Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>]

Dear Bryan:

It is not here in Deuteronomy that G-d gives the prohibition against 
adultery (sex with a married woman, not married man) and punishment 
for it.  That prohibition has already been given in Vayikra, 18:20. 
The death penalty for adultery is then told to us in Vayikra, 20:10. 
ALL the forbidden sexual relations are spelled out in Vayikra.  An 
unmarried/unbetrothed woman having sex with a man not one of the 
relatives spelled out in Vayikra, does not get even a vague mention.

This passage in Deuteronomy is not adding a new prohibition to the 
already given list of prohibited sexual relations.  It is merely 
describing what to do in various related situations:

1.  What to do if a man decides to hate his wife after having sex 
with her, and then slanders (slander is prohibited, one of the 613 
negative Mitzvot, by the Torah) her, accusing her of adultery

2.  What to do if the woman really was found to be an adulteress.

3.  What to do if the woman was not an adulteress but had had sex 
before getting betrothed but she (and her parents) had lied about 
that to her husband

4.  Verse 22 reiterates prohibition against adultery and death 
penalty to both parties

5.  In Verses 24 - 27 the subject really is the betrothed girl - what 
happens to her if she is raped, and we are taught that there are two 
possibilities, and they determine her culpability: if she is raped in 
the city, she is guilty of adultery because if she had cried out, ie; 
objected, then someone would have heard her, so if she didn't cry out 
it is assumed that she did not object, and if she is raped in the 
countryside/field, it is assumed that she cried out and objected but 
that there was no one nearby to hear her, so she is not guilty of 
adultery (this was forced upon her against her will).  The man in any 
case is guilty of taking an engaged woman and gets the death penalty.

Verses 24 - 27 also reiterate what the Israelites already knew - that 
even when just the betrothal took place (transaction where something 
of value was given to the woman and she therefore obligated herself 
to this man) before the marriage was consummated, she was already 
forbidden to another man.

Please keep in mind that in all of the above cases where one or both 
parties are liable for death penalty, two eyewitnesses had to testify 
against them.

Shoshanna



Dear Shoshanna,

Regarding your remark about adultery, Deuteronomy 22:22 specifies death for
adultery. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 specifies death for adultery of one who is
betrothed. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 specifies death to the man who rapes a woman
betrothed who was raped in the field, but not in the city (22:23-24). Thus,
the woman as the subject of 22:13-21, is labeled  a harlot, for having
pre-marital sex before marriage. Furthermore, regarding concubines. It is my
understanding that concubines were usually slaves not free born; although
that may have changed by the time of Saul, David and Solomon. They have a
special status to that of the wife for the purpose of bearing an heir. It is
clear from Genesis 35:22; 49:3-4 that Reuben was condemned for taking
Bilhah, Israel's (Jacob's) concubine. This act is indirectly mention in
Deuteronomy 22:30 as incest. The parallel passage of Leviticus 18 also gives
other examples of incest that are not to be committed by the Israelites. The
Israelites were NOT to be like the Canaanites, et al, who committed these
same behaviors. These behaviors defiled the land and the people and was
abhorrent in the eyes of  YHWH. That is one of the reason that the
Canaanites, et al, were to be exterminated from the land.

Respectively yours,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; "Shoshanna Walker"
<rosewalk AT concentric.net>
Cc: <leviny AT 012.net.il>
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity


> As Yigal says, our opinions are faith based, but the Torah never
> prohibits sex while a woman is not married or betrothed, and
> therefore would not call it evil.
>
> It is not logical to assume that in this case described here, if the
> husband's accusations are proved correct, that the woman is liable
> for the death penalty simply for having had sex before she became
> engaged/married - because  1. no where does the Torah say that a
> woman is liable for the death penalty if she had sex while she was
> not married/engaged   2. many women were concubines (no marriage or
> engagement took place) and there was no stigma against them    3.
> The Torah itself here, in this very passage, specifically states the
> reason why she is put to death, in the words (verse 21)  "(BECAUSE) -
> as'ta nevala b'Yisrael, liznot bais avi'ha"  ie; she committed
> adultery, and adultery can only be committed by a woman who is
> betrothed or married.  Ramban further clarifies that the term "z'nut"
> - "plays the harlot" - refers only to a married/betrothed woman and
> not to a single woman.
>
> Shoshanna
>
>
>
>
> Dear Shoshanna,
>
> the context of this passage of Deuteronomy 22 is as follows:
>
> 22:13:    Man takes a wife and cohabits with her and then hates her (KJV),
> spurns her (RSV), tiring of her (modern language), dislikes her (NIV).
> 22:14:    Charges are brought against the woman that she was not a "maid =
> virgin." These charges are in the form of slander, libel, etc.
> 22:15:   The father and mother then bring the evidence, the proof of
> virginity of the "damsel" before the city gate to refute the charges
against
> their daughter.
> 22:16-17:    The nature and motive of the charges are presented and
refuted.
> 22:18-19:    Since the evidence proves that he accusation is groundless,
> then the man is punished by the elders of the city, fined 100 shekels of
> silver which is given to the woman's father and the man is not allowed to
> divorce her "until death do us part."
> 22:20-21:    Should the accusation prove to be fact, no proof of virginity
> is provided, then the woman shall be put to death in front of her father's
> house by the men of the city. The reason? She played the fool by having
> pre-marital sex/committed harlotry BEFORE marriage. However one wants to
> think otherwise, it is quite clear that sex by the woman BEFORE marriage
was
> definitely considered EVIL. Thus, the EVIL was to be put away from among
the
> people of the city.
>
> I also have written notes in my bible giving the following for the entire
> passage of Deuteronomy 22:13-30,
> 22:13-17 = Slander
> 22:18-21 = Harlotry/Fornication (Pre-marital sex/sluttish behavior)
> 22:22-24 = Adultery with another man's wife
> 22:25-26 = Rape/Adultery of a "Betrothed woman" (civil contract which
> considers both parties already married, but NOT consummated), Special
> Circumstance #1
> 22:27-29 = Rape, woman who is a virgin, NOT betrothed, Special
Circumstance
> #2
> 22:30       = Incest
> See also Leviticus 18 and the sexual perversions of the Canaanites that
the
> Israelites were not to commit.
>
> Respectively yours,
>
> Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Cc: <leviny AT 012.net.il>
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 6:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
>
>
> > No, I didn't write that it is "the rabbinic understanding of the
> > passage, within the context of rabbinic halachah" - you wrote that.
> > And what it seems to me that you are saying is that - either the
> > rabbis believed that they were transmitting into writing, the
> > explanations of the particulars of the Law that was written in Torah,
> > or that they believed that the Torah was deficient and that they were
> > compensating for that.  Either belief is still faith based.
> >
> > So then let's leave the rabbis out of it (as I did).  Since there is
> > no law against an unmarried (and unbetrothed) woman having sex, the
> > TORAH - not the rabbis - must be describing something else in this
> > passage - as I explained.
> >
> > And the distinction of this passage only referring to a betrothed
> > woman doesn't have to appear in the text per se (but it is implied),
> > because the text was written for and given to, people who already
> > knew the distinction, ie; that there is no law against an unmarried
> > and unbetrothed woman having sex, and that the Torah, therefore, is
> > describing specific circumstances - ie; a man who decides he doesn't
> > like his new wife and wants to get out of his divorce obligations, so
> > he accuses her of adultery - (and adultery occurs only AFTER they
> > became engaged) - because otherwise, if she had been with another man
> > BEFORE they became engaged, he knows that the Torah does not prohibit
> > that, so he couldn't have a case against her.
> >
> > What the Torah is talking about here is CLEARLY stated in verses 14 -
> > 15 (no one needs any rabbis to tell them this) - a man marries a
> > woman, comes to her and HATES HER - ie; his accusations are based on
> > the fact that he now HATES HER - the Torah does NOT say - he marries
> > her and comes to her and he sees that she is not a virgin. The very
> > next sentence continues, "and he makes a wanton accusation against
> > her, spreading a bad name against her" - THIS is the subject of this
> > passage - SLANDER.
> >
> > UNLESS she misrepresented herself - told him she was a virgin when
> > she wasn't a virgin - in that case, if she was already not a virgin
> > before they became engaged, she is not an adulteress, but she
> > forfeits her rights to her Ketuba because she misrepresented herself.
> >
> > That is why the whole thing has to be investigated, and that is why,
> > if he is proven wrong, he is liable for slander.
> >
> > And another thing - G-d certainly knew when He wrote the Torah, that
> > some women do not bleed the first time they have sex.
> >
> > Shoshanna
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Dear Shoshanna,
> > >
> > >The long halakhic explanation that you gave is just what you wrote
> > >it is: the rabbinic understanding of the passage, within the context
> > >of rabbinic halakhah. Basically, it's the rabbis' way of minimizing
> > >what they realized is a problematic law; they were aware of the fact
> > >that there was no law against an unmarried (and unbetrothed) woman
> > >having sex, so they interpreted this passage as really only refering
> > >to an arusah (betrothed woman). But the distinction does not really
> > >appear in the text. If you wish to believe that rabbinic
> > >interpretation is based on the Oral Torah, given to Moses but of
> > >which we have no evidence until the rabbis wrote it down, that's
> > >fine, but please remember that that's a matter of faith, which is
> > >NOT what this list is supposed to be about.
> > >
> > >Yigal Levin
> > >
> > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Shoshanna Walker"
> > ><rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> > >To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > >Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:58 AM
> > >Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Dear Harold, you are oversimplifying things, and you are inserting
> > >> your own ideas about morality into the Torah, which is talking about
> > >> something completely different.
> > >>
> > >> It is not a moral passage, it is a halachic and LEGAL passage, and in
> > >> order to understand it - you have to know Halacha, ie; ORAL TORAH.
> > >>
> > >> There are two stages in Jewish marriage - Kiddushin and Nesuin.
> > >> Kiddushin is effected when the groom gives his bride a ring or
> > >> something else of value, and makes a declaration that, nowadays is
> > >> recited under the chuppa.  It is a legal transaction, but there is
> > >> not a good English translation, so it is sometimes called "betrothal"
> > >> but betrothal does not indicate properly that Kiddushin establishes a
> > >> stronger and more legal obligation than an "engagement".  After
> > >> Kiddushin, the couple is halachically married, and the bride is
> > >> subject to the death penalty for adultery - even BEFORE Nesuin, after
> > >> which the couple may cohabit.
> > >>
> > >> In this passage, the husband accuses his new wife of not being a
> > >> virgin - ie; that SHE HAD COHABITED WITH ANOTHER MAN AFTER KIDDUSHIN.
> > >>
> > >> If adultery CANNOT be proven, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE THAT SHE WAS NOT A
> > >> VIRGIN AT THE TIME OF KIDDUSHIN, she is not subject to any punishment
> > >> by the court, BECAUSE SHE WAS PERMITTED TO COHABIT WITH A MAN BEFORE
> > >> KIDDUSHIN, ie; when she was NOT legally married to anyone.
> > >>
> > >> Even so, however, she would not be entitled to collect the divorce
> > >> settlement stipulated in her marriage document, because she falsely
> > >> misrepresented herself.
> > >>
> > >> THE SUBJECT OF THIS PASSAGE IS A HUSBAND WHO COMES TO HATE HIS NEW
> > >> WIFE AND TRIES TO VOID THE KETUBA BY WANTONLY ACCUSING HER OF
> > >> ADULTERY (and thereby he violates the prohibition of "Motzei Shem Ra"
> > >> - defamation)
> > >>
> > >> Deut 22:  23-24  and 28-29 - "meOrasha" "Orasha" ("BETROTHED") - same
> > >> issue as above.  Proof that this is not talking about a "virgin" is
> > >> that the text says "Betula meOrasha" - a maiden (assumed to be a
> > >> virgin) who is BETROTHED - ie; LEGALLY BOUND TO A MAN (ie; not just a
> > >> simple "virgin")
> > >>
> > >> Verse 21 is proof that this is talking about a woman who is accused
> > >> of adultery - "Asta Nevala" - (committed adultery) and not the modern
> > >> morality of a woman who is not a virgin - remember a woman was
> > >> ALLOWED to be concubines, ie; living with a man and not married to
> > >> him - and there is no stigma or legal punishment against her - as I
> > >> said, a woman is only liable for one of the forbidden sexual
> > >> relationships outlined by the Torah, and single unmarried woman
> > >> having sexual relationship with a man not her father, brother, or a
> > >> woman, or an animal, is fine.
> > >>
> > >> In verses 28 - 29, the man who has cohabited with a BETROTHED woman
> > >> has to marry her, because SHE WOULD THEN NO LONGER (after sex with
> > >> another man) BE ALLOWED TO COHABIT WITH HER HUSBAND, IE; THE MAN SHE
> > >> WAS BETROTHED TO.
> > >>
> > >> Lev. 21:14  is an ENTIRELY different matter - it is about the special
> > >> rules for a Kohen, who has to maintain a higher degree of purity,
> > >> therefore he cannot marry any woman who had been married to, ie; had
> > >> sexual relations, with anyone else.
> > >>
> > >> Shoshanna
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> HH: It is a moral issue in the passage that we
> > >> have been discussing,
> > >> Deut 22:13-21. This is the main passage on the
> > >> subject. It is talking
> > >> about a moral issue, that of sexual purity. The
> > >> idea is that men wanted
> > >> pure wives, not women that other men had possessed
> > >> sexually. Virginity
> > >> is also a moral issue in other biblical laws: Deut
> > >> 22:23-24, Deut
> > >> 22:28-29. There is an implied moral element in Lev
> > >> 21:14. The issue of
> > >> virginity probably lies behind the words in Song
> > >> of Solomon 8:8-10. One
> > >> of the Shulamite's attractions for Solomon was the
> > >> purity of her virginity.
> > >>
> > >> Yours,
> > >> Harold Holmyard
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> b-hebrew mailing list
> > >> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> b-hebrew mailing list
> > >> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -- No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > >> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/902 - Release Date:
> > >>15/07/2007 14:21
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >
> > For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a
courtesy
> of Com-Pair Services!
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.12/910 - Release Date: 7/21/07
> 3:52 PM
> >
>
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a
> courtesy of Com-Pair Services!
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy
of Com-Pair Services!
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.12/910 - Release Date: 7/21/07
3:52 PM
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a 
courtesy of Com-Pair Services!