Daily Mitzvah (Rambam)

The 220th mitzvah is that we are commanded regarding the law of a seducer.1

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "If a man seduces a virgin...."3

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubos.

Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.

From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.

Footnotes

1.

This refers to a case where the woman was single. If she had already received kiddushin (see first footnote to P213), the transgression would be one of adultery; see N347.

2.

Ex. 22:15.

3.

He must pay a fine of 50 shekels and is required to marry her. The marriage takes place only if the girl consents.

The 218th mitzvah is that a rapist is commanded to marry his victim.1

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement2 (exalted be He), "Because he violated her, he must then take her to be his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives."

It is explained in tractate Makkos3 that the prohibition on the rapist not to divorce her, i.e., "he may not send her away," is considered "a prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment." Our Sages stated there,4 "Why [should a rapist who marries his victim, and then divorces her, and then marries her again not receive lashes]? This is a prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment?!" This statement demonstrates that G‑d's statement, "He must then take her as his wife," counts as a positive commandment.

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubos.

Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.

From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.

Footnotes

1.

As in P220, the marriage takes place only if she consents, and he must pay a fine.

2.

Deut. 22:29.

3.

15a.

4.

The Rambam now proves that this verse contains two separate mitzvos, a positive commandment (that he marry her), and a prohibition (that once he marries her, he is never allowed to divorce her).

The Gemara is discussing the types of prohibitions for which the punishment is lashes. When a positive commandment can "remedy" the prohibited act (lav she'nitak l'aseh), one does not receive lashes as long as that remedial act is performed. For example, there is a prohibition against leaving sacrificial meat beyond the prescribed time. Should one leave the meat too long, there is a positive commandment to burn the meat. As long as the meat can still be burned, one is not lashed for the prohibition.

The Gemara then postulates a distinction: perhaps this principle applies only in such a case, where the prohibition (e.g., leaving the meat) always comes before the positive act (burning it). Perhaps when the positive act can come first (called "a prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment"), one does receive lashes.

This the Gemara disproves with our mitzvah, regarding which we know clearly that one does not receive lashes since he can always remarry her. It therefore asks: "[According to your reasoning,] why [should he not receive lashes]?" — being that the positive commandment comes first.

The point of quoting this passage is to bring the phrase, "a positive commandment," which shows that marrying her counts as a mitzvah.

The 358th prohibition is that a rapist is forbidden from divorcing the woman he raped.1

The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "He must then take her to be his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives."

This prohibition is preceded by the positive commandment,3 "He must then take her as his wife." In tractate Makkos4 it is clearly explained that this is considered a "prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment."

It is also said there, "A rapist who divorces his wife — if he is not a Cohen, he remarries her and does not receive lashes. If he is a Cohen, he receives lashes, and he may not remarry her [since a Cohen may not marry a divorcee]."5

You should keep in mind that even a non-Cohen will receive lashes for divorcing the woman he raped, if he cannot perform the remedial positive command [of remarrying her]. This would be in a case where she died before he remarried her, or she married another man after he divorced her.6 This corresponds to our principle, "If he fulfilled [the remedial positive commandment, he does not get lashes]; if he did not fulfill" [this commandment, he would receive lashes].7

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubos.

Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.

From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.

Footnotes

1.

After he marries her — see P218 above.

2.

Deut. 22:29.

3.

P218.

4.

15a. See note to P218 for an explanation of this passage. It is quoted here because it uses the term, "prohibition," which indicates that it counts as one of the 365 prohibitions.

5.

Since he is unable to perform the "remedial" positive commandment of remarrying her, it is not considered a lav she'nitak l'aseh. See note to P218.

6.

In which case, he is forbidden from later remarrying her. See N356.

7.

See Kesef Mishneh, Hilchos Sanhedrin 16:4.

The 219th mitzvah is the law of a motzi shem ra [i.e., one who marries a virgin and falsely accuses her of having relations between the kidushin1 and the n'suin] — that we are commanded to give him lashes, and that he remain married to her, for he also2 is instructed,3 "He must then take her as his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives."

It is explained in tractate Makkos4 that this prohibition, is like that of a rapist, i.e., it is considered a "prohibition which is preceded by a positive commandment."

The details of this mitzvah are explained in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubos.

Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.

From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.

Footnotes

1.

In Jewish law, there are two steps to a marriage, kiddushin and n'suin. After the first step of kidushin, they are considered husband and wife, but they may not yet live together as such until after n'suin. During Talmudic times there was a twelve-month period between the two stages, but today they are performed together. See P213.

2.

As the rapist in P218 above.

3.

Deut. 22:19.

4.

15a.

The 359th prohibition is that the motzi shem ra is forbidden from divorcing his wife.

The source of this commandment too1 is G‑d's statement,2 "he may not send her away as long as he lives."

This prohibition is also3 preceded by a positive command, "he must then take her as his wife."

Should he divorce his wife, the law regarding lashes is like that of the rapist,4 as explained in the last chapter of Makkos.5 The details of this mitzvah are explained there, and in the third and fourth chapters of Kesubos.

Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.

From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.

Footnotes

1.

As in N358 above.

2.

Deut. 22:19.

3.

As in P218 above.

4.

See N358 above.

5.

15a.