Naarah Betulah - Chapter One

Between the ages of three and twelve and a half, as evident from Halachah 8. See Rama(Even HaEzer 177:1).

See Hilchot Eruvin 1:12 and Hilchot Shekalim 1:2, where the Rambam describes the weightof this coin. According to the figures he gives in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot8:8), in contemporary measure a sela is 19.2 grams. According to the Piskei Siddur of RabbiShneur Zalman of Liadi, it is 20.4 grams.

See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 220), which describes this mitzvah as ‘‘thecommandment we have been given with regard to a man who seduces [a virgin].’’ (See also Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 61.)
Both in the Mishneh Torah and in Sefer HaMitzvot, the payment of the fine by a seducer,a rapist and one who issues a slanderous report appears to be included in the same mitzvah(Nachalat Efrayim).
Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:8 states that the cases involving laws governing a seducer and a rapistare to be tried by judges with semichah, a qualification that is not possessed by Rabbinical judges in the post-Talmudic period. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 177:2) states that inthe present age, a seducer and a rapist should be compelled to satisfy the girl’s father for thedamage they have caused.

As mentioned in the following halachah, a rapist must marry the woman he raped, while a seducer need not. And, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 1, a rapist must alsoreimburse the woman for the pain and embarrassment he caused her.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that unless there are witnesses tothe relations, the woman has no way of proving her claim against the man. The Migdal Oz explains that this refers to an instance where witnesses saw the man and the woman engage inrelations from afar and were not able to determine whether she was seduced or raped.
The assumptions mentioned by the Rambam are based on the passage (stated with regardto a consecrated maiden, Deuteronomy 23:24-27): ‘‘This is the law when a virgin maiden wasconsecrated to one man and another man meets her in the city and has relations with her.Both of them should be executed, [i.e., we assume the girl consented]... because she did notcry out in the city.... If the man encountered the maiden who was consecrated in the field...,the girl has not committed a sin... for the man attacked her in the field..., where there was noone to come to her aid.’’

Exodus 22:16 states: ‘‘If her father refuses to allow him to marry her...,’’ and Ketubot 39b explains that the girl is also given the option of rejecting the man.

The simple meaning of the passage from Exodus implies that the seducer should marrythe girl, but Ketubot 40a explains that this is not a binding obligation.

He does, however, pay damages, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

I.e., she is given a ketubah of 200 zuzim, as is given to other virgin maidens (Hilchot Ishut 11:4), despite the fact that she was not a virgin at the time of the marriage (Ma’aseh Roke’ach).

See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 218). See also Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah557).

In this halachah, the Rambam uses the Biblical term tzara’at, although generally he usesthe Rabbinic term mukeh sh’chin. See Chapter 3, Halachah 4, and the conclusion of HilchotIshut.

If, however, the woman wants to be divorced, the rapist may divorce her [Shulchan Aruch(Even HaEzer 177:3)].

See Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 358). See also Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah558).

The Torah does not require him to marry a woman with whom there is any prohibitionwhatsoever.

For all Rabbinic prohibitions have the source in the Torah’s commandment to observe the rulings of our Sages.

For a husband is forbidden to engage in marital relations with an adulterous wife, asstated in Hilchot Ishut 24:17. See the Beit Shmuel 177:4, who emphasizes that the intent isthat witnesses observed the actual commission of adultery, not merely immodest behaviorthat suggests adultery. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 5.

See Leviticus 21:13; Hilchot Ishut 1:8.

Although her lack of virginity is a result of his deed, she is still forbidden to him. See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 17:16.

Chapter 18, Halachah 2.

At which point her husband is forbidden to remarry her, as stated in Hilchot Gerushin11:12.

Although he did not personally prevent the positive commandment from being observed,since he is no longer able to observe it, he must bear the consequences of his violation of theprohibition.

I.e., vaginal and not anal intercourse. The Rambam’s ruling is not accepted by theRa’avad and Rabbenu Asher, who cite Kiddushin 9b-10a in support of their conception.
The Kiryat Sefer supports the Rambam’s ruling, based on Sanhedrin 73b, which statesthat the man is not liable until he inserts his entire penis into the vagina, explaining that itis only then that the woman will lose her virginity. Since she will never lose her virginitythrough anal intercourse, the man is not held liable.

For a person who admits his culpability in matters punishable by a fine is not liable. See Chapter 2, Halachah 12 and notes.

For a warning is necessary only before infliction of the punishments of execution orlashing.

Although there are times when the Hebrew term na’arah, translated as ‘‘maiden,’’ has amore specific meaning (see Hilchot Ishut 2:1), Ketubot 40b explains that in this instance theintent is also a girl below the age of twelve. Although most Rishonim agree with theRambam, there are, however, significant authorities who rule that a fine need not bepaid until the girl reaches the age of na’arut.

Generally, this refers to a girl of the age of twelve and a half who has manifested signs of physical maturity. If a girl does not manifest signs of physical maturity, she is not considered a bogeret until the age of 20 or 35. See Hilchot Ishut 2:1-4.

For her hymen will grow back, as implied by Hilchot Ishut 3:11.

Since the Torah states that the fine should be paid to the father, it is necessary to clarifythat the fine must be paid even if the father is not alive.

As mentioned in Hilchot Gerushin 11;1, when a girl below the age of majority marries without being consecrated by her father, she can nullify the marriage without a formal divorce. This is called mi’un. When she takes this option, even if we know that she is still a virgin, she is not entitled to receive the fine because she has been married previously.

A woman who does not manifest female sexual characteristics.

Since they are not mentally competent, we fear that they were raped previously withouttheir knowing about it. Compare to Hilchot Ishut 11:4, 8. Note the Ra’avad, who statesthat a person who rapes or seduces a deaf-mute is liable for a fine.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 17.

Even if we are certain that she and her husband never engaged in intimate relations, sheis not paid a fine. Compare to Hilchot Ishut 11:1.

We do not assume that she entered into relations with her husband before the stage ofnisu’in.

Although Deuteronomy 22:28 speaks of the fine being paid to the girl’s father, from thefact that the verse mentions ‘‘a maiden who was not consecrated,’’ Ketubot 38a derives thatwhen a maiden has been consecrated, the fine should be paid to the woman who was raped.

Since she consented to relations, she waives the payment of the fine. See Chapter 2,Halachot 10-11.
Note Rav David Arameah, who states that this applies only when she is a na’arah. Ifshe is still a minor, her father receives the fine, and she does not have the potential to waiveit through her consent.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Ishut 11:2, we operate under the presumption that these women have engaged in relations previously: a convert and a Canaanite maidservant because non-Jews’ morals are considered to be weak, and a woman held captive because she is at the mercy of her captors.

Even if she engaged in relations before the age of three, her hymen will grow back, asstated in the notes on Halachah 8.

As stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2 and 16:4, a person receives corporal punishment forthe commission of a transgression only when he has been warned previously.

This refers to a girl who was divorced after consecration. If she was divorced after nisu’in, the second stage of the marriage, she is not entitled to a fine as stated in Halachah 9.

The verse speaks of the woman’s miscarrying. If she herself does not die, the man who caused her to miscarry must pay her damages.

I.e., if the woman dies, her heirs need not be reimbursed. Since the man is liable for a sin of a more severe nature, he is not held liable for damages (Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:5).

Although the general principle stated in this halachah is accepted without dispute, theparticular case of the pregnant woman is a matter of question. The Rambam himself states(Hilchot Chovel UMazik 4:5-6) that if the man did not intend to strike the woman, he isliable to pay damages to her heirs.
In that source, he explains that the leniency granted by the verse applies when the manintended to strike the woman, but did not intend to kill her.

In contrast, with regard to a transgression punishable by lashes: if it is performed un-intentionally, one is still held liable for the financial repercussions.

Once, however, the case is heard before the court, the rapist is held liable if provenguilty, even if the maiden dies. The fine is given to the girl’s heirs (Kessef Mishneh).