|
“If a man seduces a virgin for whom the bride-price has not been paid, and lies with her, he must make her his wife by payment of a bride-price. If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still weigh out silver in accordance with the bride-price for virgins.”
–Shemot 22:15-16 (JPS / Sefaria translation)
“If a man comes upon a young virgin [na’arah betulah] who is not betrothed and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, the man lay with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her.”
–Devarim 22:28-29 (JPS / Sefaria translation, with minor emendations.)
This chapter of the Mishnah is largely a commentary and elaboration on the verses above – both dealing with sexual assault against a young, unbetrothed virgin. The first case is one of seduction; the second is a case of rape.
The laws for each case are different. In the case of seduction, the man must pay a fine of fifty shekels, in addition to restitution for the shame and the compensation for what was in the time of the Mishnah a financial damage associated with the loss of the girl’s virginity. Additionally, the man is obligated to marry the girl he’s seduced, but he’s also allowed to divorce her (i.e., the standard rules of marriage apply). In the case of the rape, divorce is completely off the table (almost – see Mishnah 5). Meanwhile, on top of the fifty shekels and the restitution for financial damage and shame, the rapist must also pay the family for the girl’s pain and suffering (Mishnayot 4 -5).
To be clear, the fine is specifically framed around a man who robs a girl of her virginity. Thus, if we have a strong presumption (largely for cultural reasons) that the girl wasn’t a virgin, we don’t enforce the fine The fine also falls under the general rule that we don’t levy fines in capital cases – and so there’s no fine if, for instance, the sex act was also an act of incest. (Mishnah 2)
The chapter also discusses what happens if the girl leaves the framework of the family – who, again, would normally be the ones to receive payment. For instance, what if the girl had been betrothed (but not fully married yet) at a very young age, but the betrothal was broken off or the betrothed groom had died? In this case, Rabbi Yosi Haglili says there’s no fine levied at all, but Rabbi Akiva disagrees. Rabbi Akiva holds that the girl receives the payment: having been betrothed to be married off, the girl, who now holds her own status outside the family, receives the payment herself (Mishna 3).
Echoing an earlier email from Rav Yosef’s, I want to recognize that these laws can be extremely difficult for us to sit with. But I do think it’s helpful to consider a world in which, for most women, marriage is the sole path to financial security, and where a loss of virginity out of wedlock – whatever the circumstances – might be perilous to a girl’s prospects for achieving that security. In such an environment, this whole series of laws may have acted as a deterrent against would-be assaulters, while also ensuring that men took responsibility for the people they had harmed. It’s a security net for a very different world.
If I’m right about this presumption, one question for us today may be less about how we feel about these laws themselves, and more about what these laws might mean teach us right now: when there are different safety nets and economic opportunities, but where both predators still need to be deterred and economic perils for many are still too real.
| 
