Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

As is the case with regard to several other mitzvot, the passage in Deuteronomy obviously indicates that the transgression of a negative commandment is involved in making such slanderous remarks about one’s wife. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the punishment of lashes to be given. There is, however, no explicit statement in that passage saying, ‘‘Do not make such statements.’’ Therefore, it is necessary to find another verse that has a specific statement forbidding slander.

As is the case with regard to several other mitzvot, the passage in Deuteronomy obviously indicates that the transgression of a negative commandment is involved in making such slanderous remarks about one’s wife. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the punishment of lashes to be given. There is, however, no explicit statement in that passage saying, ‘‘Do not make such statements.’’ Therefore, it is necessary to find another verse that has a specific statement forbidding slander.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1. This is the only instance in the Torah when a person whoviolates a prohibition is given corporal punishment and is also required to make financial restitution.

And not to her father’s heirs.

As mentioned previously, the term na’arah implies a specific time frame: the six months after a girl’s manifestation of physical signs of maturity once she has reached the age of twelve.

Generally, the word נַעֲרָה, maiden, is written in the Torah without the final heh. The inclusion of the heh is obviously purposeful and intended to teach a concept.

Cases involving capital punishment are judged by a court of 23 judges. These cases can be judged only when the Sanhedrin holds sessions in the Courtyard of Hewn Stone next to the Temple, as stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 14:11-14. (Once the Sanhedrin ceased holding sessions in that place, even a court of judges with semichah cannot try capital cases.)

As stated in Deuteronomy 22:20.

Chapter 5, Halachah 5:3. Based on Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:17 and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 177:2), it would appear that in the present age, the court should hold a person who makes such statements responsible and compel him to reach a settlement with the father of the girl whose reputation he maligned.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 219) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 553) regard this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Sefer HaMitzvot states that this commandment also includes lashing him.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 359) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 554)regard this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

In which instance, her first husband is forbidden to remarry her.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and notes.

Ketubot 40a explains that in such an instance the woman is taught to say that she does not desire to remain married to the man, so that there is no obstacle presented to the divorce.

There is a difference of opinion among our Sages whether or not all the following laws apply if the husband did not engage in marital relations with his wife. The Rambam follows the opinion that it is necessary for the couple to have engaged in marital relations. See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh on Halachah 12.

I.e., the husband’s claim is twofold: a) that contrary to his supposition, his bride was nota virgin; b) that she had committed adultery between the time he consecrated her and thetime he consummated the marriage. The latter dimension of the claim is more significant, because if substantiated, it involves the death penalty. The issue of a groom’s claim that abride presumed to be a virgin was not— without any knowledge of an adulterous relation-ship— is discussed in Hilchot Ishut 11:8-17. See Halachah 11.

For no punishment will be administered by the court unless two witnesses testify to the wrongdoing.

The punishment given for adultery committed by a consecrated maiden (Deuteronomy22:23).

The term used for nullify here, hazamah, has a very specific meaning. It refers to witnesses who testify that it was impossible for the husband’s witnesses to testify with regard to the alleged adultery, because the two witnesses were together in a different place at the time the first witnesses testified that the adultery took place. If the second pair of witnesses state that they were in the same place as the first pair and did not witness the commission of adultery, the testimony of the first pair is nullified, but the first pair of witnesses is not punished. This is referred to as hakchashah. See Hilchot Edut, Chapter 18.

As stated in Deuteronomy 19:19, when the testimony of witnesses is nullified in the above fashion, the lying witnesses are giving the punishment they desired to have imposed upon the defendant.

Note the Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 553), who quotes opinions that maintain that if thegirl’s father brings witnesses who nullify the husband’s witnesses through hakashah, the husband’s witnesses are not punished, but the husband himself is required to pay the fine.

Here again the intent is hazamah.

Moreover, the witnesses must pay a fine of 100 sela’im to the husband.

The husband incurs these penalties at the time he makes his statements in court. At that time, the woman has already become a bogeret.

Generally, when a bogeret commits adultery she is executed by strangulation, a less severe means of execution. In this case, the woman is still given the penalty designated fora na’arah, as the Rambam explains.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 9.
The rationale for this ruling can be explained as follows: Most of the women mentioned in that halachah are not granted a fine, because we assume that they are non-virgins. For this reason, the husband should not have presumed that she was a virgin. With regard to anaylonit, she is never considered to be a na’arah. Until the age of twenty, she is considered to be a k’tanah, and after twenty, she is considered to be a bogeret.

In which case, she is entitled to a fine in the event of seduction or rape.

Ketubot 46a leaves this issue unresolved. As such, we follow the more lenient ruling andfree the man of punishment.

Ketubot, loc. cit., explains that relations with a yevamah are excluded from these laws, because the relevant passage quotes the girl’s father as saying (Deuteronomy 22:16): ‘‘Igave my daughter to this man as a wife.’’ This does not apply to the relationship between a yavam and a yevamah, for they are destined for each other by Divine decree.

The Mishneh LaMelech states that this statement applies with regard to the relation-ship between a yavam and a yevamah and similar instances, but does not apply with regard to the first law stated in this halachah. In that instance, the husband is not held liable because we are in doubt with regard to the law. For that same reason, he should be enjoined against divorcing his wife.

I.e., if he issues a slanderous report that she had engaged in anal intercourse previously, he is not held liable (Ketubot 46a, b).

I.e., he claims that witnesses supplied him with this information.

Although the Scriptural penalty is not imposed, our Sages required that he receive punishment for slandering his wife.

See Hilchot Ishut 11:8-17.

For they desired to have someone stoned, and thus should receive the appropriate penalty.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that this is a matter of debate in Ketubot 46a. Although the Sages advance the opinion quoted by the Rambam, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov states that the intent is that the girl’s parents produce the sheet on which the couple engaged in relations. Since the Rambam follows Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s opinion as reflected inHalachah 8, it is difficult to understand why he uses the Sages’ explanation in this halachah. The commentaries explain that the two opinions in the Talmud are not mutually exclusive, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov would also accept the Sages’ view.
Note also the gloss of Rav David Arameah, who states that when a husband brings witnesses who testify that the girl committed adultery, it is not sufficient for the parents to bring a blood-stained garment, for we fear that perhaps the blood came from another source. The testimony of witnesses, he explains, can be nullified only by other witnesses.

More particulars about the execution are mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 3:8.

It is when she is consecrated, but not married, that there is the possibility that she will ‘‘act immorally in her father’s house,’’ for that is where she lives.

Even if engaged.