2

Kesuvos 4:3:

הַגִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרָה בִתָּהּ עִמָּהּ, וְזִנְּתָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶנֶק. [...] הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִקְדֻשָּׁה וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בִסְקִילָה. [...] הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, הֲרֵי הִיא כְבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר.

A women who converted with her daughter, and [the daughter] committed adultery [as a Na'arah with Kiddushin], she receives choking. [...] If [the daughter's] conception was not in holiness [i.e. the mother hadn't converted yet] but her birth was in holiness [i.e. the mother had converted already], she receives stoning. [...] If her conception and birth were [both] in holiness, she is like the daughter of a Yisrael for all matters.

The pesukim explicitly prescribe stoning as the penalty for adultery as a Na'arah (Devarim 22:20); however, as the Bartenura points out, this is only in the context of v. 21:

כי עשתה נבלה בישראל

For she has done this disgusting thing in Yisrael

which excludes a convert, who is not part of the general community.

Is this just a Gezeiras HaKasuv that a Na'arah convert doesn't receive stoning for adultery? Or is there a conceptual distinction between a convert and a born Jewess which explains this ruling?

  • Wait... how can a naarah convert get married? The father is supposed to accept her kiddushin, but she doesn't have a father. – Heshy Mar 31 at 23:19
  • 1
    @Heshy Thank you for forcing me to review my Kiddushin notes from high school. :) As per Kiddushin 43b, it's a Machlokes Tannaim whether she can accept her own Get after Kiddushin (cited from Gittin 6:2), and it's a further Machlokes between Reish Lakish and R' Yochanan whether this Machlokes applies to Kiddushin as well (Reish Lakish) or if everyone agrees only her father can accept it (R' Yochanan). You are correct that the halacha follows R' Yochanan (SA, EH 37:4), and, surprisingly, the Gemara doesn't use this Mishnah in its list of challenges. (con't) – DonielF Mar 31 at 23:32
  • 1
    @Heshy You're right that seemingly this Mishnah should be a huge problem for R' Yochanan's opinion, as Reish Lakish can easily answer that this Mishnah follows the Chachamim that the Na'arah can accept her own Kiddushin as well. Perhaps one can answer as follows: R' Yehudah's rationale is אין שתי ידים זוכות כאחת, so when the father is out of the picture, there's no issue of אין שתי ידים, as there's only one hand; therefore the daughter can accept her own Kiddushin. (con't) – DonielF Mar 31 at 23:36
  • 1
    @Heshy According to the conclusion of the Gemara, the Chachamim's opinion, according to R' Yochanan, is that since Kiddushin is מדעתה, it should go to the father; as Rashi explains, since the Torah was זוכה that right to him, he gets it exclusively. Rashi's wording indicates that really the right should belong to the Na'arah, but that the Torah gave it to her father. If she has no father, then perhaps the right reverts to her. – DonielF Mar 31 at 23:38
  • @Heshy I've posted your question as a standalone, and expanded further on my answer. I've discovered several Rishonim and Achronim who seem to learn as I proposed. – DonielF Apr 1 at 2:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .