preliminarily

HALAKHAH: “One wolf is not an unavoidable accident,” etc. “The stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah,” etc. It was stated: “The stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah, monetary stipulations are valid, nonmonetary stipulations are invalid.” How is this? If one said to a woman: be preliminarily married to me on condition that you have no claim on me for sustenance, clothing, and marital relations, she is preliminarily married [and his stipulation is valid. “On condition] that it I die you shall not be obligated for levirate marriage, she is preliminarily married but his stipulation is invalid.”

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sent bridal gifts to his father-in-law’s house,” etc. A person sent to his preliminarily wedded wife large bridal gifts. His relatives told him not to taste anything there. He went, did not listen to them, and ate. The house collapsed; they kept everything.

A person sent to his preliminarily wedded wife 24 gourds filled with various kinds of agricultural produce between Passover and Pentecost. It was only a problem for the rabbis: from where did he bring flax and olive seeds?

“The rapist and the seducer,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent female. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned in a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But in the case of the preliminarily married adolescent female, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. It turns out that Rebbi Mana follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Abbahu.

“The rapist and the seducer,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent female. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned in a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But in the case of the preliminarily married adolescent female, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. It turns out that Rebbi Mana follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Abbahu.

Rebbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rebbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation. Rebbi Simeon explained that any reference to “Cohen’s daughter” implies burning, but the rabbis teach that any reference to “preliminarily married” implies stoning. Rebbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as preliminarily married she be burned, but was lenient with the definitively married one that she be stoned. The Torah was lenient with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we be lenient with the definitively married one that she be decapitated. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her definitively married status to be burned. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her pleliminarily married status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her definitively married status that she be strangled.

Rebbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rebbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation. Rebbi Simeon explained that any reference to “Cohen’s daughter” implies burning, but the rabbis teach that any reference to “preliminarily married” implies stoning. Rebbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as preliminarily married she be burned, but was lenient with the definitively married one that she be stoned. The Torah was lenient with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we be lenient with the definitively married one that she be decapitated. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her definitively married status to be burned. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her pleliminarily married status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her definitively married status that she be strangled.

Rebbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rebbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation. Rebbi Simeon explained that any reference to “Cohen’s daughter” implies burning, but the rabbis teach that any reference to “preliminarily married” implies stoning. Rebbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as preliminarily married she be burned, but was lenient with the definitively married one that she be stoned. The Torah was lenient with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we be lenient with the definitively married one that she be decapitated. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her definitively married status to be burned. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her pleliminarily married status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her definitively married status that she be strangled.

Rebbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rebbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation. Rebbi Simeon explained that any reference to “Cohen’s daughter” implies burning, but the rabbis teach that any reference to “preliminarily married” implies stoning. Rebbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as preliminarily married she be burned, but was lenient with the definitively married one that she be stoned. The Torah was lenient with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we be lenient with the definitively married one that she be decapitated. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her definitively married status to be burned. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her pleliminarily married status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her definitively married status that she be strangled.

MISHNAH: The following are stoned: A male having sexual relations with the mother, or the father’s wife, or the daughter-in-law, or a male, or an animal; or a female bringing an animal onto herself. Also the blasphemer, the worshipper of idols, he who gives one of his descendants to the Moloch, and the necromancer, and the medium. Also one who desecrates the Sabbath, or who curses father or mother, or who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden, or who leads astray, or who seduces, or the sorcerer, or the deviant and rebellious son.

MISHNAH: A person having sexual relations with the mother is guilty because of mother and because of father’s wife. Rebbi Jehudah say, he is guilty only because of mother. A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife is guilty because of father’s wife and because of married woman, whether during his father’s lifetime or after his father’s death, whether preliminarily married or definitively married. A person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law is guilty because of his daughter-in-law and because of a married woman, whether during his son’s lifetime or after his son’s death, whether preliminarily married or definitively married.

MISHNAH: A person having sexual relations with the mother is guilty because of mother and because of father’s wife. Rebbi Jehudah say, he is guilty only because of mother. A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife is guilty because of father’s wife and because of married woman, whether during his father’s lifetime or after his father’s death, whether preliminarily married or definitively married. A person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law is guilty because of his daughter-in-law and because of a married woman, whether during his son’s lifetime or after his son’s death, whether preliminarily married or definitively married.

MISHNAH: One who desecrates the Sabbath by something which if performed intentionally makes him liable to extirpation, or to a purification sacrifice if in error. But he who curses father or mother is guilty only of he cursed them by the Name. If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meïr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution. One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married adolescent is only liable if she was an adolescent, a virgin, and preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two [men] had relations with her, the first one is stoned, the second is subject to strangling.

MISHNAH: One who desecrates the Sabbath by something which if performed intentionally makes him liable to extirpation, or to a purification sacrifice if in error. But he who curses father or mother is guilty only of he cursed them by the Name. If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rebbi Meïr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution. One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married adolescent is only liable if she was an adolescent, a virgin, and preliminarily married, in her father’s house. If two [men] had relations with her, the first one is stoned, the second is subject to strangling.

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

“One who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written a young woman; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rebbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, because he mistreated her, that includes a minor for a fine. Read because he mistreated her, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rebbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abun in the name of (Rebbi) Samuel. Why? He understood it from the following: The man who had lain with her alone shall die. Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime? That includes him who has sexual relations with a [preliminarily married] underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.

MISHNAH: The following ones one saves at the cost of their own persons: He who purses another to kill him, the male, or the preliminarily married virgin girl. But he who pursues an animal, or who desecrates the Sabbath, or who worships strange worship, one may not save at the cost of their own persons.

What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? A man may not take his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s wing; that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which is in need of his father. Would he not anyhow be [criminally] liable for her because of “his father’s wife”? Rebbi Hila said, because of forewarning; if he was warned because of his father’s wife he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing he will be whipped. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah agrees about all other men that he is free. Rebbi Jehudah agrees that if he marries her preliminarily that the preliminary marriage is legally valid.