Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Deut 22:13–21 says that if a man marries a virgin, is intimate with her, and then claims that she is not a virgin, and there is no evidence that she is a virgin, that she is stoned. That seems to be essentially taking the man's word that he didn't do anything, and anyway on the surface that seems extreme. So what are the exact conditions for this to happen?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

In ancient times, the two stages of effectuating a marriage were separate (Qiddushin/Nissuin). The first stage Qiddushin - it is often translated as "betrothal" however it is of greater significance than the English word connotes. Once Qiddushin has taken place, the couple are fully married - they simply have not yet been intimate with one another (this takes place after Nissuin). The case under consideration is where it is suspected that the wife has had an adulterous relationship once Qiddushin has already taken place and prior to the Nissuin. In order to be liable for capital punishment there would need to be witnesses testifying that they witnessed her commit the adulterous act.

share|improve this answer
    
Depends what you mean by "fully married". It is indeed prohibited for them to engage in intimate relations with others (that wording is not meant to exclude intimate relations with each other from the prohibition). –  Double AA May 27 '13 at 4:02
    
@DoubleAA I mean as far as issurei biah is concerned. –  Deuteronomy May 27 '13 at 4:09
2  
This answer, though AFAIK correct, would do well do support its claims (in particular its last sentence), especially in light of the verses in Dt. that seem to plainly contradict it (as noted in the question). –  msh210 May 27 '13 at 4:12
1  
@Deuteronomy, I don't see how you can deny a plain reading of these verses alone implies as much. Verse 20 says explicitly that verse 21 depends on "לא נמצאו בתולים לנערה". But the reasonableness of that reading is not even my point: my point is that that's the asker's reading of the verses, so your answer should explain the verses so they support your claim (or at least indicate that such explanation exists) or you're not really addressing the asker's concerns. –  msh210 May 27 '13 at 7:11
1  
@msh210 continued, The "plain reading" does not mean taking a few words or a line in total isolation - it means taking into account context. That is why no pashtan (that I am aware of) entertains your interpretation. Not even those that suggest that פרשו השּמלה is intended literally rather than strictly as a euphemism (Ramban, Rashbam) suggest that witnesses aren't necessary for a conviction. –  Deuteronomy May 27 '13 at 16:07

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.