: the fine, and compensation for embarrassment, pain and damages.

נמצא המפתה משלם שלשה דברים קנס ובושת ופגם. והאונס ארבעה קנס ובושת וצער ופגם:

The fine is the same in all instances. Whether one has relations with the daughter of the High Priest, or the daughter of a convert or a bastard,3 the fine is 50 silver pieces. The amount paid for embarrassment, damages and pain is not uniform, however. Instead, the amount must be evaluated [by the court].

קנס שוה בכל. אחד הבא על בת כהן גדול ואחד הבא על בת גר או ממזר קנסה חמשים כסף אבל הבושת והפגם והצער אינן שוין לכל וצריכין שומא:

How is this evaluation made? With regard to embarrassment, everything is dependent on the identity of the person who is embarrassed, and the identity of the person who embarrasses her. The embarrassment suffered by a girl of high repute from a family of known lineage cannot be compared to the embarrassment suffered by a poor, ignoble maiden.4 And the embarrassment suffered at the hands of an important person of great stature cannot be compared to that suffered at the hands of a base and empty fellow.5

כיצד שמין הבושת הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש שאינו דומה מבייש נערה חשובה וממשפחה מיוחסה למבייש קטנה עניה בזויה. ואינו דומה מתבייש מאדם חשוב וגדול למתבייש מאחד מהנבלים וקל מן הקלים:

On this basis, the judges consider the stature of [the rapist or the seducer] and his victim. They evaluate how much a father and the girl's family would give to prevent [these relations] from taking place with this individual. This is the amount [the man] is obligated to pay.

ולפי זה רואין הדיינין מעלתו ומעלתה ושמין כמה ממון ראוי לאביה ולמשפחתה ליתן ולא יארע להן דבר זה מאדם זה וכמוהו חייב לשלם:

Damages [are evaluated] according to [the girl's] beauty. We look at her as if she were a maid-servant being sold in the marketplace: what price would she fetch as a virgin, and what price would she fetch as a non-virgin. For a man would like to buy a virgin maid-servant to give him to his servant, whose welfare and satisfaction he desires. [The rapist or the seducer] should pay the difference in the price.

The compensation for pain is evaluated based on her youth and the size of her body, and his age and the size of his body.6We evaluate how much a father would be willing to pay so that such [a daughter] would not suffer pain from such [a man], and [the rapist is obligated to] pay [this amount].

פגם לפי יפייה רואין אותה כאילו היא שפחה נמכרת בשוק כמה היא שוה בעולה וכמה היתה שוה בתולה שאדם רוצה לקנות שפחה בתולה ליתנה לעבדו שהוא רוצה בהנייתו וטובתו. ורואין כמה פחתה וישלם צער לפי קטנותה ובנין גופה ולפי שניו וגופו אומדין כמה האב רוצה ליתן ולא תצטער זו מזה ויתן:

A seducer must compensate [the girl's father] for the embarrassment and damages immediately. He is not, however, required to pay the fine unless he does not marry [the girl], as [Exodus 22:16] states: "If her father refuses to allow him to marry her, then he must pay...."

A rapist, by contrast, must make all four payments and marry her immediately. Therefore, whenever the woman desires to divorce7 or when she becomes widowed, she does not receive anything.8

המפתה נותן בושת ופגם מיד ואינו נותן הקנס אא"כ לא נשאה שנאמר ואם מאן ימאן אביה לתתה לו כסף ישקול. אבל האונס נותן ארבעה דברים מיד וכונס. לפיכך כשתרצה להתגרש או תתאלמן אין לה כלום:

[The following laws apply when] two men entered into relations with her, one through vaginal intercourse and one through anal intercourse. If the man who had anal intercourse with her was first, he is liable for embarrassment and for damages.9 If he was second, he is liable only for embarrassment, because she has already suffered damages.

The one who engaged in vaginal intercourse, whether first or last, is liable for the fine and all other payments. Nevertheless, the embarrassment and damages to a girl who had never engaged in relations at all cannot be compared to the embarrassment and damages to a girl who has engaged in anal intercourse.

באו עליה שנים אחד כדרכה ואחד שלא כדרכה זה שבא עליה שלא כדרכה אם הוא ראשון חייב בבושת ופגם ואם הוא אחרון חייב בבושת בלבד שכבר נפגמה. וזה שבא עליה כדרכה בין ראשון בין אחרון חייב בקנס ובשאר הדברים. אבל אין בשת ופגם של בת שלא נבעלה כלל כבשת ופגם זו שנבעלה שלא כדרכה:

We have already mentioned10 the girls for whom a fine need not be paid: They are ten: A bogeret, a girl who dissolved her marriage via mi'un, one who was divorced, an aylonit, a mentally incompetent girl, a deaf mute, a convert, a girl who had been taken captive, a freed slave, and one who has a tarnished reputation. A fine must be paid for all other girls.

כבר הודענו הבנות שאין להן קנס ועשר הן. הבוגרת. והממאנת. והמגורשת. והאיילונית. והשוטה. והחרשת. והגיורת. והשבויה. והמשוחררת. והיוצא עליה שם רע. ושאר הבנות יש להן קנס:

Whenever a fine is required to be paid for a girl, compensation is also required for embarrassment and damages, and if she was raped she must also be compensated for the pain.

Conversely, whenever a fine is not required to be paid for her, she is not entitled to compensation for embarrassment and damages11 if she is seduced or raped. Exceptions to this are a bogeret, a girl who had dissolved her marriage via mi'un, a mentally incompetent girl and a deaf mute. [If they are seduced, no payment is required at all.]

כל בת שיש לה קנס יש לה בושת ופגם. ואם היא אנוסה יש לה צער. וכל בת שאין לה קנס כך אין לה לא בושת ולא פגם אם נתפתתה וכן אם נאנסה חוץ מבוגרת וממאנת ושוטה וחרשת:

What is implied? If a man rapes a bogeret or a girl who had dissolved her marriage via mi'un, although a fine is not required to be paid, compensation is also required for embarrassment damages and pain.12 And a man who rapes a a mentally incompetent girl or a deaf mute is required to make compensation for pain.13One who seduces any of these girls is not liable at all.14

יא

כיצד האונס את הבוגרת ואת הממאנת אע"פ שאין להן קנס יש להן בושת ופגם וצער. והאונס שוטה או חרשת משלם צער בלבד. אבל המפתה את כולן פטור מכלום:

A person is not ever liable to pay a fine because of his own admission. Instead, he is made liable by the testimony of witnesses.15 Therefore, [if a man] says: "I raped or seduced the daughter of so and so," he is not liable to pay a fine. He must, however, make restitution for the embarrassment and the damages [he caused].16

Similarly, when a maiden files a legal claim against a man, saying "You raped me," or "You seduced me," and he denies the matter entirely, he is required to take a Rabbinic oath17 to support his claim, for if he admits his culpability, he would be liable for the embarrassment, the damages and the pain.18

יב

אין אדם משלם קנס בכל מקום בהודאת פיו אלא על פי עדים. לפיכך האומר אנסתי או פתיתי בתו של פלוני אינו משלם קנס אבל משלם בשת ופגם בהודאת פיו. וכן בת שתבעה איש בדין ואמרה לו אנסת או פתית אותי והוא אומר לא היו דברים מעולם הרי זה נשבע שבועת היסת שאילו הודה היה משלם לה בשת ופגם וצער על פי עצמו:

If a girl claims, "You raped me," and the man claims, "No, I seduced you," he is required to take an oath mandated by Scriptural law with regard to [the compensation for] the pain, and he must pay the damages and the embarrassment. [The oath is required] because he admitted a portion of the claim [made against him], as will be explained in [the section dealing with that subject].19

יג

אמרה לו אנסת אותי והוא אומר לא כי אלא פתיתי הרי זה נשבע שבועת התורה על דמי הצער ומשלם בשת ופגם שהרי הודה במקצת הטענה כמו שיתבאר במקומו:

The three payments made because of seduction, and the four payments made because of rape are made to the girl's father, for all the monetary benefit that accrues during a girl's youth belongs to her father.20

If her father is no longer alive [at the time of the rape or the seduction], [these payments are made] to her.21

יד

שלשה דברים של מפתה וארבעה של אונס הרי הן של אב שכל שבח נעורים לו. ואם אין לה אב הרי הן של עצמה:

When a girl who was raped or seduced does not file a claim until [either] she reaches bagrut, she marries, or her father dies,22 she herself is entitled to the three or four payments [mentioned above].23

If she appeared in court and filed a claim for payment, and then she reached bagrutor she married, the father is entitled to the payments. If the father dies after she files a claim for payment in court, the payments belong to her brothers, for they are her father's heirs. [The rationale is that] once she files a claim for payment in court, her father is considered to have acquired the payments.

טו

מפותה או אנוסה שלא תבעה עד שבגרה או עד שנשאת או עד שמת האב הארבעה דברים או השלשה שלה. עמדה בדין ותבעה אותן ואח"כ בגרה או שנשאת הרי הן של אב ואם מת האב אחר עמידתה בדין הרי הן של אחין שהן יורשי האב שמעת שעמדה בדין זכה בהן האב:

When a girl was consecrated and then divorced, she is entitled to the fine, but only that.24 If she was raped or seduced, and afterwards, she becomes consecrated to another [man], her father is entitled to the fine and the damages, for consecration does not take a girl out of her father's domain [and nullify his rights over her].

טז

הבת שנתארסה ונתגרשה קנסה לבדו לעצמה נאנסה או נתפתתה ואחר כך נתקדשה לאחר קנסה ושאר הדברים לאביה שאין האירוסין מוציאין מרשות אב:

I maintain that [the intent of] the Torah's statement [Leviticus 19:29], "Do not defile your daughter to have her play the harlot," is that a father should not say: "Since the obligation of the Torah for a seducer or a rapist was solely that he should give the father money, I will hire my virgin daughter to someone to have relations with her for whatever price I desire, or I will allow him to have relations for her without charge. For a man has the right to forgo monetary rights to him to any person he desires." To counter such thoughts, it is written: "Do not defile your daughter."

The Torah obligates a rapist and a seducer to pay money rather than be punished by lashes when the matter happened by chance, without the knowledge of [the girl's] father, and she did not ready herself for [the relations]. For this is an extraordinary and uncommon matter.

If, however, a person leaves his virgin daughter accessible for anyone to engage in relations with her, this will cause the entire earth to be filled with sexual immorality.25 For [ultimately], a father will marry his daughter and a brother his sister, [for in a sexually permissive society] a [girl] may become pregnant and give birth without knowing who the child's father is.

When a person has his daughter act in this manner, she is considered to be a harlot, and both the man and the girl who engage in relations should be punished by lashes, as [Deuteronomy 23:18] states: "There shall not be a harlot."26

[In such an instance,] the man is not required to pay a fine, for the Torah prescribed a fine only in the instance of seduction or rape. When a girl prepares herself [for relations] either on her initiative or on that of her father, she is a harlot. And the prohibition against harlotry applies both with regard to a virgin and a non-virgin.

For this reason our Sages stated that a girl who was reputed to have conducted herself immodestly while young is not entitled to a fine, as we have explained,27for we can assume that she willingly opened herself to this experience.

יז

אני אומר שזה שנאמר בתורה אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה. שלא יאמר האב הואיל ולא חייבה תורה מפתה ואונס אלא שיתן ממון לאב הריני שוכר בתי הבתולה לזה לבוא עליה בכל ממון שארצה או אניח זה לבוא עליה בחנם שיש לו לאדם למחול ממונו לכל מי שירצה לכך נאמר אל תחלל את בתך שזה שחייבה תורה לאונס ולמפתה ממון ולא מלקות בשאירע הדבר מקרה שלא מדעת אביה ולא הכינה עצמה לכך שדבר זה אינו הווה תמיד ואינו מצוי. אבל אם הניח בתו הבתולה מוכנת לכל מי שיבוא עליה גורם שתמלא הארץ זמה ונמצא האב נושא בתו והאח נושא אחותו שאם תתעבר ותלד לא יודע בן מי הוא והמכין בתו לכך הרי היא קדשה ולוקה הבועל והנבעלת משום לא תהיה קדשה. ואין קונסין אותו שלא חייבה תורה קנס אלא לאונס ומפתה אבל זו שהכינה עצמה לכך בין מדעתה בין מדעת אביה הרי זו קדשה. ואיסור קדשה אחד הוא בין בבתולה בין בבעולה לפיכך אמרו חכמים שהיוצא עליה שם רע בילדותה אין לה קנס כמו שבארנו שהרי זו בחזקת שהפקירה עצמה לדבר זה ברצונה:

FOOTNOTES

As explained in the following halachot.

Inah, the word translated as "violated," more specifically means "oppressed." Significantly, Exodus 22:15, which describes the fine of the seducer, does not use this term.

The Rambam is employing the instance of the daughter of a bastard primarily as a figure of speech. The commentaries have noted that if in fact one has relations with the daughter of a bastard, in most instances the transgression of a negative commandment is involved, and the violator should be lashed rather than fined, unless a warning was not given.

Obviously, the penalty to be paid to the former exceeds that to be paid to the latter.

Rav David Arameah explains that the intent is that the embarrassment suffered at the hands of a person of stature is more significant. The commentaries note, however, that in Hilchot Chovel UMazik 3:1, the Rambam states that the embarrassment suffered at the hands of a base person is more severe.

The younger and smaller a girl, the more painful is the experience. Similarly, the older and larger the rapist, the more painful the experience is.

The Rambam mentions the divorce as being dependent on the woman, because the rapist cannot initiate divorce, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

In contrast to other women, who would receive payment for their marriage contracts.

The girl's value is reduced even through anal intercourse, albeit less than through vaginal intercourse. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 8, a fine is not required for anal intercourse.

Chapter 1, Halachot 9 and 10.

The Tur (Even HaEzer 177) differs with the Rambam and maintains that these women are entitled to damages. The fact that they are not granted a fine has no bearing on this manner.

A fine is not required for a bogeret, because the verse mentions a na'arah, a younger maiden. Nevertheless, if one seduces a bogeret, no fine is required, because she willingly accepted any damages and embarrassment.

With regard to a minor who has dissolved her marriage through mi'un, we are obviously speaking of a girl who did not engage in sexual relations as a minor and was still a virgin. Although she is not entitled to a fine, since she was a virgin, she does receive damages. The commentaries have questioned the distinction between such a woman and a woman who is divorced after nisu'in, but is still a virgin.

He is not liable to make compensation for the embarrassment and damages because these women are not entitled to damages, because they have no financial worth; they would not be purchased if sold as slaves. (See Ketubot32a, Bava Metzia 80a.) And with regard to embarrassment, since they are mentally incompetent, they suffer no embarrassment.

(Compare, however, to Hilchot Chovel UMazik 3:4, which states that a mentally incompetent person is not reimbursed for embarrassment, but a deaf mute is.)

For, as mentioned previously, a girl who is seduced does not suffer pain, and she either forgoes or need not be reimbursed for damages and embarrassment.

This is a principle that applies not only with regard to the fine in question, but with regard to all k'nasot levied by the Torah. To explain: There are two types of monetary penalties levied by the Torah: a) nezek, damages - i.e., compensation for personal injury and/or loss of property - and k'nas, a fine, payment required by the Torah over and above what a person would be held liable for damages.

Although a person is liable for nezek when he makes an admission of guilt, he is not held liable for a k'nas unless his guilt is established by witnesses. (See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8 and Hilchot Geneivah 3:7.) Moreover, even if he admits his guilt and then witnesses come, he is not liable for payment of the k'nas.

As mentioned in the Kessef Mishneh, the Rambam's statements here are in direct contradiction to his statements in Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:6, where he states that when a person admits injuring a colleague, but there are no witnesses who testify to the matter, he is not liable for the damages and the pain, but is liable for the injured's unemployment, embarrassment and medical treatment. (As reflected by the commentaries on Hilchot Chovel UMazik, this ruling is contested by many authorities.)

The Rambam's descendant, Rav Yehoshua, attempts to reconcile the Rambam's rulings, explaining that the laws governing the injuries suffered by a raped or seduced maiden differ from those governing other types of injury.

17.

More precisely, the term used is sh'vuat hesset, a Rabbinic oath of lesser severity. See Hilchot Sh'vuot 11:13 and Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 1:3.

18.

The Rambam is emphasizing that if the only issue were the k'nas, the man would not be held liable for an oath, because this oath was instituted to encourage the defendant to admit his guilt. With regard to the k'nas, this admission would be of no significance, because his liability is dependent only on the testimony of witnesses. Nevertheless, since there is also a claim for damages, and on that matter his admission would make him liable, he is required to take an oath.

19.

As explained in Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 1:1, whenever a person admits a portion of the claim against him, he is required by Scriptural law to take an oath stating his lack of liability to the remaining portion of the claim.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam, because, as mentioned in the following halachah, the payment for these damages goes to the girl's father and not to her herself. Hence, the situation resembles the case (Sh'vuot 38b) where a person claims "You owe my father 100 zuzim," and the defendant states, "I owe him only 50," in which instance the defendant is not required to take an oath, because the person making the claim is not the one to whom the money is paid.

It is possible, the Ra'avad continues, for the father to make a definite claim that his daughter was raped. But it must be established that this indeed was the case.

The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling, explaining that this instance is unique. Although the money goes to the girl's father, she and not her father is considered to be the plaintiff.

20.

When the girl manifests physical signs of maturity at the ordinary times, the period of "youth" mentioned here continues until she is twelve and a half. During that time, as mentioned in Hilchot Ishut 3:11, the father is entitled to consecrate his daughter and receive the money given for consecration, and to receive any benefits from her labor.

21.

And not to any other heirs of her father's estate. With regard to the k'nas, the money is not considered to be owed the father until the defendant denies the debt in court (for if he agreed to the claim, he would not be obligated to pay the fine). Therefore, the money owed because of the fine is not considered part of the father's estate. See Or Sameach.

22.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point, stating that this money is considered part of the father's estate, and belongs to his heirs. The Kessef Mishneh and others, however, question the reason for the difference, noting that the Rambam's opinion is based on an explicit mishnah.

23.

In all the instances mentioned, she leaves her father's domain and assumes independent responsibility for her own financial concerns. Although the event for which the person becomes liable took place before the girl has assumed financial independence, since a claim was not issued at that time, she and not her father (or his heirs) is entitled to the money.

Kin'at Eliyahu states that this supports the thesis of the Kessef Mishnehmentioned in the notes on Halachah 13, that the girl herself is the plaintiff.

24.

But not to the payment for damages; that is awarded to her father. As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 1, Halachah 9, our Sages derived from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:29 that when a girl has been consecrated, she is entitled to the fine. But that applies only to the fine and not to the damages (Kessef Mishneh). Rabbenu Asher differs and maintains that she is also entitled to the damages, for she is no longer within her father's domain.

25.

The Rambam is referring to the wording of the verse in Leviticus cited previously.

26.

The Ra'avad differs and maintains that a woman is not considered to be a harlot unless she is a professional prostitute. See the discussion of this issue in Hilchot Ishut 1:4.

27.

Chapter 1, Halachah 9.

Naarah Betulah - Chapter Three

When a person issues a slanderous report concerning a Jewish maiden, and the matter is discovered to be false, he should be punished by lashing, as [Deuteronomy 22:18] states: "And he shall be flogged." The warning [for this negative commandment] is derived from [Leviticus 19:16]: "Do not go about as a slanderer among your people."1

He must also give her father 100 sela'im of pure silver.2If the girl is an orphan, the money is given to her.3

המוציא שם רע על בת ישראל ונמצא הדבר שקר לוקה שנאמר ויסרו אותו ואזהרה שלו מלא תלך רכיל בעמך. ונותן לאביה משקל מאה סלעים כסף מזוקק ואם היתה יתומה הרי הם של עצמה:

When a person issues a slanderous report on a girl below majority, or on a bogeret, he is not liable for the fine or for lashes. He is not liable unless he issues a slanderous report regarding a na'arah.4[This is derived from Deuteronomy 22:15]: "[They will] present signs of the maiden's virginity." The word נערה, "maiden" is written in a full form.5

והמוציא שם רע על הקטנה או על הבוגרת פטור מן הקנס ומן המלקות. ואינו חייב עד שיוציא על הנערה שנאמר והוציאו את בתולי הנערה נערה מלא דבר הכתוב:

Cases pertaining to this law may be brought only in the time of the Temple, and in the presence of a court of 23 [judges], because there is the possibility that capital punishment will be involved.6For if the accusation [brought by the husband] is discovered to be true, the girl must be executed.7

Cases involving rape or seduction, by contrast, are judged at all times in the presence of three [judges], as will be explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin.8

אין דנין דין זה אלא בפני הבית ובית דין של עשרים ושלשה. מפני שיש בדין מוציא שם רע דיני נפשות שאם נמצא הדבר כמו שנאמר הרי זו נהרגת. אבל האונס והמפתה דנין בהן בכל זמן בשלשה כמו שיתבאר בהלכות סנהדרין:

It is one of the Torah's positive commandments for the wife of a man who issued a slanderous report about her to remain married to him forever, as [Deuteronomy 21:19] states: "She must remain his wife."9 This applies even if she is blind or a leper.

If he divorces her, he transgresses a negative commandment, as the verse continues: "He may never send her away as long as he lives."10

[If he divorces her,] we compel him to remarry her, and he is not lashed, as explained with regard to a rapist.11 If, however, another man takes the initiative and consecrates her first,12 she dies, or he is a priest, who is forbidden to marry a divorcee, he should be punished by lashes for divorcing her.

ומצות עשה של תורה שתשב אשת מוציא שם רע תחתיו לעולם שנאמר ולו תהיה לאשה אפילו עורת או מוכת שחין. ואם גירשה עבר על לא תעשה שנאמר לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו. וכופין אותו ומחזיר ואינו לוקה כמו שבארנו באונס. ואם קידם אחד וקדשה או שמתה או שהיה כהן שאסור בגרושה הרי זה לוקה על גירושיה:

If immodest behavior [on the woman's part is discovered], or it is discovered that she is forbidden to him as a result of a negative commandment, a positive commandment, or even [a Rabbinic commandment, such as the prohibition against] a sh'niyah, he should divorce her with a get.13

Why should the positive commandment [of remaining married to the woman] not supersede the negative commandment [of engaging in relations with an adulterous wife, or any other negative commandment] with regard to this man who issues a slanderous report or a rapist, and thus he should marry [or remain married to] this woman who is forbidden to him? For it is possible that she will not desire to remain married to him, and thus, both the positive and negative commandments will be observed.14

נמצא בה דבר זמה. או שנמצא אסורה עליו מחייבי לאוין או מחייבי עשה ואפילו שנייה הרי זה יגרשנה בגט שנאמר ולו תהיה לאשה אשה הראויה לו. ולמה לא יבא עשה וידחה את לא תעשה בין במוציא שם רע בין באונס וישא זו האסורה לו. שהרי אפשר שלא תרצה היא לישב ונמצא עשה ולא תעשה קיימין:

What is implied by the term "issuing a slanderous report"? That a person should come to court and say: "I engaged in marital relations with this maiden,15 and I discovered that she was not a virgin. I investigated the matter and determined that she committed adultery after I had consecrated her.16 These are the witnesses in whose presence she committed adultery."17

The court then listens to the words of the witnesses and examines their testimony. If the truth of the claim is substantiated, the girl is executed by stoning.18

If the [girl's] father brings witnesses who nullify [the testimony] of the witnesses,19and it is determined that they testified falsely, [the witnesses] should be executed by stoning,20 [the husband] should be flogged, and he should pay 100 sela'im.21

This is what is meant by [Deuteronomy 22:17]: "This is [evidence of] my daughter's virginity" - i.e., these are the witnesses who nullify [the testimony] of the husband's witnesses.

If the husband brings other witnesses who nullify [the testimony]22 of the father's witnesses, the maiden and the father's witness should be executed by stoning.23This is what is meant by [Deuteronomy 22:20]: "If the [accusation] is true." According to the Oral Tradition, the passage speaks of witnesses who nullify the testimony of other witnesses, and a third pair who nullify the testimony of the second pair.

כיצד הוצאת שם רע הוא שיבא לב"ד ויאמר נערה זו בעלתי ולא מצאתי לה בתולים וכשבקשתי על הדבר נודע לי שזינתה תחתי אחר שארסתיה ואלו הם עדיי שזינתה בפניהם. ובית דין שומעין דברי העדים וחוקרין עדותן אם נמצא הדבר אמת נסקלת. ואם הביא האב עדים והוזמו העדים שהביא הבעל ונמצא שהעידו שקר יסקלו וילקה הוא ונותן מאה סלעים. ועל זה נאמר ואלה בתולי בתי אלו העדים שיזימו עידי הבעל. חזר הבעל והביא עדים אחרים והזימו עדי האב הרי הנערה ועדי אביה נסקלין על זה נאמר ואם אמת היה הדבר הזה. מפי השמועה למדו שפרשה זו יש בה עדים וזוממין וזוממי זוממין:

When a man issues a slanderous report about his wife after she becomes a bogeret, he is free of liability for the lashes and for the fine, even though his witnesses testify that she committed adultery when she was a na'arah.24

If the accusations are proven true, [the girl] should be executed by stoning, even though she is a bogeret.25 [The rationale is] that she was a na'arah when she committed adultery.

הוציא עליה שם רע והיא בוגרת אע"פ שהביא עדים שזינתה תחתיו כשהיתה נערה הרי זה פטור מן המלקות ומן הקנס. ואם נמצא הדבר אמת הרי זו תסקל. אע"פ שהיא בוגרת הואיל ובעת שזינתה נערה היתה:

Whenever a na'arah is not entitled to a fine if she was raped or seduced,26[her husband] is not punished by flogging or by a fine if he issues a slanderous report about her.

In addition, when a non-Jewish girl was converted below the age of three or a maidservant was freed below the age of three,27 [her husband] is not punished by flogging or by a fine if he issues a slanderous report about her. This applies even if a girl was conceived before her mother was converted and born after she was converted. [The rationale is based on Deuteronomy 22:19]: "Because [the husband] defamed the virtue of an Israelite maiden." [Implied is that] she must be conceived and born as an Israelite.

כל נערה שאין לה קנס אם נאנסה או נתפתתה כך המוציא עליה שם רע פטור מן המלקות ומן התשלומין. וכן הכותית שנתגיירה והשפחה שנשתחררה פחותה מבת שלש שנים אפילו היתה הורתה שלא בקדושה ולידתה בקדושה המוציא עליה שם רע פטור מן הקנס ומן המלקות שנאמר כי הוציא שם רע על בתולת ישראל עד שתהיה הורתה ולידתה בקדושה:

A man is not held liable when [his] witnesses are discovered to have lied [in the following situation]. He consecrates a maiden and divorces her, consecrates her again and then issues a slanderous report about her, bringing witnesses who say that she committed adultery during the first time she had been consecrated.28

Similarly, a man is not held liable to be flogged or for a fine when [his] witnesses are discovered to have lied [in the following situation]. He issues a slanderous report about his yevamah, bringing witnesses who say that she committed adultery during the time she had been consecrated to his brother.29

Whenever a man is not liable [to be flogged and fined], he may divorce his wife if he desires to.30

קידש נערה וגירשה וחזר וקידשה והוציא עליה שם רע והביא עדים שזינתה תחתיו בקדושין הראשונים ונמצאו זוממים הרי זה פטור. וכן אם היתה יבמתו שכנסה והוציא עליה שם רע והביא עדים שזינתה תחת קידושי אחיו ונמצאו זוממים ה"ז פטור מן המלקות ומן התשלומין. וכל הפטור אם רצה לגרש יגרש:

A man is not liable [for these penalties] unless he engages in relations with his wife in the ordinary manner and issues a slanderous report about her, saying that she engaged in relations [previously] in the ordinary manner.31

If he engaged in anal intercourse with his wife, and said that he discovered that she was not a virgin,32 he is not liable [for these penalties]. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.33

אינו חייב עד שיבעול אותה כדרכה ויוציא שם רע (על הבעילה) כדרכה בעלה שלא כדרכה ואמר לא מצאתיה בתולה פטור ומכין אותו מכת מרדות:

Similarly, if he says, "I discovered that she was not a virgin," but does not say that she committed adultery after he had consecrated her,34 or if he claims that she committed adultery but did not bring witnesses, but rather the witnesses came on their own initiative, he is not liable [for these penalties]. Nevertheless, the witnesses are executed if their testimony is nullified.35

יא

וכן אם אמר לא מצאתיה בתולה ולא אמר שזינתה תחתי או שאמר זינתה תחתי ולא הביא עדים אלא באו מאליהם ה"ז פטור אע"פ שהעדים נהרגים אם הוזמו:

The Torah's statement [Deuteronomy 22:17]: "They will then spread the garment" is a euphemism. The intent is that they debate the private aspects of this matter.36

Similarly, [other expressions in the passage are to be understood non-literally. [For example,] "This is [evidence of] my daughter's virginity" means "these are the witnesses who nullify the testimony of the husband's witnesses."

The death penalty issued "if the [accusation] is true" is issued only when she has committed adultery after being consecrated [and is observed by] witnesses,37 as implied by [Deuteronomy 22:21]: "acting immorally [in] her father's house."38 Before she is consecrated,39 the Torah does not hold her liable at all, and a person who engages in relations with her is liable only for a financial penalty, whether he seduced her or raped her.

יב

זה שנאמר בתורה ופרשו השמלה לשון כבוד שנושאין ונותנין בסתרי הדבר. וכן זה שיאמר האב אלה בתולי בתי הן זוממי עדי הבעל. וזה שנאמר ואם אמת היה הדבר תהרג כשזינתה אחר האירוסין בעדים שנאמר לזנות בית אביה. אבל קודם האירוסין כבר אמרה תורה בה שהיא פטורה מכלום ובועלה חייב בתשלומי ממון בלבד בין פתה בין אנס:

FOOTNOTES

As is the case with regard to several other mitzvot, the passage in Deuteronomy obviously indicates that the transgression of a negative commandment is involved in making such slanderous remarks about one's wife. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the punishment of lashes to be given. There is, however, no explicit statement in that passage saying, "Do not make such statements." Therefore, it is necessary to find another verse that has a specific statement forbidding slander.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1. This is the only instance in the Torah when a person who violates a prohibition is given corporal punishment and is also required to make financial restitution.

And not to her father's heirs.

As mentioned previously, the term na'arah implies a specific time frame: the six months after a girl's manifestation of physical signs of maturity once she has reached the age of twelve.

As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 1, Halachah 8, the word na'arah, "maiden" is sometimes used by the Torah to refer to girls between the ages of three and twelve and a half. In this instance, however, the meaning of the term is specific.

Generally, the word נערה, maiden, is written in the Torah without the final heh. The inclusion of the heh is obviously purposeful and intended to teach a concept.

The Rambam's statements have aroused the attention of the commentaries, for in our Torah scrolls the word נערה in the verse cited by the Rambam lacks a heh. The Kessef Mishneh (based on Ketubot 40b and Rashi, 44b) notes that the Talmud derives this concept from Deuteronomy 22:19: "And he shall give it to the father of the maiden." In that verse, the word נערה is written with a heh in our Torah scrolls.

Cases involving capital punishment are judged by a court of 23 judges. These cases can by judged only when the Sanhedrin holds sessions in the Courtyard of Hewn Stone next to the Temple, as stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin14:11-14. (Once the Sanhedrin ceased holding sessions in that place, even a court of judges with semichah cannot try capital cases.)

As stated in Deuteronomy 22:20.

Chapter 5, Halachah 5:3. Based on Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:17 and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 177:2), it would appear that in the present age, the court should hold a person who makes such statements responsible and compel him to reach a settlement with the father of the girl whose reputation he maligned.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 219) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 553) regard this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Sefer HaMitzvotstates that this commandment also includes flogging him.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 359) and Sefer HaChinuch(Mitzvah 554) regard this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

In which instance, her first husband is forbidden to remarry her.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and notes.

Ketubot 40a explains that in such an instance the woman is taught to say that she does not desire to remain married to the man, so that there is no obstacle presented to the divorce.

There is a difference of opinion among our Sages whether or not all the following laws apply if the husband did not engage in marital relations with his wife. The Rambam follows the opinion that it is necessary for the couple to have engaged in marital relations. See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh on Halachah 12.