Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] virginity

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
  • Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:24:12 -0400

Dear Tory

a) Your question is proof that this can only be talking about a woman who has had sex AFTER she was betrothed, ie; adulteress, since otherwise she would not be subject to death penalty if her husband were proven right, ie; that he is accusing her of sex AFTER their betrothal. She is not stoned because of sex BEFORE betrothal, since everybody knows that is not a capital offense.

Again, the text does not begin this passage by saying that the husband has sex with his new wife, and finds that she is not a virgin, and then goes and reports her, but only that he has sex with his new wife and hates her (Ramban says he hates her because he didn't like sex with her) and THEN accuses her, using that as an excuse to divorce her without "the dowry of virgins" (Sh'mot 22:16) The Torah does not say that he hates her because she is not a virgin, but that this accusation is wanton and slanderous. And an investigation has to be made.

Quoting from Ramban: "If his accusation is found to be true (verse 20), as the husband said, they shall stone her (verse 21). The truth cannot be known except by the testimony of two witnesses. And because, concerning the illicit relations of virgins, Scripture will clarify (verses 23-24 and 28-29) that if she were betrothed she is stoned, and if she were not betrothed, she is absolved from punishment, it was unneccesary to explain here "But if this thing be true" that she was unchaste while betrothed, and [what is more] she so acted willingly [with anyone other than her lawful spouse] "they shall stone her". And instead it says by allusion "because she has done a base deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house", the base deed being that she did so voluntarily. The expression "to play the harlot" signifies "when a wife being under her husband goeth aside" (Numbers 5:29), for an unbetrothed maiden is not termed a harlot if she lies with one of the people, but the betrothed one is espoused to him [her future husband and therefore she is termed a harlot if she commits adultery with another man]"

b) "And they shall spread the cloth" Rashi says that this is a figurative expression meaning, the matter is as white (ie; as clear) as a sheet. Ramban disagrees, and his explanation is more than I can type now.

Shoshanna



Dear Shoshanna,

I'm in agreement with you that pre-marital sex was per se no capital offense, illicit sex could be. But if a woman claims -- after the wedding night -- that her hymen was broken through no fault of her own before the wedding night but subsequent to the bretrothal, the husband can dispute her testimony. Bed-linen from the wedding night wont help her case because of her admission and because the unstained linen is the husband's evidence against her: "I did not find BTWLYM in her" (Dt. xxii 14). But then, if no BTWLYM are produced, she is stoned to death (vv. 20-21), and in this case she is stoned precisely for having sex before the betrothal. Lying is not a capital offense. The big question, however, is what kind of BTWLYM could she then possibly be expected to submit in refutation of the husband's claim? What are BTWLYM?

Tory Thorpe


On Jul 22, 2007, at 5:03 PM, Shoshanna Walker wrote:

Because only a woman who has committed adultery, not sex without
marriage/betrothal, is subject to the death penalty. "Played the
whore" refers to that, not to modern day ideas of what promiscuity
consists of.

Shoshanna




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page