Forbidden Relations: Responsibility, Penalties, and Evidence
This chapter establishes the different levels of liability for forbidden relations, the conditions required for punishment, and the evidence used to establish a prohibited relationship. It first identifies the different penalties, then explains responsibility, the acts that establish liability, and the evidence a court may rely upon.
The judicial punishments discussed here require the ’s authorized courts and their prescribed conditions. The capital penalties and -prescribed lashes described in this chapter are not administered today.
פרק א23 halachosTuesday, October 20, 2026ט׳ במרחשון תשפ״ז◷ Estimated study time: 80–105 min
אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.
Chapter progress 0 of 23 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
Halachah 10% through
The Rebbe ExplainsFrom guarding our steps to holiness itself
From guarding our steps to holiness itself
The opens with a verse from : “Establish my steps through Your word, and let no wrongdoing rule over me” (119:133). Its language of guarding one’s steps introduces a devoted to the boundaries of intimate relationships and food.
The Rebbe notes a progression within the . Its opening emphasizes separation from what is undesirable. Its conclusion, at the end of Shechitah, emphasizes holiness in its own right. These are connected, but they are not identical: protecting ourselves from what is forbidden prepares the way for a life positively connected with .
The opening therefore gives us a way to begin, while the ending points toward the goal. We guard our conduct so that wrongdoing does not govern us, and we grow toward holiness itself.
Sources
5749, vol. I, p. 365, note 90; cited in Otzar HaMelech, introduction to . Linked collection index. · Read source ↗
The Rebbe ExplainsWhy call a book of boundaries “Kedushah”?
Why call a book of boundaries “Kedushah”?
Much of this concerns separating ourselves from forbidden relationships and forbidden foods. It also includes shechitah, through which an animal can become permitted for eating and can then be elevated through its proper use. Why give these laws the lofty name “Kedushah”—holiness?
The Rebbe explains that kedushah carries both meanings. It means separation from what is undesirable, but it also names the positive connection with . The boundaries are part of that connection, not a subject outside it.
The fifth book’s place in the adds a deeper dimension. The Rebbe relates it to the fifth book of ’s, which encompasses the teaching that precedes it. Here, too, separating from what is forbidden is connected with a fuller level of holiness.
Even shechitah illustrates the distinction. It can prepare an animal for a sacred offering, but it can also be performed for ordinary food. By itself, it removes the animal’s prohibition as an animal not properly slaughtered; it does not necessarily make the meat holy, and other prohibitions may remain. Nevertheless, the Rebbe explains that the work of separation here belongs to the wholeness of kedushah. From that level, the proceeds to Haflaah, pointing to a still higher level of holiness.
Sources
5749, vol. I, pp. 363–364, notes 80–81; cited in Otzar HaMelech, introduction to . Linked collection index. · Read source ↗
The Rebbe ExplainsWhat the name “Issurei Biah” tells us
What the name “Issurei Biah” tells us
The Rebbe draws attention to the title “”—forbidden relations. These laws identify relationships and conduct that must not be allowed into Jewish life, even briefly. The name itself expresses the need to keep what is forbidden from entering.
This is a statement about the ’s boundaries, not a label for every subject discussed in these chapters or for the worth of a person. The section also explains family purity, conversion, and legal status; each must be understood according to its own precise laws. Read together with the name , the title gives the opening direction: protect the boundaries that make a holy life possible.
Sources
5751, vol. I, p. 301, note 32; cited in Otzar HaMelech, introduction to . Linked collection index. The second paragraph supplies reading guidance, not an additional quotation from the Rebbe. · Read source ↗
Introduction to — The 37
The Laws of Forbidden Relations
-
These laws encompass thirty-seven :
,,
one positive commandment and thirty-six negative commandments.
:
They are as follows:
();
Not to have relations with one’s mother.
();
Not to have relations with one’s father’s wife.
();
Not to have relations with one’s sister.
();
Not to have relations with the daughter of one’s father’s wife.
();
Not to have relations with one’s son’s daughter.
();
Not to have relations with one’s daughter.
();
Not to have relations with one’s daughter’s daughter.
();
Not to marry both a woman and her daughter.
();
Not to marry both a woman and her son’s daughter.
();
Not to marry both a woman and her daughter’s daughter.
();
Not to have relations with one’s father’s sister.
();
Not to have relations with one’s mother’s sister.
();
Not to have relations with the wife of one’s father’s brother.
();
Not to have relations with one’s son’s wife.
();
Not to have relations with one’s brother’s wife.
();
Not to have relations with one’s wife’s sister.
();
Not to have intercourse with an animal.
();
For a woman not to cause an animal to have intercourse with her.
();
Not to have intercourse with a male.
();
Not to uncover one’s father’s nakedness.
();
Not to uncover the nakedness of one’s father’s brother.
();
Not to have relations with a married woman.
();
Not to have relations with a .
();
Not to intermarry with non-Jews.
()׳;
For an Ammonite or Moabite not to enter ’s congregation.
();
Not to exclude a third-generation Egyptian from entering the congregation.
();
Not to exclude a third-generation Edomite from entering the congregation.
();
For a not to enter the congregation.
();
For a not to enter the congregation.
(),;
Not to castrate a male, including a domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird.
();
For a not to marry a widow.
(),;
For a not to have relations with a widow, even without marriage.
();
For a to marry a virgin during her stage.
();
For a not to marry a divorced woman.
();
For a not to marry a .
();
For a not to marry a .
(),.
Not to engage in intimate closeness with any of the , even without intercourse.
.
These are explained in the following chapters.
The list introduces the entire section of , not only Chapter 1. Each prohibition has its own scope and qualifications, which the relevant chapters explain. “Entering the congregation” concerns eligibility for marriage after conversion where applicable, rather than permission to belong to the Jewish people. ,,, and are technical categories whose precise definitions and marriage restrictions are explained later in this section.
One who deliberately has relations with any of the
,
incurs ,
״
as it is stated: “For whoever commits
any of these abominations—
״(,),
the souls who commit them shall be cut off from among their people” ( 18:29).
.
Both participants—the one who penetrates and the one who is penetrated—are liable.
here means the relationships that the prohibits with the penalty of , including certain close relatives and a married woman. Other prohibited relationships have different penalties, as the chapter will explain.
, literally “being cut off,” is a severe punishment imposed by Heaven rather than administered by a court. Liability is not limited to the person who initiates the act: each participant who knowingly and willingly transgresses is accountable, subject to the conditions governing that person’s liability.
,
If they transgressed inadvertently,
.
they must bring a fixed sin-offering.
An inadvertent transgression can result from not knowing the prohibition or from being mistaken about the circumstances. This differs from knowingly committing the forbidden act. When both participants transgress inadvertently and are liable for a sin-offering, each must bring their own offering; they do not bring one joint offering.
A “fixed sin-offering,” or , is an offering of a prescribed category. It differs from an offering whose required form varies according to the person’s financial means.
Some of the
,
also carry a court-imposed death penalty,
.
in addition to the liability for common to them all.
All the relationships classified here as carry for deliberate transgression. Some also carry a particular death penalty when the requirements for a capital conviction are fulfilled. The absence of the evidence necessary for court punishment does not by itself remove the person’s liability before Heaven.
Synopsis
Deliberate relations with an incur ; inadvertent transgression requires each liable participant to bring a fixed sin-offering. Certain relationships also carry a court-imposed death penalty when its legal requirements are met.
For those that carry a court-imposed death penalty,
,
if were present and a warning was given,
-
and the participants did not desist from their conduct,
.
they are executed by the form of death prescribed for that offense.
The warning, called , is a formal warning before the transgression. It identifies the conduct as forbidden and informs the person that it carries a death penalty. A general reminder to behave properly does not fulfill this requirement.
Merely hearing the warning and continuing is also insufficient for capital liability. The offender must expressly accept the stated liability and then commit the act immediately afterward, within the required interval. Silence, a nod, or simply saying “I know” does not satisfy this requirement.
The necessary must establish the offense and the conditions required for conviction. These detailed requirements are explained in 12:2; the brief wording here presupposes those laws.
Synopsis
Capital punishment requires the necessary , a valid warning, the offender’s express acceptance of liability, and commission of the offense within the required interval.
Knowledge of does not replace the formal warning. A person may know the general prohibition yet be unaware of a fact that makes this particular act forbidden. Knowing that adultery is prohibited, for example, does not establish that he knew the woman was married.
The lashes discussed here are -prescribed lashes. This requirement should not be understood as applying automatically to every form of Rabbinic disciplinary punishment.
For wherever a warning is required, its purpose
.
is to distinguish inadvertent wrongdoing from deliberate wrongdoing.
The warning establishes awareness of the prohibition in the actual case before the person proceeds. The court cannot substitute an assumption based on the offender’s scholarship for the required warning.
Synopsis
Even a scholar requires a formal warning before the court may impose execution or -prescribed lashes. General knowledge does not establish awareness of the prohibition in the particular case.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
He knows the law, but does he know the facts?
A scholar knows that relations with a married woman are forbidden. However, he mistakenly believes that this particular woman is unmarried.
His knowledge of the general prohibition does not establish that he knowingly violated it in this case. That is why scholarship does not replace the required warning: the warning must address the act he is about to commit.
The key distinction
Knowing a law and recognizing that it applies here are two separate things.
🔎Dig DeeperEven a Scholar Requires a Warning
Even a Scholar Requires a Warning
In 8b, invokes the purpose of a warning to argue that a scholar does not require one: his knowledge can establish that he understands the prohibition and is deliberately violating it.
The invokes that same purpose while requiring a warning even for a scholar. The and explain the distinction between knowing a law and knowing that it applies to the circumstances at hand. According to the Rambam, scholarship alone cannot replace the warning that establishes awareness in this particular case.
Even a scholar needs a formal warning before the court can impose the penalties discussed here. Knowing the general law does not establish that he recognized how it applied to the particular situation.
Our learning also needs a moment of connection to real life. I might learn about speaking gently, then answer sharply when someone interrupts me. Before a familiar pressure point—coming home tired, correcting a child, or answering a frustrating message—I can pause and recall one relevant teaching. That pause helps bring what I know into the moment when I need it.
Try today
Before one challenging interaction, recall a Torah teaching you want to guide your response.
These are distinct forms of execution prescribed by law. Each offense has its own designated penalty; the court does not choose among them. Their procedures are explained in .
:
The following are punishable by stoning:
,
one who has relations with his mother,
,
with his father’s wife,
-
or with his son’s wife—
,
the woman called his daughter-in-law;
“His father’s wife” includes a woman who is not his mother. “His son’s wife” refers to a relationship created through marriage; the fact that his son merely had relations with a woman does not make her his daughter-in-law.
,
a man who engages in intercourse with a male;
,
a man who has intercourse with an animal;
.
and a woman who causes an animal to have intercourse with her.
These offenses belong to the same category of prescribed punishment. Actual liability remains subject to the requirements governing the particular participant and act. Court-imposed execution also requires the evidence and warning described above.
Synopsis
Relations with one’s mother, father’s wife, or daughter-in-law, male intercourse, and intercourse with an animal fall within the category punishable by stoning, subject to the applicable conditions.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
When does she become his daughter-in-law?
A man’s son had a relationship with a woman, but they never entered into . That relationship alone does not make her the father’s daughter-in-law.
Compare this with a woman who became to his son through valid . She has the status of his son’s wife, and the corresponding prohibition applies to the father.
Other prohibitions may still apply in the first situation.
The key distinction
The specific status of “his son’s wife” comes through marriage, not merely through a relationship.
Halachah 4: valid creates the status of the son's wife, making her the father's daughter-in-law. A relationship alone does not create this particular status; other prohibitions may still apply. The diagram illustrates the family relationship, not the separate conditions required for a court-imposed penalty.
one who has relations with his wife’s daughter during his wife’s lifetime,
,
with her daughter’s daughter,
,
with her son’s daughter,
The first case concerns his wife’s daughter from another relationship. The next two cases are his wife’s granddaughters: the daughter of her daughter and the daughter of her son. His own daughter and granddaughters appear separately below.
,
with his wife’s mother,
,
with her mother’s mother,
,
or with her father’s mother;
These are his mother-in-law and his wife’s two grandmothers. Together, the wife-related cases cover her specified female descendants and ancestors.
The qualification “during his wife’s lifetime” applies to this group of relationships through his wife. After his wife dies, these women remain forbidden to him, and deliberate transgression still incurs . However, this court-imposed death penalty no longer applies. Her death does not make the relationship permissible.
,
and one who has relations with his own daughter,
,
with his daughter’s daughter,
.
or with his son’s daughter.
This final group concerns his own descendants rather than relatives connected to him through his wife. The preceding qualification about his wife’s lifetime does not limit these prohibitions or their prescribed capital penalty.
Synopsis
Relations with the specified female relatives of one’s wife carry burning during her lifetime; after her death, the prohibitions and remain. Relations with one’s own daughter or granddaughters also carry burning, independently of whether one’s wife is alive.
The only forbidden relationship punishable by strangulation
-
is relations with a married woman,
״״(,),
as it is stated: “The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” ( 20:10).
.
When the prescribes death without specifying its form, it means strangulation.
This establishes the general penalty for adultery. The following passages identify circumstances in which a different penalty applies. All these capital penalties remain subject to the requirements for conviction explained earlier.
-
If she was the daughter of a ,
,
she is punishable by burning, while the man is punishable by strangulation,
״
as it is stated: “The daughter of a ,
״(,).
if she profanes herself through forbidden relations, shall be burned with fire” ( 21:9).
This special penalty concerns adultery after , the completed stage of marriage. Her priestly lineage changes her punishment, but not the punishment of the man who committed adultery with her.
A qualifying virgin belongs to the category discussed next, even if she is a ’s daughter.
Consecration, or , creates a binding marital relationship before the later stage of marriage, . Relations with another man during this period are therefore adultery, even though the couple have not yet begun married life together.
The special category here requires a virgin who is and remains within her father’s marital jurisdiction. is a defined stage of maturity, ordinarily lasting six months after a girl reaches twelve and develops the required signs of maturity. Chapter 3 explains the additional conditions, including when leaving her father’s jurisdiction changes the applicable penalty.
Wherever the states,
״״(,;,;,;,;,),
“They shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” ( 20:11, 12, 13, 16, 27),
.
the prescribed punishment is stoning.
The phrase “their blood is upon them” identifies stoning through the ’s accepted interpretation. This differs from an unspecified statement of death, which indicates strangulation.
Synopsis
Adultery generally carries strangulation. For a ’s daughter after , she receives burning while the man receives strangulation. With a qualifying virgin , both receive stoning, including when she is a ’s daughter.
🔎Dig DeeperAdultery and Its Different Capital Penalties
Adultery and Its Different Capital Penalties
52b explains why an unspecified death penalty is understood as strangulation. It compares court-imposed death with death imposed by Heaven: where the does not prescribe another method, the execution should not leave an external wound.
This explains the default rule. When Scripture or its accepted interpretation identifies another penalty, that specific rule determines the punishment.
“Remaining” refers to the not included in the capital categories just listed. “ alone” distinguishes their liability from capital punishment; it does not exclude lashes.
-
Therefore, if were present and a warning was given,
,
the court administers lashes to them,
.
for those liable to are subject to lashes.
For these noncapital offenses, liability to does not prevent the court from imposing -prescribed lashes when their legal requirements are fulfilled. The absence of a capital penalty therefore does not remove judicial accountability.
Synopsis
without a capital penalty carry . With the required and warning, their deliberate violation is punishable by -prescribed lashes.
Negative Prohibitions, Rabbinic Relatives, and Positive Commands
,
One who deliberately has relations with a woman prohibited by a negative commandment
.
is subject to lashes, as is she.
The category called here consists of relationships prohibited by a negative commandment without the penalty of . It includes, for example, the prohibited union of a and a divorcee. The particular requirements for liability under each prohibition are explained in the relevant chapters.
Both participants are liable when each deliberately transgresses and the conditions for -prescribed lashes are fulfilled.
,.
If they transgress inadvertently, they are exempt from punishment.
Unlike inadvertent relations with an carrying , this category does not require a sin-offering. Nor are -prescribed lashes imposed for an inadvertent transgression. The exemption concerns these penalties; the relationship remains forbidden.
,
One who deliberately has relations with one of the
.
receives disciplinary lashes by Rabbinic decree.
are additional relatives whom the Sages prohibited as a safeguard around the ’s forbidden relationships. Their prohibition is Rabbinic rather than one of the ’s.
means Rabbinic disciplinary lashes. It is a different category of punishment from -prescribed lashes.
,
However, one who has relations with a woman prohibited through a positive commandment
.
does not receive lashes.
A prohibition in this category is derived from the ’s positive instruction rather than expressed as a negative commandment. For example, the ’s obligation to marry a virgin excludes a non-virgin who would otherwise be permitted to him.
Such a prohibition remains binding law. Nevertheless, it does not carry the -prescribed lashes attached to the negative prohibitions discussed above.
If the court administers disciplinary lashes to them
,
to distance them from transgression,
.
it has the authority to do so.
Although the offense has no prescribed lashes, the court may impose for this disciplinary purpose.
Synopsis
Deliberate violation of the specified negative prohibitions carries -prescribed lashes; inadvertent violation does not require a sin-offering. carry Rabbinic disciplinary lashes. Prohibitions derived from positive commandments have no -prescribed lashes, though the court may impose disciplinary punishment.
✦Live ItGive a good intention some support
Give a good intention some support
The Sages prohibited additional family relationships as safeguards around the ’s prohibitions. The chapter distinguishes their Rabbinic status while emphasizing that these boundaries remain binding.
In our , a good intention often benefits from practical support. If I want to learn after but regularly reach for my phone, I can leave a open and put the phone somewhere less convenient. I am choosing a helpful personal arrangement, without treating it as a new prohibition. Serving includes preparing the surroundings in which I hope to make a good choice.
Try today
Make one small change to your surroundings that supports an existing commitment.
Coercion and Responsibility for Forbidden Relations
-
A person who acts under coercion is exempt from punishment—
,,
from lashes and from an offering,
,
and certainly from execution,
״״(,).
as it is stated: “You shall do nothing to the maiden” ( 22:26).
The verse concerns a maiden who was raped. She is not punished for an act forced upon her.
Coercion, called ones, differs from inadvertent wrongdoing. An inadvertent transgressor may have to bring a sin-offering; the person exempted here because of coercion does not.
?
When does this apply?
;
When the person subjected to penetration was coerced.
-,
The penetrating participant, however, does not have this exemption through coercion,
.
for an erection occurs only with conscious intent.
The invokes this principle in classifying the penetrating participant’s legal responsibility. Its application must be read with the commentators’ qualifications below; a physical response should not be treated as an independent demonstration of consent.
One accepted qualification concerns a man whose erection arose for permitted relations with his wife and who was then forced into a forbidden act while still in that state. The understands that the would also consider this genuine coercion. The initial physical state therefore does not establish willing participation in the forbidden act. Coercion under threat of death involves a separate dispute, discussed below.
,
A woman whose intercourse began through coercion
-;
but ended with willingness is exempt from punishment.
,
For once he began intercourse through force,
,
it is not within her control to prevent willingness from arising,
.
because human inclination and nature compel her toward that willingness.
This concerns a woman forced at the outset who subsequently experienced desire or expressed willingness during that same act. That later response does not turn the assault into a freely chosen transgression or make her punishable.
The ruling establishes her exemption even when such a response occurs; it does not require every victim to experience the same response. Ketubos 51a applies the exemption even when her later words express a strong desire for the act to continue.
Synopsis
Coercion exempts the victim from punishment and a sin-offering. A woman forced at the outset remains exempt even if willingness arises during the act. The penetrating participant’s responsibility requires the qualifications concerning the circumstances of the coercion.
🔎Dig DeeperCoercion and Responsibility for Forbidden Relations
Coercion and Responsibility for Forbidden Relations
The identifies a case of genuine coercion involving the penetrating participant: an erection arose for permitted relations, and the man was subsequently forced into forbidden relations. The writes that the would also accept this exception.
The Maggid Mishneh separately records a disagreement about a man forced to engage in forbidden relations under threat of death. One interpretation treats him as liable because of the principle stated here, and the Maggid Mishneh identifies this as the Rambam’s position. Another interpretation exempts him from punishment by a human court because his action resulted from the threat.
A further difficulty arises from 5:4. There the Rambam distinguishes the obligation to surrender one’s life rather than commit the specified transgression from the court’s treatment of someone who transgressed under coercion: the latter is not judicially punished.
exempts a person who transgressed under coercion from judicial punishment. Reconciling that ruling with the interpretation attributed to the Rambam here requires further analysis.
Sources: Ra’avad and Maggid Mishneh, 1:9; 53b; 5:4.
One who inserts only the head of the organ—the glans
״״,
is called a ,
״״(,).
from the expression “he uncovered her source” ( 20:18).
,
One who inserts the entire organ
״״.
is called a .
is insertion of the glans, the head of the organ; is insertion of the entire organ. These are legal classifications determining when liability begins. In his ( 7:4), the distinguishes insertion of the entire glans from insertion of only part of it.
Mere external contact does not fulfill the penetration requirement. The distinction is between the defined initial penetration and a fuller act, rather than between contact and ejaculation.
,
For all forbidden acts of intercourse,
,
the and the are treated alike.
,
Even if he did not ejaculate,
,
and even if he withdrew without completing the act,
-
once he inserted the head of the organ—the glans,
,
both become liable to a court-imposed death penalty,
,,.
or , lashes, or disciplinary lashes.
The listed penalties are alternatives corresponding to the particular prohibition. They are not all imposed for every act.
Once the defined initial penetration occurs, withdrawing before completion or the absence of ejaculation does not remove the liability established by the act. Each participant’s liability remains subject to the other applicable conditions.
,
Whether he has vaginal intercourse with the woman
-
or anal intercourse with her,
,
once the initial penetration occurs,
,,
both become liable to death or ,
,.
or lashes or disciplinary lashes.
The prohibition is not limited to vaginal intercourse. Either form can establish the penalty applicable to that forbidden relationship when the required degree of penetration and the other conditions are present.
,
Whether they were lying down
-
or standing,
.
liability depends on insertion of the glans.
Their bodily position does not change the ruling. The determining physical threshold is the penetration defined above.
Synopsis
The defined initial penetration is sufficient to establish the penalty applicable to the forbidden relationship. Completion, ejaculation, and bodily position do not change that threshold; the rule applies to both vaginal and anal intercourse.
Forbidden Conduct Without Full Intercourse Liability
,
Whenever a man engages in forbidden intercourse without an erection,
his organ instead remaining limp,
,
like the organ of a dead person,
,
as can occur with someone who is ill,
-
or someone born with this condition, a ,
,
even if he inserted the organ with his hand,
,,
he does not incur or lashes,
;
and certainly not execution,
.
because this is not classified as intercourse.
The preceding established the minimum penetration required for liability. This adds another necessary condition: the act must involve an erection. Insertion without it does not establish the penalties listed here.
denotes a naturally occurring condition, as distinct from one produced by human intervention. Here it describes someone born with the physical condition under discussion.
.
Nevertheless, he can disqualify her from eating .
is the portion of produce set aside for and permitted to eligible members of their households. This ruling concerns a woman whose eligibility would be lost through relations with this particular man.
Although the act does not establish the intercourse liability described above, it can still disqualify her from . The requirements for one legal consequence do not necessarily determine every other consequence.
.
The court administers disciplinary lashes to both of them.
Exemption from the specified penalties does not permit the conduct. The court imposes , Rabbinic disciplinary lashes, for their forbidden act.
Synopsis
Insertion without an erection does not establish ,-prescribed lashes, or execution. Nevertheless, the conduct remains forbidden, can disqualify a woman from in the applicable case, and carries disciplinary lashes.
Unintended Transgression and the Difference Between Dying and Dead
,
One who has relations with an while acting as a ,
-.
although he did not intend that forbidden act, is liable.
A performs an act without directing his intention toward the transgression that actually occurs. Here, liability means an obligation to bring a sin-offering, rather than punishment by the court.
The explains that the person may intend intercourse while being mistaken about the woman’s identity—for example, intending relations with his wife when the woman is actually someone forbidden to him. His intention to perform the physical act does not mean he intended the forbidden relationship. Nevertheless, the pleasure involved makes this case liable for a sin-offering despite the absence of that intention.
,.
The same applies to relationships prohibited by negative commandments and to .
This sentence requires qualification. Inadvertent violation of these categories does not carry the sin-offering required for inadvertent relations with an . As halachah 8 established, the ordinary court penalties also do not apply to an inadvertent act.
The commentators therefore differ over this clause. The understands it as referring to accountability before Heaven, rather than an obligation to bring an offering or receive court punishment. The textual difficulty and alternative explanations appear below.
However, one who has relations with an
,.
after her death is exempt from these penalties.
,
Certainly, with relationships prohibited by negative commandments,
.
he is exempt.
The penalties discussed here require relations with a living person. Once she has died, the act does not establish those liabilities. The exemption concerns these particular penalties; it does not grant permission for the conduct.
,
One who has relations with a woman who is a ,
-;
or has intercourse with an animal that is a , is liable.
,
The person or animal is still alive,
.
although the condition will ultimately cause death.
A here is a person or animal with a fatal injury or condition recognized by . The certainty of eventual death does not make someone already dead. While life remains, the applicable intercourse liability remains.
,
Even if he severed both ,
-
and she is still making her final movements,
,
one who has relations with her is liable
until she dies
.
or until her head is severed.
The two are the windpipe and esophagus. Even after the injury described here, the remaining life is sufficient for the liability under discussion. The distinction is between actual death and a fatal condition from which death will follow.
Synopsis
Unintended relations with an can require a sin-offering. The later clause about negative prohibitions and does not impose a sin-offering for those categories; the commentators dispute how its wording should be understood. Relations after death do not carry the penalties discussed here, but a living person or animal with a fatal condition remains subject to the applicable laws.
🔎Dig DeeperUnintended Transgression and the Difference Between Dying and Dead
Unintended Transgression and the Difference Between Dying and Dead
The questions the statement extending liability to and : neither category requires a sin-offering for an inadvertent violation. The regards these words as a textual error because the liability established at the beginning of the is specifically liability for an offering.
The preserves the wording by distinguishing types of accountability. He understands the later clause as referring to responsibility before Heaven, without an offering or court-imposed penalty. explains it as teaching an obligation to confess the transgression.
These explanations remain distinct. The Maggid Mishneh questions the text itself; the other explanations retain it while giving “liability” a meaning different from the sin-offering obligation stated at the outset.
Sources: Ra’avad, Maggid Mishneh, Kessef Mishneh, and Rav David Arameah, 1:12.
For any female prohibited through these relationships:
-
if she was three years and one day old or older,
,
an adult man who has relations with her
;
incurs execution, , or lashes.
,
She is exempt from punishment
.
unless she has attained adulthood.
Two different thresholds are being discussed. The younger age determines whether the act establishes the adult offender’s specified liability. It does not make the child an adult or subject her to punishment.
For these laws, adulthood ordinarily requires reaching thirteen for a boy or twelve for a girl, together with the required physical signs of maturity. The younger thresholds discussed here determine whether an act has particular legal consequences; they do not make the child an adult.
The age formula “three years and one day” refers to reaching her third birthday. Her own adulthood is a separate matter, governed by the laws of age and physical maturity.
The alternatives—execution, , or lashes—depend on the particular forbidden relationship and the other conditions governing liability.
-
If she was younger than this,
,
both are exempt from these penalties,
.
because intercourse with her does not have the legal classification of intercourse.
This is a threshold for the penalties discussed here. It does not permit sexual conduct with a child below that age. The expressly maintains the prohibition even where these particular liabilities do not apply.
:
Similarly, when a minor boy has relations with an adult woman:
-
if he was nine years and one day old or older,
,,;
she incurs , execution, or lashes,
.
while he is exempt.
The boy’s age can make the act legally consequential for the adult woman without making him personally punishable. Her liability presupposes the conditions applicable to her, including deliberate participation where required. His exemption follows from his being a minor.
,
If he had not yet reached nine years and one day,
.
both are exempt from these penalties.
This contrasts with reaching the threshold just stated. It does not mean that every boy described in ordinary speech as “nine years old” remains below the threshold until his tenth birthday.
Below the required age, the act does not establish the specified intercourse penalties for the adult either. The conduct remains forbidden.
Synopsis
The age at which an act establishes the adult offender’s liability is different from the age of personal responsibility. A minor remains exempt from punishment, while the adult may incur the applicable penalty. Below the stated thresholds, exemption from these penalties does not permit the conduct.
🔎Dig DeeperAge Thresholds and the Adult’s Responsibility
Age Thresholds and the Adult’s Responsibility
The ’s distinguishes ordinary adulthood from the age associated with the heavenly punishment of . There he states that this punishment is not imposed before the age of twenty.
This does not postpone adulthood or make the person a minor until twenty. The distinction concerns the administration of a heavenly penalty, rather than the age at which obligations and the applicable court liabilities begin.
if both are adults, they are punishable by stoning,
״״(,),
as it is stated: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman” ( 18:22),
.
whether he was the penetrating or the receiving participant.
The prohibition applies to both roles. The physical threshold is , the insertion of the head of the organ—the glans—as discussed in halachah 10. Completion or ejaculation is not required; mere external contact is insufficient.
The statement that both are punishable presupposes that each fulfills the conditions for liability. A coerced participant is governed by the laws of coercion, and court execution requires the necessary and warning.
If one participant was a minor
-
nine years and one day old or older,
the adult who had intercourse with him
,
or caused him to have intercourse with himself is punishable by stoning,
.
while the minor is exempt.
The adult’s role does not change the result: either role can establish his liability. The child remains exempt because reaching the age at which the act becomes legally consequential does not establish personal responsibility for punishment.
,
If the male had not yet reached nine years and one day,
.
both are exempt from these penalties.
,
Nevertheless, the court should administer disciplinary lashes to the adult
,
because he had intercourse with a male,
.
even though the child was younger than nine.
The exemption from the specified penalty does not permit the act. The court disciplines the adult through ; the child’s exemption does not remove the adult’s responsibility for forbidden conduct.
Synopsis
Both adult participants can incur stoning for the defined act, subject to the conditions for conviction. When one participant is a minor above the stated threshold, the adult can be liable while the child remains exempt. Below that threshold, the adult still warrants disciplinary punishment.
or has intercourse with an through the male mode, he is liable.
An is a person possessing both male and female sexual anatomy. “Through the male mode” here means anal intercourse.
For this particular prohibition, the includes this act within the liability for intercourse with a male. This does not establish that an is definitely male for every other area of .
,.
If he has intercourse through the female passage, he is exempt.
The exemption concerns the definite penalty discussed above. It does not mean the act is permitted. The uncertainty about the person’s status affects liability for this mode of intercourse, as the following ruling explains.
,.
A has an uncertain status.
A is a person whose sexual anatomy is concealed, preventing determination of whether the person is male or female.
The uncertainty differs from that of an . With a , the underlying anatomy is unknown. With an , both forms of anatomy are present, and the uncertainty concerns their classification.
,
Therefore, one who has intercourse with a ,
-
or with an through the female passage,
.
receives disciplinary lashes.
The uncertainty prevents imposing the definite penalty, but it does not authorize conduct that may fall within the prohibition. The court therefore administers .
.
An is permitted to marry a woman.
The explains that this marriage is permitted despite the uncertainty surrounding the person’s status. The permission is specific to this ruling; it does not resolve that uncertainty for every other law.
Synopsis
Intercourse with an through the male mode establishes the stated liability. Intercourse through the female passage, or with a , carries disciplinary lashes because of the relevant uncertainty. An is permitted to marry a woman.
A man who has intercourse with an animal, or causes an animal to have intercourse with him—
,
both he and the animal are stoned.
״״(,)-
As it states: “You shall not have intercourse with any animal” (Leviticus 18:23)—
.
whether he penetrated the animal or caused it to penetrate him.
The prohibition includes both roles. The person’s execution requires the conditions established earlier, including intentional, voluntary wrongdoing, valid , and a proper warning. The animal’s execution likewise requires a court judgment.
The animal is not treated as a morally responsible person. The connects its execution to its involvement in a person’s grave transgression and to the disgrace associated with the act. The distinction between these considerations becomes important in Halachah 18.
,-
Whether it is a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or a bird—
.
the same penalty of stoning applies.
,
The does not distinguish between an older animal and a young one,
״״;
for it states, “with any animal.”
Although behemah can mean specifically a domesticated animal, this prohibition also encompasses wild animals and birds. An animal’s young age does not exclude the act from the prohibition or its prescribed penalty.
,-
Even on the day of the animal’s birth, a man who has intercourse with it—
,
whether vaginally or anally—
-.
is liable once he performs initial penetration of the animal, or the animal performs initial penetration of him.
Initial penetration, or , is the legally defined penetration explained in Halachah 10: insertion of the head of the organ—the glans. Full intercourse and ejaculation are not required for the applicable liability.
Synopsis
The prohibition includes intercourse with domesticated animals, wild animals, and birds, regardless of the animal’s age. Either role is included, and the legally defined initial penetration is sufficient. When the required judicial conditions are met, both the person and the animal are stoned.
A minor boy who has reached nine years and one day
-
and has intercourse with an animal, or causes it to have intercourse with him—
,;
the animal is stoned because of his act, but he is exempt.
,
If he had not yet reached nine years and one day,
.
the animal is not stoned.
Two different thresholds are involved. Once the boy reaches nine years and one day, his act can have the legal significance of intercourse for this ruling. He nevertheless remains a minor and is not subject to the prescribed punishment. His personal exemption does not automatically exempt the animal.
Below that threshold, the act does not establish the animal’s liability for stoning. The exemption does not make the conduct permitted.
Similarly, a minor girl who has reached three years and one day
-
and causes a domesticated or wild animal to have intercourse with her—
,,
whether the animal is older or young,
,
once the animal performs initial penetration of her,
-
whether vaginally or anally—
,.
the animal is stoned, but she is exempt.
Here too, the act can establish the animal’s liability, while the girl’s status as a minor exempts her from punishment. These age thresholds determine particular legal consequences; they do not establish adulthood.
,.
If she was an adult, both she and the animal are stoned.
,
If she had not yet reached three years and one day,
.
the animal is not stoned.
The adult woman’s punishment remains subject to the conditions established earlier, including intentional, voluntary conduct and the required evidence and warning.
Synopsis
A minor is exempt from the prescribed punishment. Nevertheless, an act involving a boy who has reached nine years and one day, or a girl who has reached three years and one day, can establish the animal’s liability for stoning. Below those thresholds, the animal is not stoned.
Each Participant’s Liability Is Assessed Separately
,
Similarly, a man who has intercourse with an animal inadvertently,
-
or a woman who inadvertently causes an animal to have intercourse with her—
,
the animal is not stoned because of their act,
.
even though they are adults.
Inadvertently does not necessarily mean that the physical act happened accidentally. It can mean that the person performed the act without knowing that it was forbidden. Such a transgression can require a sin offering, but it does not carry the intentional transgressor’s capital penalty. In this case, the animal is not stoned either.
-
In all cases of forbidden relationships, if one participant was an adult and the other a minor—
,,.
the minor is exempt and the adult is liable, as we explained.
The adult’s liability depends on the act meeting the relevant legal threshold and on the adult’s own responsibility. As 13–14 established, the minor’s age can affect whether the act qualifies for the prescribed penalty.
,.
If one was awake and the other asleep, the sleeping participant is exempt.
-
If one acted intentionally and the other inadvertently—
,.
the intentional transgressor is liable, and the inadvertent transgressor brings an offering.
-
If one acted under coercion and the other willingly—
.
the coerced participant is exempt, as we explained.
Each participant is assessed separately. The sleeping participant is exempt because the act was not voluntary. An inadvertent participant brings the appropriate sin offering, while an intentional participant bears the applicable liability. One person’s exemption does not remove the other’s responsibility.
The reference to coercion follows the distinctions explained in Halachah 9. The offering mentioned here concerns the for which inadvertent transgression requires a sin offering; it does not extend to every relationship prohibited elsewhere in these laws.
Synopsis
When intercourse with an animal was inadvertent, the animal is not stoned. In forbidden relationships generally, each participant is assessed separately. A minor, sleeping person, or coerced participant may be exempt while the other remains liable; inadvertent transgression of an applicable requires a sin offering.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
One encounter, different knowledge
A married woman knowingly enters into a forbidden relationship. The man mistakenly believes that she is unmarried.
Although they participated in the same encounter, their responsibility is assessed separately. Her conduct is deliberate; his mistake can place his conduct in the category of inadvertent transgression, requiring a sin offering when its conditions are met.
Now reverse their knowledge: he knows she is married, while she makes a mistake that qualifies as inadvertence. Their respective liabilities change accordingly.
The key distinction
Sharing an act does not mean sharing the same knowledge or liability.
🔎Dig DeeperEach Participant’s Liability Is Assessed Separately
Each Participant’s Liability Is Assessed Separately
Why Is Inadvertence Different From Minority?
The examines whether the animal’s execution requires both its involvement in a person’s capital offense and the disgrace associated with the act, or whether the disgrace alone is sufficient.
A minor’s exemption does not settle this question. Although the exempts the child from execution, the deliberate act can still establish the animal’s liability. The child’s personal exemption therefore differs from an adult’s inadvertent transgression.
The explains that the question concerning inadvertent wrongdoing remains unresolved. The animal is therefore not stoned, since its liability for execution cannot be established through an unresolved doubt.
The participants in one forbidden act can have different liabilities. The court considers each person’s circumstances separately: one person’s exemption does not automatically exempt the other.
That distinction offers a useful direction for a personal . After an argument, I can spend a long time explaining why the other person behaved badly. asks me to examine my own contribution too. Perhaps I interrupted, exaggerated, or spoke to hurt. Acknowledging that does not settle everything about the disagreement. It gives me something concrete to repair, even while the other person’s responsibility remains theirs.
Try today
Identify one part of a recent disagreement that you can take responsibility for and repair.
The are not required to see the participants in forbidden intercourse
,
performing initial penetration,
-
with the insertion visible like an applicator entering its tube.
Rather, once they see them joined together
,
in the manner of people having intercourse,
.
the participants may be executed on the basis of this observation.
The must directly observe the participants joined in the manner of intercourse. They do not need a view of the precise anatomical insertion.
Seclusion, an embrace, or suspicious circumstances alone do not establish the act described here. All the other requirements for a capital judgment, including a proper warning, remain necessary.
:,
We do not say, “Perhaps initial penetration did not occur,”
.
because this manner of joining establishes the presumption that initial penetration occurred.
A is an established legal presumption. Here, the observed conduct establishes that the required penetration took place. The court does not leave the act unproven merely because the could not see the insertion itself.
Synopsis
need not see the precise insertion. Directly observing the participants joined in the manner of intercourse establishes the required act through a legal presumption. Seclusion or suspicious circumstances alone do not meet this standard.
An Established Family Relationship Has Legal Force
-
When someone is established as another person’s blood relative—
,
the court judges on the basis of that established status,
.
even without direct proof that the person is a relative.
.
On the basis of this established status, the court administers lashes, burning, stoning, or strangulation.
A family relationship firmly established through the way people live and are recognized has binding legal force. The court does not always require separate testimony establishing the original birth or parentage. An unverified rumor does not constitute such an established status.
In the previous , the presumption establishes what occurred during the observed act. Here, it establishes the family relationship. The forbidden act itself must still be established by , with all the other requirements for the applicable punishment.
?
How so? Suppose a woman was established as his sister,
,
his daughter, or his mother,
-
and he had intercourse with her in the presence of —
,
he receives lashes, burning, or stoning,
even though there is no direct proof
,,-
that she is his sister, his mother, or his daughter—
.
and the relationship rests solely on its established status.
The penalty follows the particular relationship: lashes for intercourse with a sister when the conditions for lashes are met, burning for intercourse with a daughter, and stoning for intercourse with a mother. The established relationship supplies the family status needed for the applicable ruling.
,
An incident occurred involving a woman who came to
,
with a young child riding on her shoulder.
,
She raised him with the established status that he was her son,
.
and he later had intercourse with her.
,.
They brought her before the court, and she was stoned.
Her raising him as her son established the mother–son relationship. The court relied on that status when judging the later act, without requiring separate testimony from someone who had witnessed his birth.
,
A proof for this ruling
-
is the ’s ruling that one who curses his father or strikes his father is put to death.
,
How do we have direct proof that this man is his father?
.
Rather, we rely on the established presumption.
,.
The same applies to other relatives: their relationship is established through such a presumption.
The penalties for cursing or striking a father have their own specific conditions. The point here is how the father’s identity is established. The recognizes the established father–child relationship as sufficient for judgment, and the same principle applies to other family relationships.
Synopsis
A firmly established family relationship has binding legal force, even without direct testimony proving the original parentage. The court may rely on that status when determining the applicable penalty, provided the forbidden act and all other requirements for punishment are established.
he saying, “She is my wife,” and she saying, “He is my husband”—
,
if she has been established in the city as his wife for thirty days,
.
capital punishment may be imposed for adultery with her.
The people of their new city did not witness the couple’s original marriage. Nevertheless, when they identify themselves as husband and wife and openly live as a married couple for thirty days, their married status becomes established through a —a legally recognized presumption.
The court may rely on that status when judging a later act of adultery, without requiring to the original . The adultery itself must still be established with all the conditions required for capital punishment, including valid and a proper warning.
,
During those first thirty days, however,
.
capital punishment is not imposed for adultery on the basis of her status as a married woman.
Their statements alone do not immediately establish the marital status needed for a capital judgment. This does not permit her to another man during that period. Forbidden relations can warrant , Rabbinic disciplinary lashes, even though this developing presumption does not yet support execution.
The thirty-day limitation concerns a marriage being established through this presumption. It does not apply where independent already establish the marriage.
Synopsis
When a newly arrived couple identify themselves and live publicly as husband and wife for thirty days, their married status becomes established for judicial purposes, including a later capital case. Before then, their statements alone do not establish the marital status required for execution, although relations with another man remain forbidden.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
A couple moves into town
A couple arrives from another country. They introduce each other as husband and wife and live openly as a married couple.
After thirty days, their married status is established through the public described here. In a later adultery case, the court need not locate the people who witnessed their original to establish that marriage.
During the first thirty days, their statements alone do not yet provide that basis for capital punishment. She is nevertheless forbidden to another man.
The key distinction
Their declarations have immediate significance, but the public status required for this capital judgment takes time to become established.
Halachah 21. Top: the couple arrives and identifies themselves as husband and wife. Bottom: after thirty days of living publicly as a married couple, their married status is established through . Their statements have significance from the outset, but do not alone establish the marital status required for execution. A later forbidden act and the other conditions for punishment still require their own proof. These scenes are an illustration, not evidence of an actual marriage.
An Established Status Can Support a Judgment of Lashes
,
A woman whose status as a has become established among her neighbors—
.
her husband receives lashes for having intercourse with her as a .
A is a woman whose menstrual bleeding has placed her in a state in which marital relations are forbidden until the required purification process is completed.
Her status can become established through conduct that publicly identifies her as a —for example, wearing clothing specifically designated for that state. The neighbors need not have witnessed the bleeding itself. Once that status is established, the court may rely on it when judging the husband’s subsequent intercourse, provided the requirements for lashes are met.
,
A man who gave his wife a jealousy warning, which she then violated through seclusion,
,
and one witness came and testified that she had committed adultery,
,
and her husband was a ,
-
and he subsequently had intercourse with her—
,;
he receives lashes for having intercourse with a .
The warning and seclusion here are the formally established and explained in : a valid, witnessed warning concerning a particular man, followed by witnessed seclusion with him for the required interval.
After these events, the accepts even one witness’s testimony that adultery occurred. She therefore does not drink the waters and becomes permanently forbidden to her husband.
Because her husband is a , the prohibition against a ’s relations with a also applies. Here, that status results from the adulterous relationship. identifies a specific category; it does not mean that she worked as a prostitute.
,
Although the underlying testimony comes from only one witness,
.
her status as a has already been established through it.
There are two separate stages of proof. The single witness establishes her prohibited status within this particular framework. Two valid and a proper warning are still required to establish the husband’s subsequent violation for lashes.
Thus, the ruling does not allow one witness to establish the entire punishable offense. It allows a status established through legally accepted evidence to serve as the basis for judging a later, properly witnessed act.
Synopsis
An established status can support a judgment of lashes for subsequent intercourse. Likewise, after valid and , one witness can establish a wife’s adultery and resulting status. Her husband receives lashes if his subsequent intercourse with her is established under the conditions required for that punishment.
🔎Dig DeeperAn Established Status Can Support a Judgment of Lashes
An Established Status Can Support a Judgment of Lashes
Which Prohibition Accounts for the Lashes?
The expressly identifies the prohibition here as a ’s relations with a . The challenges that explanation and identifies a different prohibition: relations with a wife who has become forbidden to her husband through the prohibited encounter. His discussion introduces a case of coercion, which the notes is not specified in the Rambam’s wording.
The Maggid Mishneh understands the reference to a as deliberate. In his reading, the specific prohibition of accounts for the lashes here. He further argues that an ordinary husband does not receive lashes for the separate prohibition against relations with an adulterous wife.
The challenges that broader claim, pointing to 11:14, where the Rambam prescribes lashes for relations with an adulterous wife. That difficulty remains part of the commentaries’ discussion; it should not obscure the Rambam’s explicit identification of as the basis for the lashes in this .
Sources: Ra’avad, Maggid Mishneh, and Kessef Mishneh, 1:22; 11:14.
A Statement About Marriage Is Not Enough for Execution
״״-
A father who says, “This daughter of mine is to this man”—
,,
although he is believed and she may marry that man,
,,
if she commits adultery, she is not stoned on the basis of his statement,
.
unless there are who testify that she became in their presence.
The father’s special credibility concerns a daughter whose remain under his authority. His statement is accepted in determining that she is to the identified man.
creates the binding marital bond; completes the marriage. She may therefore proceed to with that man. She cannot marry someone else unless she receives a valid or the marriage otherwise ends.
The father’s credibility does not, by itself, establish the marital status necessary to execute her for a later act of adultery. His statement is accepted for determining the marriage restriction, but cannot serve as the sole basis for a capital judgment.
The reference to stoning concerns a : a maiden who meets the conditions for that particular penalty. A father’s credibility can also apply while his daughter is younger, but a minor is not subject to capital punishment.
-
Similarly, a woman who says, “I am ”—
,
is not executed on the basis of her own statement,
.
unless there are , or her status has become established.
Her declaration binds her to treat herself as and therefore forbidden to other men. It does not independently establish the marital status required for a capital judgment concerning later intercourse.
That status must instead be established through or a legally sufficient public , as explained in the preceding . Merely repeating her declaration does not automatically create such a public status.
The distinction is between a statement that creates a binding restriction for the speaker and evidence that establishes marital status for a capital case.
Synopsis
A father’s accepted statement about his daughter’s , or a woman’s own declaration that she is , can establish marriage restrictions without independently establishing capital liability. A capital judgment requires the marital status to be established through the legally recognized evidence described here.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
Believed about the marriage, but not enough for execution
A father, while he still has the relevant authority over his daughter’s , says: “I accepted for her from this man.”
No to the have appeared before the court. Nevertheless, his statement is accepted for determining her marriage restrictions: she may proceed to with that man and may not marry someone else while the bond remains.
If a later act of adultery is established, the father’s statement alone does not supply the proof of required for execution.
The key distinction
A statement can establish a binding marriage restriction without establishing everything needed for a capital judgment.
🔎Dig DeeperA Statement About Marriage Is Not Enough for Execution
A Statement About Marriage Is Not Enough for Execution
Believed for Which Purpose?
The distinguishes between accepting a father’s statement to establish a marriage prohibition and accepting it to impose capital punishment. maintains that the grants the father credibility for the former purpose, but not the latter. takes a broader view of the father’s credibility; rejects execution based on either the father’s statement or the woman’s own declaration.
The follows the ruling that these statements alone do not establish capital liability. A statement’s legal effect therefore depends on the purpose for which it is accepted. It can bind a person concerning whom she may marry without supplying the evidence required for a capital judgment.
Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.
Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.
Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.
Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.
Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.
Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.
Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.
The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.
Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.
Chapter 1 at a glance
Chapter Synopsis
The chapter distinguishes the penalties for forbidden relationships, each participant’s responsibility, the acts that establish liability, and the evidence used by the court.
Deliberate relations with an incur ; inadvertent transgression requires each liable participant to bring a fixed sin-offering. Certain relationships also carry a court-imposed death penalty when its legal requirements are met.
Capital punishment requires the necessary , a valid warning, the offender’s express acceptance of liability, and commission of the offense within the required interval.
Even a scholar requires a formal warning before the court may impose execution or -prescribed lashes. General knowledge does not establish awareness of the prohibition in the particular case.
Relations with one’s mother, father’s wife, or daughter-in-law, male intercourse, and intercourse with an animal fall within the category punishable by stoning, subject to the applicable conditions.
Relations with the specified female relatives of one’s wife carry burning during her lifetime; after her death, the prohibitions and remain. Relations with one’s own daughter or granddaughters also carry burning, independently of whether one’s wife is alive.
Adultery generally carries strangulation. For a ’s daughter after , she receives burning while the man receives strangulation. With a qualifying virgin , both receive stoning, including when she is a ’s daughter.
without a capital penalty carry . With the required and warning, their deliberate violation is punishable by -prescribed lashes.
Deliberate violation of the specified negative prohibitions carries -prescribed lashes; inadvertent violation does not require a sin-offering. carry Rabbinic disciplinary lashes. Prohibitions derived from positive commandments have no -prescribed lashes, though the court may impose disciplinary punishment.
Coercion exempts the victim from punishment and a sin-offering. A woman forced at the outset remains exempt even if willingness arises during the act. The penetrating participant’s responsibility requires the qualifications concerning the circumstances of the coercion.
The defined initial penetration is sufficient to establish the penalty applicable to the forbidden relationship. Completion, ejaculation, and bodily position do not change that threshold; the rule applies to both vaginal and anal intercourse.
Insertion without an erection does not establish ,-prescribed lashes, or execution. Nevertheless, the conduct remains forbidden, can disqualify a woman from in the applicable case, and carries disciplinary lashes.
Unintended relations with an can require a sin-offering. The later clause about negative prohibitions and does not impose a sin-offering for those categories; the commentators dispute how its wording should be understood. Relations after death do not carry the penalties discussed here, but a living person or animal with a fatal condition remains subject to the applicable laws.
The age at which an act establishes the adult offender’s liability is different from the age of personal responsibility. A minor remains exempt from punishment, while the adult may incur the applicable penalty. Below the stated thresholds, exemption from these penalties does not permit the conduct.
Both adult participants can incur stoning for the defined act, subject to the conditions for conviction. When one participant is a minor above the stated threshold, the adult can be liable while the child remains exempt. Below that threshold, the adult still warrants disciplinary punishment.
Intercourse with an through the male mode establishes the stated liability. Intercourse through the female passage, or with a , carries disciplinary lashes because of the relevant uncertainty. An is permitted to marry a woman.
The prohibition includes intercourse with domesticated animals, wild animals, and birds, regardless of the animal’s age. Either role is included, and the legally defined initial penetration is sufficient. When the required judicial conditions are met, both the person and the animal are stoned.
A minor is exempt from the prescribed punishment. Nevertheless, an act involving a boy who has reached nine years and one day, or a girl who has reached three years and one day, can establish the animal’s liability for stoning. Below those thresholds, the animal is not stoned.
When intercourse with an animal was inadvertent, the animal is not stoned. In forbidden relationships generally, each participant is assessed separately. A minor, sleeping person, or coerced participant may be exempt while the other remains liable; inadvertent transgression of an applicable requires a sin offering.
need not see the precise insertion. Directly observing the participants joined in the manner of intercourse establishes the required act through a legal presumption. Seclusion or suspicious circumstances alone do not meet this standard.
A firmly established family relationship has binding legal force, even without direct testimony proving the original parentage. The court may rely on that status when determining the applicable penalty, provided the forbidden act and all other requirements for punishment are established.
When a newly arrived couple identify themselves and live publicly as husband and wife for thirty days, their married status becomes established for judicial purposes, including a later capital case. Before then, their statements alone do not establish the marital status required for execution, although relations with another man remain forbidden.
An established status can support a judgment of lashes for subsequent intercourse. Likewise, after valid and , one witness can establish a wife’s adultery and resulting status. Her husband receives lashes if his subsequent intercourse with her is established under the conditions required for that punishment.
A father’s accepted statement about his daughter’s , or a woman’s own declaration that she is , can establish marriage restrictions without independently establishing capital liability. A capital judgment requires the marital status to be established through the legally recognized evidence described here.
פרק א
End of chapter.
You have reached the end of all twenty-three halachos.
