This chapter distinguishes between marriages that create full -level liability and relationships whose status is Rabbinic or doubtful. It explains how age, lineage, and the stage of marriage affect the prescribed penalty, and then examines the special laws of a partially freed maidservant.
The court-imposed penalties discussed here presuppose the required judicial conditions, including valid testimony and the prescribed prior warning. The names of the penalties refer to their specifically defined procedures.
פרק ג17 halachosThursday, October 22, 2026י״א במרחשון תשפ״ז◷ Estimated study time: 55–75 min
אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.
Chapter progress 0 of 17 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
A male minor cannot establish a -level marriage through ordinary , the act of consecration. Consequently, relations with his supposed wife do not carry the ’s ordinary penalty for adultery.
, translated here as “consecration,” establishes a binding marriage bond. is the subsequent stage of full marriage. A woman can therefore already be married for the prohibition of adultery before entering .
The additional case concerns : the marriage of a childless man’s widow to an eligible brother of the deceased. A widow awaiting this marriage is called a . Although relations performed by a boy aged nine years and one day have legal significance in certain areas, they do not establish the full marital status required for the liability discussed here.
“Exempt” refers to the prescribed liability for adultery: execution for an intentional offense under the required judicial conditions, or a sin-offering for an inadvertent offense. It does not mean that the conduct is permitted.
,
The same applies to a man who has relations with the wife of a or a ,
,
or the wife of a or an ,
,
or a or married to a man of legal capacity,
or a woman whose consecration is doubtful
-.
or whose divorce is doubtful—in all these cases, they are exempt.
The exemption concerns those who engage in the prohibited relations. These cases reach the same result for different reasons.
A here means the specific category of a person who neither hears nor speaks; is its feminine form. established through such a person have Rabbinic recognition but do not create the -level marriage required for the ordinary adultery penalty.
A , or a woman described as a , lacks the legal capacity necessary to establish . Such an attempted marriage has no validity, even under Rabbinic law. These are technical categories, not general descriptions of people experiencing emotional difficulties or mental-health conditions.
These rulings concern the person’s status when the marriage was established. A valid marriage does not disappear because a spouse later loses the relevant capacity. There is also an important exception when a father accepts for his daughter while she remains under his authority: he can establish a full marriage for her even if she is a or , as stated in 3:11.
A is a person whose sexual anatomy is concealed, leaving the person’s sex uncertain. An has both male and female sexual characteristics. Uncertainty about their status makes their doubtful.
Doubtful consecration leaves uncertainty about whether the woman became married; doubtful divorce leaves uncertainty about whether an existing marriage ended. Neither establishes the certainty needed to impose the ordinary adultery penalty.
,
If they acted intentionally,
.
they receive .
is disciplinary punishment imposed by the Sages, distinct from the ’s prescribed lashes. This applies to participants capable of bearing responsibility who knowingly committed the prohibited act. It should not be understood as imposing punishment on a minor or someone who lacks legal responsibility.
Synopsis
The ordinary -level liability for adultery requires an established -level marriage. When that status is absent or doubtful, the ordinary penalty does not apply, although responsible participants who act intentionally can incur Rabbinic disciplinary punishment.
✦Live ItLet the mitzvah itself matter
Let the mitzvah itself matter
Halachah 1 distinguishes between conduct that is forbidden and the particular penalty it carries. Exemption from a prescribed punishment does not, by itself, make an act permitted. Knowing the consequence and knowing what asks of us are distinct questions.
In our own , we can gradually make room for a deeper motivation: doing what is right because it expresses our connection with . Suppose you are tempted to repeat an embarrassing story because the person will probably never hear about it. Pause and consider the person’s dignity and ’s will. That quiet choice can express a relationship that matters even when nobody notices.
Try today
Choose one small mitzvah or act of restraint, and consciously do it because it connects you with Hashem.
A man who has relations with a minor girl married to an adult—
-,
if her father her, he is liable to execution by strangulation,
.
while she is entirely exempt.
Unlike a male minor, a girl can have a -level marriage while still a minor when her father accepts her . An adult man who violates that marriage therefore incurs the ordinary liability for adultery. The girl herself is neither subject to punishment nor obligated to bring a sacrifice, because she is a minor.
This ruling concerns a girl aged at least three years and one day, the legal threshold relevant to these laws. It also concerns a marriage that has reached , the stage of full marriage. If she remains a virgin in her father’s domain, the man’s prescribed penalty is instead stoning, as halachah 5 explains.
,
She becomes forbidden to her husband,
.
as we explained in .
This follows the ’s ruling in 2:4 concerning a minor whose father established her marriage and who willingly engaged in the prohibited relations.
According to the , her willing participation can affect whether she remains permitted to her husband, even though her minority exempts her from punishment. This must be distinguished from a case of coercion. The legal effect of her apparent willingness is disputed, as discussed below.
,
But if she is eligible for ,
,
the man receives ,
,
and she remains permitted to her husband,
.
even if he is a .
, “refusal,” allows a minor girl to end a marriage established for her under Rabbinic law without a formal divorce. The usual case is a fatherless girl whose mother or brothers arranged her marriage.
Because this marriage is Rabbinic rather than -level, the other man does not incur the ’s adultery penalty. The act also does not make her forbidden to her husband under the rules governing adultery within a marriage.
The mention of a emphasizes the distinction. A ordinarily faces stricter restrictions when his wife has relations with another man, even under coercion. Nevertheless, in this case she remains permitted to him.
Synopsis
A minor girl’s marriage established by her father creates -level liability for an adult man who violates it, although she herself is exempt from punishment. A marriage subject to is Rabbinic; the man receives disciplinary punishment, and she remains permitted to her husband.
🔎Dig DeeperA Minor Wife: Marriage or Rabbinic Marriage
A Minor Wife: Marriage or Rabbinic Marriage
The disputes the ruling that a minor’s willing participation makes her forbidden to her husband. He invokes the principle in 33b that the seduction of a minor is treated as coercion. On that understanding, her apparent willingness does not have the legal effect of an adult woman’s consent, and she remains permitted to a husband who is not a .
The recognizes the force of this objection but identifies a passage in 9a that supports the ’s position. The , 178:3, records both opinions. The , commenting there, states that most authorities accept the Ra’avad’s view.
The disagreement concerns whether she becomes forbidden to her husband. It does not change the minor’s exemption from personal punishment.
or someone else whom she is forbidden to marry by a negative commandment—
,
is liable to execution by burning,
״״(,);
as it states: “The daughter of a man who is a , when she profanes herself through illicit relations” ( 21:9).
The special penalty depends on her father being a . Her husband’s lineage does not determine it; the contrast with a here emphasizes that marrying someone who is not a does not remove this particular law.
A is a person with the -defined lineage status resulting from certain severely prohibited unions. It does not mean simply someone born outside marriage. A belongs to the group known as the , whose members are prohibited from marrying into the ordinary Jewish marriage community.
Although the marriages described here are prohibited, can still take effect. The woman therefore remains married for the laws of adultery. This differs from prohibited relationships in which cannot establish a marriage at all.
This states the rule for a ’s daughter in full marriage. Halachah 5 gives the distinct rule for a maiden who meets the conditions for stoning.
.
The man who has relations with her is liable to execution by strangulation.
The assigns the special penalty to the ’s daughter herself. It does not extend that penalty to the man involved; his prescribed penalty remains the ordinary one for adultery.
,
Likewise, a ’s daughter married to a is liable to execution by strangulation,
.
under the ordinary rule for a married woman.
Marrying a does not make his wife a ’s daughter. The special penalty follows her paternal lineage: a woman whose father is not a does not acquire it by marrying one.
Synopsis
A ’s daughter in full marriage incurs the special penalty of burning for adultery, even when her marriage violates a negative commandment. The man involved, and a woman whose father is not a , receive the ordinary adultery penalty.
A is a girl in a defined stage of maturity. It begins when she has reached twelve years of age and developed the required physical signs, and lasts six months. After that period, she is a .
“” means that have established a binding marriage bond, but the couple have not yet entered full marriage. Relations with another man are therefore adultery even before full marriage begins. The woman’s liability assumes willing participation and the other conditions required for punishment.
They are not liable to stoning
,
unless she is a virgin who is ,
.
and remains in her father’s house.
These conditions define the special category carrying the penalty of stoning. “Her father’s house” describes her legal status before the relevant transfer into her husband’s domain. It does not simply mean that she is physically inside her father’s home.
Halachah 5 explains the man’s liability when the girl is younger than a .
,
If she is a ,
or has entered the ,
,
even though she has not had relations,
or even if her father has handed her over to her husband’s agents
-
and she commits adultery on the way—
.
she is liable to execution by strangulation.
Becoming a removes her from the age category required for this special penalty. Entering the establishes the stage of full marriage, even before marital relations have occurred.
The final case marks an earlier boundary: once her father has formally entrusted her to her husband’s agents for marriage, she has left her father’s domain for this law. Adultery during the journey therefore carries the ordinary penalty rather than the special penalty for a maiden still in her father’s domain.
Synopsis
Stoning is the special adultery penalty for a virgin who is and remains in her father’s domain. Becoming a , entering full marriage, or being formally transferred to her husband’s agents removes her from that category.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
Before the , but after the handover
has received but has not yet entered the . Her father formally hands her over to her husband’s agents to bring her to the marriage. Although the is still ahead, she has already left her father’s domain for this particular law. If an adultery case arises from an offense committed during that journey, the applicable penalty is strangulation rather than the special penalty of stoning. The formal handover—not merely whether the wedding ceremony has happened—changes her classification.
Halachah 4: her father formally hands her over to her husband's agents for marriage. For this law, she has left her father's domain even though the is still ahead. The adult-looking figures are schematic and do not depict the ruling's age requirements; the formal handover, rather than travel or a conversation alone, changes her classification.Open full-size illustration
A man who has relations with a minor girl in her father’s house—
,.
he is liable to stoning, while she is exempt.
Although the describes the special case as a “ ,” the adult man’s liability also applies when the girl is a minor. This concerns -level established by her father, with the other relevant conditions intact, including her virginity and remaining in her father’s domain. The minimum age relevant to this liability is three years and one day.
Her minority exempts her from punishment. It does not remove the adult man’s liability for violating her -level marriage.
This completes the distinction introduced in halachah 2: when the minor has entered full marriage, his prescribed penalty is strangulation; when she remains a virgin in her father’s domain, it is stoning.
,
A ’s daughter who commits adultery as a
.
is liable to stoning.
When she meets the conditions of the -maiden category, that category determines her penalty. The special rule of burning for a ’s daughter in full marriage, discussed in halachah 3, does not replace it.
Synopsis
Relations with a minor girl can make the adult man liable to stoning, while she remains exempt. A ’s daughter who qualifies as a is also subject to stoning rather than burning.
the first is liable to stoning, and all the others to strangulation.
The subject remains a maiden who initially meets the conditions described above. Each man’s liability depends on her status when his act occurs. The first violates the marriage of a virgin; after his act, she is no longer a virgin, so the later men incur the ordinary adultery penalty.
?
When does this distinction apply?
;
When they had relations with her in the usual manner.
-
But if they had relations with her in the unusual manner,
,
she remains a virgin,
.
and all are liable to stoning.
The “usual manner” refers to vaginal intercourse; the “unusual manner” refers to anal intercourse. Both are legally significant for the prohibition of adultery. However, the latter does not remove her virgin status for this particular law. Consequently, each successive act still falls within the category carrying the penalty of stoning.
Synopsis
Each man’s penalty depends on the woman’s status at the time of his act. Ordinary intercourse removes her virgin status, changing the penalty for later offenders; intercourse in the unusual manner does not remove that status for this law.
A who had been freed from servitude or had converted—
,
even if she was freed or converted
-
when she was younger than three years—
.
is liable to strangulation, under the ordinary rule for a married woman.
The special penalty for a virgin maiden has an additional limitation: it does not apply to a woman who herself converted or was freed from Canaanite servitude. Her nevertheless establish a binding marriage, so adultery carries the ordinary penalty.
This distinction is derived from the ’s expression “in Israel” in 22:21, which limits this particular penalty. It does not diminish the validity of her Jewish status or her marriage; the distinction concerns the prescribed penalty.
The early age mentioned here prevents a misunderstanding. The exclusion applies even when her conversion or release took place before age three; it does not depend on establishing that she had previously lost her virgin status.
This also differs from the case discussed in halachah 11, in which a girl was conceived before her mother’s conversion but born afterward.
Synopsis
A maiden who herself converted or was freed from servitude falls under the ordinary adultery penalty, even when that change in status occurred before age three.
and even if she committed adultery after entering the ,
-
before her husband had relations with her—
.
she is stoned at the entrance to her father’s house.
is a specific legal proceeding described in , chapter 3. After first having marital relations with his wife, the husband claims that she was not a virgin and alleges that she committed adultery after . He brings supporting that allegation. The ruling here concerns a case in which valid testimony establishes the adultery.
According to the , this proceeding has an exceptional rule: stoning can apply even when the adultery occurred after she had left her father’s domain, or after but before relations with her husband. These circumstances would ordinarily remove her from the category carrying that penalty.
Other maidens, however,
,
whose cases did not involve a proceeding of ,
-
and who committed adultery after leaving their father’s domain—
.
are liable to strangulation, as we explained.
The special result belongs to this particular proceeding. In an ordinary adultery case, the rule of halachah 4 remains: once the relevant transfer out of her father’s domain has occurred, the prescribed penalty is strangulation.
,:
You thus learn that adultery involving a married woman can carry three different death penalties:
,
one married woman is liable to strangulation,
,
another to burning,
.
and another to stoning.
Strangulation is the ordinary adultery penalty. Burning applies to a ’s daughter in the category described in halachah 3. Stoning applies to the -maiden category and to the exceptional case of described here.
“Married woman” in this summary includes a woman whose binding marriage bond consists of alone, even before full marriage.
Synopsis
According to the , a substantiated accusation in a proceeding can carry stoning even after circumstances that would ordinarily change the penalty to strangulation. The chapter therefore identifies three possible penalties for adultery, depending on the woman’s legal category.
🔎Dig DeeperThe Special Rule in a Husband’s Accusation
The Special Rule in a Husband’s Accusation
The disputes the ’s extension of stoning to adultery committed after the woman entered . In his view, once she entered as a virgin, the ordinary penalty of strangulation applies.
The disagreement turns on the interpretation of 45a. and also differ in their explanations of that passage. The Rambam’s ruling should therefore be understood as his particular interpretation of the exceptional proceeding, rather than as an undisputed rule that does not change the penalty.
until after she came to her father-in-law’s house—
.
she is stoned at the entrance to her father’s house.
The chapter now distinguishes the place where the sentence is carried out from the type of penalty incurred. Moving to her husband’s family home after the offense does not by itself change the location prescribed here. Halachah 10 qualifies this rule when testimony arrives after she becomes a or after marital relations with her husband.
If she committed adultery in her father-in-law’s house
,
before her father formally handed her over,
even if the testified against her
-
after she returned to her father’s house—
she is stoned
.
at the entrance to that city’s gate.
Her physical presence in her father-in-law’s home does not necessarily mean that the legal transfer into her husband’s domain has occurred. The expressly places this case before her father formally handed her over. She therefore remains within the category carrying stoning.
However, because the offense occurred in her father-in-law’s house rather than her father’s home, the prescribed location is the city gate. Returning afterward to her father’s house does not change that result.
Synopsis
Within the cases described here, the location of the offense determines whether stoning takes place at the father’s doorway or the city gate. A later move does not itself change that location, and physical presence in the husband’s family home is distinct from a formal transfer into his domain.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
Visiting a house is not a legal handover
is and visits her future husband’s family home, but her father has not formally handed her over for marriage. An adultery offense occurs there while she still meets the conditions for the -maiden category. She later returns to her father’s home, and then testify. Her visit did not itself transfer her into her husband’s domain, so the penalty remains stoning. However, because the offense occurred in her future father-in-law’s home, the prescribed location is that city’s gate rather than her father’s doorway.
Halachah 9: visiting her future husband's family home does not itself transfer her into his domain. A formal handover for marriage is a different event. In the case described here, she was only visiting when the offense occurred; the prescribed location is that city's gate, rather than her father's doorway. These adult-looking figures illustrate the distinction, not the age requirements of the ruling.Open full-size illustration
🔎Dig DeeperWhere the Sentence Is Carried Out
Where the Sentence Is Carried Out
The explains why the second case does not result in execution at the father’s doorway: since the offense did not occur in his home, that particular public disgrace should not be directed at him.
This highlights the distinction between legal status and physical location. Her remaining in her father’s domain determines the applicable penalty, while the place where the offense occurred affects where that penalty is carried out.
Later Testimony Changes the Location, Not the Penalty
If the came after she became a
,
or after her husband had relations with her,
even though they testified
that she committed adultery in her father’s house
-
when she was a —
.
she is stoned at the designated place of stoning.
Her liability is determined by her status when the offense occurred. Becoming a or subsequently having relations with her husband does not change an earlier offense carrying stoning into one carrying strangulation.
However, these changes do affect the prescribed location when the first come afterward. The sentence is carried out at the designated place of stoning, rather than at her father’s doorway. This was the court’s established execution site outside the city.
The distinction is therefore between the penalty and its location: the earlier offense still determines the penalty, while her later status changes where it is carried out.
This describes the ordinary proceeding discussed here. The exceptional proceeding described in halachah 8 has its own rules, including execution at the father’s doorway despite the husband’s having subsequently had relations with her.
Synopsis
In the ordinary proceeding, when testimony first arrives after she becomes a or has marital relations with her husband, the earlier offense still carries stoning. The sentence is carried out at the designated execution site rather than at her father’s doorway.
🔎Dig DeeperLater Testimony Changes the Location, Not the Penalty
Later Testimony Changes the Location, Not the Penalty
The and the draw attention to a contrast with . In that proceeding, the husband has already had relations with his wife before bringing his accusation, yet a substantiated accusation can still result in stoning at her father’s doorway.
explains that is an exceptional legal category with its own rules. Its outcome therefore cannot be used to establish the ordinary rules governing the location of execution in this .
Alternative Locations for Carrying Out the Sentence
,
If she was conceived before her mother entered the Jewish people,
-
but was born after her mother entered the Jewish people—
.
she is stoned at the entrance to the city gate.
This continues the laws of a virgin maiden who committed adultery. The case differs from halachah 7: there, the woman herself converted; here, her mother converted during pregnancy, and the daughter was born Jewish.
When the other conditions for stoning are present, the daughter’s having been conceived before her mother’s conversion does not exclude her from that penalty. However, the prescribed location is the city gate rather than her father’s doorway.
Whenever the prescribed procedure is to stone her
-
at the entrance to the city gate—
,
if most of the city’s inhabitants are non-Jews,
.
she is stoned at the entrance to the court.
The describes the location as “your gates.” , commenting on 45b, explains that the entrance to a predominantly non-Jewish city does not meet that description. The court entrance therefore serves as the alternative location.
And whenever the prescribed procedure is to stone her
-
at the entrance to her father’s house—
,
if she has no father,
or she has a father
,
but he has no house,
.
she is stoned at the designated place of stoning.
״״(,)
The ’s reference to “the entrance to the father’s house” (see 22:21)
.
establishes the prescribed manner of performing the sentence.
The father’s doorway is the required location when it is available, but its existence is not a condition for liability. If there is no father or no house, the sentence is carried out at the court’s designated execution site.
Synopsis
A maiden conceived before her mother’s conversion but born afterward is subject to stoning at the city gate when the relevant conditions are met. The court entrance or designated execution site replaces the ordinarily prescribed location when the circumstances specified here require it.
A person who has relations with a woman forbidden to him as an
-
on many occasions—
,
incurs liability to or execution by the court
.
for each separate act.
Although the court cannot execute him
,
more than once,
.
the acts are counted against him as separate transgressions.
An is a person with whom relations fall within the ’s severe categories of forbidden relationships. is a penalty administered by Heaven, distinct from execution by a court.
The fact that the court can carry out only one execution does not merge repeated offenses into a single transgression. Each prohibited act retains its own significance.
This does not mean that every repeated inadvertent act necessarily requires a separate sin-offering. As explained in 5:1, repeated inadvertent violations of the same prohibition can require only one offering when no intervening awareness separates them.
“Inadvertent” means that the violation resulted from a relevant mistake about the facts or the law. It does not simply mean that the person acted without planning beforehand.
Similarly, if he performs one act of relations
-
that incurs liability under several distinct prohibitions—
,
if he acted inadvertently,
,
he brings an offering for each prohibition,
,
even though there was only one act,
.
as will be explained in .
Here the distinction is between separate acts and separate prohibitions. A single act can violate several prohibitions that apply together, and each can create its own obligation to bring a sin-offering.
The expression “each prohibition” refers to distinct grounds of liability, rather than different descriptions of the same prohibition.
,
If he acted intentionally,
.
the act is counted against him as several transgressions.
There is likewise a case in which a person performs one act of relations
and receives several sets of lashes for it,
.
as will be explained.
An intentional act can count as several offenses even though it occurred only once. When several prohibitions carrying lashes apply together and the required conditions are met, the court can impose a separate set for each, as discussed later in chapter 17.
Synopsis
Repeated prohibited acts count as separate transgressions, and one act can violate several distinct prohibitions. The number of sacrifices for inadvertent conduct depends on both the prohibitions involved and the rules governing intervening awareness.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
One act, two distinct prohibitions
is married to , making her both a married woman and the wife of ’s brother. If has prohibited relations with her, the same act violates two distinct prohibitions: relations with another man’s wife and relations with his brother’s wife. If the act was inadvertent and the conditions for both sacrificial liabilities are met, he brings two sin-offerings. There was only one act, but two separate grounds of liability.
✦Live ItYour next choice still matters
Your next choice still matters
Halachah 12 explains that repeated prohibited acts remain separate transgressions. Even when the court cannot administer more than one execution, the individual acts do not lose their significance. Repetition does not turn several choices into one indistinguishable event.
That distinction can help when we feel discouraged about our own behavior. After speaking impatiently at home, we might think, “I already spoiled the evening.” But the next sentence is still a fresh opportunity to serve . We can lower our voice, apologize, and respond with care. includes taking responsibility for what happened while allowing that responsibility to shape a better next step.
Try today
When you notice a mistake, identify one constructive choice you can make immediately afterward.
is a woman who is half a maidservant and half free,
,
and is to a Hebrew servant,
״״(,).
as it states: “They shall not be put to death, because she had not been freed” ( 19:20).
A has a specific combined legal status. She is a Canaanite maidservant who has been partially freed and has been to an , a Hebrew servant.
Partial freedom can arise when two partners own a maidservant and one releases his share while the other does not. Her status is then partly that of a free woman and partly that of a maidservant.
A Hebrew servant can, under the applicable laws, be permitted a Canaanite maidservant. Her remaining servitude therefore does not prevent the relationship described here, while her free status allows the to have legal effect. Nevertheless, these do not yet establish the complete marital status that would create the ordinary death penalty for adultery.
,
It follows that if she becomes entirely free,
,
relations with her incur liability to execution by the court,
,
because she becomes a married woman in the full legal sense,
.
as we explained in .
The expressly connects the absence of the death penalty with her incomplete freedom. Once she is fully freed and her marital status becomes complete, the special rules of no longer govern; the ordinary laws of adultery apply.
Here, “in the full legal sense” means that her acquire complete validity upon her release. The point is the removal of the limitation caused by her remaining servitude.
Synopsis
A is a partially freed Canaanite maidservant to a Hebrew servant. Her incomplete freedom prevents full marital status; upon becoming entirely free, she enters the ordinary category of a married woman.
as it states: “There shall be an inquiry” ( 19:20).
,
He, however, is obligated to bring a guilt-offering,
״״(,).
as it states: “He shall bring his guilt-offering” ( 19:21).
The assigns different consequences to the two participants. The woman receives lashes when the conditions for her liability are met, while the man must bring an , a guilt-offering.
11a interprets the wording “There shall be an inquiry” as assigning the lashes to her rather than to him. His prescribed obligation in this special category is the offering described in the following verse.
Whether he acts inadvertently or intentionally
,.
with a , he brings a guilt-offering.
,
If he has relations with her many times,
-
whether intentionally or inadvertently—
.
he brings one guilt-offering.
Unlike an ordinary sin-offering, this guilt-offering can be required even when the man acted intentionally. Repeated acts with the same can also share one offering, even when he becomes aware of an earlier offense before committing another.
However, this grouping is not unlimited. As explained in 9:5–6, once he designates an animal as his guilt-offering, a subsequent act creates a new obligation, even before that offering has actually been brought. Acts involving different women also require separate offerings.
The reference to inadvertent conduct concerns the man. His obligation still depends on the woman meeting the conditions of her own liability, which the next explains.
She, however, is liable to lashes
,
for each separate act of relations,
,
if she acted intentionally,
.
as with other offenses prohibited by a negative commandment.
The grouping of repeated acts applies to his offering, not to her liability for lashes. Each intentional act can create a separate liability for her when the required judicial conditions are present.
Synopsis
The woman’s prescribed penalty is lashes, while the man brings a guilt-offering even for intentional conduct. Repeated acts with the same woman can share one offering, subject to the rules governing separation between offenses; her liability for lashes remains separate for each qualifying act.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
Setting aside an offering creates a dividing point
A man commits several qualifying offenses with the same before designating an animal as his guilt-offering. Those acts can be covered by one offering. He then designates the animal, but before it is brought, he commits another qualifying offense with her. That later act creates a new obligation. The dividing point is already the designation of the offering; he does not have to have completed the sacrifice for a later offense to require another one.
Halachah 14: designating the ram as his guilt-offering creates a dividing point. Qualifying earlier offenses with the same can be covered by one offering; a qualifying offense after designation requires another. Moving an animal apart is only an illustration of setting it aside: designation as an offering is what matters, even before it is sacrificed.Open full-size illustration
This differs from the ordinary rules of forbidden relations, where the legally defined initial stage of penetration can already establish liability.
Here, the requires completed intercourse. Read together with his definition in chapter 1, halachah 10, this means full penetration rather than only the initial stage.
In the cases excluded from this special liability, the man is exempt from the guilt-offering, and the woman is exempt from the corresponding -prescribed lashes, as halachah 16 explains. These exemptions do not permit someone to knowingly commit the prohibited act. A woman who was coerced or asleep is not treated as a willing offender. Rabbinic disciplinary punishment is addressed separately there.
,
He is liable only when she is an adult,
,,.
has previously had intercourse, acts intentionally, and participates willingly.
,
But if she is a minor,
,
or has not previously had intercourse,
,
or acts inadvertently,
,-.
or is coerced or asleep—he is exempt.
These conditions concern the woman, even though the ruling describes the man’s obligation to bring an offering. His liability in this special category depends on her being subject to the prescribed lashes.
His inadvertence and her inadvertence therefore have different consequences. He can owe the offering even when he acts inadvertently, provided she knowingly and willingly participates and meets the other conditions. If she acts inadvertently, she is not liable to lashes, and his corresponding obligation to bring the offering does not arise.
She must also be an adult and already have the status of a woman who has previously had intercourse. Halachah 17 states explicitly that his obligation depends on her liability.
,;
Likewise, if he has relations with her in the unusual manner, he is exempt;
for regarding a , the did not equate
,
relations in the usual manner with relations in the unusual manner,
״״(,).
as it states: “Intercourse involving seed” ( 19:20).
The special liability applies to vaginal intercourse, not anal intercourse. The ’s particular wording limits this category, even though both forms are legally significant in the ordinary laws of forbidden relations.
With other forbidden relations, however,
,
the did not distinguish between the two forms of intercourse,
״״(,;,)-
as it states: “The forms of lying with a woman” ( 18:22; 20:13)—
.
the verse teaches that there are two forms of intercourse with a woman.
The plural wording establishes that both forms fall within the ordinary laws of prohibited intercourse. The exemption concerning a is therefore a specific exception, not a general limitation on what counts as forbidden relations.
Synopsis
The man’s guilt-offering requires completed intercourse in the usual manner and a woman who meets the specified conditions for her own liability. When those conditions are absent, neither his special offering nor her corresponding -prescribed lashes applies.
🔎Dig DeeperThe Conditions for Liability with a
The Conditions for Liability with a
The expression “complete intercourse” requires careful interpretation. The explanation above follows the ’s definition in chapter 1, halachah 10, which distinguishes full penetration from the initial stage.
, commenting on 55b, understands ’s interpretation of completion in this context as requiring ejaculation. Support for that reading comes from the ’s reference to intercourse involving seed. The Rambam’s ,2:4, has also been cited in connection with this interpretation.
The disagreement concerns the precise act required for the special liability of . It does not change the general rule that other forbidden relationships can incur liability at an earlier stage.
This clarifies the exemptions in the preceding . When the conditions for the special liability of are absent, neither participant incurs the consequence assigned by the to this category: he does not bring its guilt-offering, and she does not receive its prescribed lashes.
The exemption concerns these particular liabilities. It does not mean that the prohibited conduct becomes permitted.
,
However, they receive under Rabbinic law,
.
if both were adults who acted intentionally.
is Rabbinic disciplinary punishment, distinct from the -prescribed lashes mentioned above. The absence of the special penalties does not prevent the Sages from disciplining adults who knowingly commit the prohibited act.
The qualification “both were adults who acted intentionally” belongs to this disciplinary ruling. It does not impose punishment on a minor or on someone who acted inadvertently or under coercion.
Synopsis
When the special conditions of are absent, the man is exempt from its offering and the woman from its prescribed lashes. Both nevertheless receive Rabbinic disciplinary punishment when they are adults who act intentionally.
A Minor’s Act and a Later Obligation to Bring an Offering
A boy aged nine years and one day
-
who has relations with a —
,.
she receives lashes, and he brings an offering.
At this age, his act has legal significance for these laws, even though he remains a minor. When the woman meets the conditions for liability, his minority does not exempt her from lashes.
This does not contradict the requirement in halachah 16 that both participants be adults. That requirement concerns Rabbinic disciplinary punishment when the special liabilities do not apply. Here, the conditions for the woman’s -prescribed lashes are present, and the rules that the boy’s minority does not remove her liability.
The also assigns him an obligation to bring the special guilt-offering. In Hilchos Shegagos 9:3, however, he clarifies that, in his judgment, the boy brings it only after reaching adulthood and possessing the necessary understanding. The ruling therefore does not mean that the offering must be brought while he is still nine years old.
This is an exceptional obligation associated with the offering of . It should not be generalized into a rule that minors bear the ordinary sacrificial liabilities of adults.
,
This applies provided she is an adult, has previously had intercourse, and participates willingly,
;
as we explained;
for the man is not obligated to bring an offering
,
unless she incurs liability to lashes,
״...״(,–).
as it states: “There shall be an inquiry… and he shall bring his guilt-offering” ( 19:20–21).
The conditions explained in halachah 15 remain necessary, including her knowing and willing participation and completed intercourse in the usual manner.
The sequence of the verses links his offering to her liability for lashes. If she does not meet the conditions for that liability, his corresponding obligation to bring the offering does not arise. The same connection governs the exceptional case of the boy described here.
Synopsis
According to the , an act performed by a boy aged nine years and one day can make the woman liable to lashes and create an obligation for him to bring the special offering after reaching adulthood. His obligation depends on her meeting the conditions for liability.
🔎Dig DeeperA Minor’s Act and a Later Obligation to Bring an Offering
A Minor’s Act and a Later Obligation to Bring an Offering
The disputes this exceptional obligation. He regards the offering as a punishment from which a minor is exempt. He also rejects the woman’s liability for lashes in this case.
The explanation supporting the ’s position distinguishes an offering that brings atonement from an ordinary punishment imposed on a minor. Although the boy is not subject to the ordinary penalties of an adult, his legally significant act can create a need for atonement that is addressed after he reaches adulthood.
The dispute therefore affects both participants: whether the boy’s act creates a later obligation to bring an offering, and whether the woman incurs the corresponding liability for lashes.
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 3 at a glance
Chapter Synopsis
The chapter distinguishes definite marriages from Rabbinic or doubtful relationships and explains how age, lineage, and stage of marriage affect liability for adultery. It separates the prescribed penalty from the location where it is carried out and shows how repeated acts or overlapping prohibitions create distinct transgressions. The final examine , whose special laws link the man’s guilt-offering to the woman’s liability for lashes.
The ordinary -level liability for adultery requires an established -level marriage. When that status is absent or doubtful, the ordinary penalty does not apply, although responsible participants who act intentionally can incur Rabbinic disciplinary punishment.
A minor girl’s marriage established by her father creates -level liability for an adult man who violates it, although she herself is exempt from punishment. A marriage subject to is Rabbinic; the man receives disciplinary punishment, and she remains permitted to her husband.
A ’s daughter in full marriage incurs the special penalty of burning for adultery, even when her marriage violates a negative commandment. The man involved, and a woman whose father is not a , receive the ordinary adultery penalty.
Stoning is the special adultery penalty for a virgin who is and remains in her father’s domain. Becoming a , entering full marriage, or being formally transferred to her husband’s agents removes her from that category.
Relations with a minor girl can make the adult man liable to stoning, while she remains exempt. A ’s daughter who qualifies as a is also subject to stoning rather than burning.
Each man’s penalty depends on the woman’s status at the time of his act. Ordinary intercourse removes her virgin status, changing the penalty for later offenders; intercourse in the unusual manner does not remove that status for this law.
A maiden who herself converted or was freed from servitude falls under the ordinary adultery penalty, even when that change in status occurred before age three.
According to the , a substantiated accusation in a proceeding can carry stoning even after circumstances that would ordinarily change the penalty to strangulation. The chapter therefore identifies three possible penalties for adultery, depending on the woman’s legal category.
Within the cases described here, the location of the offense determines whether stoning takes place at the father’s doorway or the city gate. A later move does not itself change that location, and physical presence in the husband’s family home is distinct from a formal transfer into his domain.
In the ordinary proceeding, when testimony first arrives after she becomes a or has marital relations with her husband, the earlier offense still carries stoning. The sentence is carried out at the designated execution site rather than at her father’s doorway.
A maiden conceived before her mother’s conversion but born afterward is subject to stoning at the city gate when the relevant conditions are met. The court entrance or designated execution site replaces the ordinarily prescribed location when the circumstances specified here require it.
Repeated prohibited acts count as separate transgressions, and one act can violate several distinct prohibitions. The number of sacrifices for inadvertent conduct depends on both the prohibitions involved and the rules governing intervening awareness.
A is a partially freed Canaanite maidservant to a Hebrew servant. Her incomplete freedom prevents full marital status; upon becoming entirely free, she enters the ordinary category of a married woman.
The woman’s prescribed penalty is lashes, while the man brings a guilt-offering even for intentional conduct. Repeated acts with the same woman can share one offering, subject to the rules governing separation between offenses; her liability for lashes remains separate for each qualifying act.
The man’s guilt-offering requires completed intercourse in the usual manner and a woman who meets the specified conditions for her own liability. When those conditions are absent, neither his special offering nor her corresponding -prescribed lashes applies.
When the special conditions of are absent, the man is exempt from its offering and the woman from its prescribed lashes. Both nevertheless receive Rabbinic disciplinary punishment when they are adults who act intentionally.
According to the , an act performed by a boy aged nine years and one day can make the woman liable to lashes and create an obligation for him to bring the special offering after reaching adulthood. His obligation depends on her meeting the conditions for liability.
פרק ג
End of chapter.
You have reached the end of all seventeen halachos.
