6

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?

Improve this question
1

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

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.

Improve this answer
9
  • 3
    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, 2013 at 4:12
  • 1
    @Deuteronomy, I suspect you know those sources can't contradict Dt.; the asker, above, may not, or may think you mean they can. Perhaps edit into your answer what's going on here? Only because the asker's perspective clearly was that of a plain reading of Dt.
    – msh210 ♦
    May 27, 2013 at 4:47
  • 1
    @msh210 - I do not think that a plain reading implies that witnesses are not required. I am unaware of any pashtan that implies such. The Torah openly states that in order to convict someone of a crime warranting corporal punishment there must be testifying witnesses of the alleged crime (Deut. 19:15). To entertain that such wouldn't be the case here is to not only assume that there is a contradiction between the law as present in Rabbinic Judaism but to assume internal consistency on the part of the Torah itself.
    – Deuteronomy
    May 27, 2013 at 4:59
  • 2
    @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, 2013 at 7:11
  • 2
    @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, 2013 at 16:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .