1. When a person issues a slanderous report concerning a Jewish maiden, and the matter is discovered to be false, he should be punished by lashing, as [Deuteronomy 22:18] states: "And he shall be flogged." The warning [for this negative commandment] is derived from [Leviticus 19:16]: "Do not go about as a slanderer among your people."¹As is the case with regard to several other mitzvot, the passage in Deuteronomy obviously indicates that the transgression of a negative commandment is involved in making such slanderous remarks about one's wife. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the punishment of lashes to be given. There is, however, no explicit statement in that passage saying, "Do not make such statements." Therefore, it is necessary to find another verse that has a specific statement forbidding slander.

He must also give her father 100 sela'im of pure silver.²See Chapter 1, Halachah 1. This is the only instance in the Torah when a person who violates a prohibition is given corporal punishment and is also required to make financial restitution. If the girl is an orphan, the money is given to her.³And not to her father's heirs.

2. When a person issues a slanderous report on a girl below majority, or on a bogeret, he is not liable for the fine or for lashes. He is not liable unless he issues a slanderous report regarding a na'arah.⁴As mentioned previously, the term na'arah implies a specific time frame: the six months after a girl's manifestation of physical signs of maturity once she has reached the age of twelve.

As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 1, Halachah 8, the word na'arah, "maiden" is sometimes used by the Torah to refer to girls between the ages of three and twelve and a half. In this instance, however, the meaning of the term is specific. [This is derived from Deuteronomy 22:15]: "[They will] present signs of the maiden's virginity." The word נערה, "maiden" is written in a full form.⁵Generally, the word נערה, maiden, is written in the Torah without the final heh. The inclusion of the heh is obviously purposeful and intended to teach a concept.

The Rambam's statements have aroused the attention of the commentaries, for in our Torah scrolls the word נערה in the verse cited by the Rambam lacks a heh. The Kessef Mishneh (based on Ketubot 40b and Rashi, 44b) notes that the Talmud derives this concept from Deuteronomy 22:19: "And he shall give it to the father of the maiden." In that verse, the word נערה is written with a heh in our Torah scrolls.

3. Cases pertaining to this law may be brought only in the time of the Temple, and in the presence of a court of 23 [judges], because there is the possibility that capital punishment will be involved.⁶Cases involving capital punishment are judged by a court of 23 judges. These cases can by judged only when the Sanhedrin holds sessions in the Courtyard of Hewn Stone next to the Temple, as stated in Hilchot Sanhedrin 14:11-14. (Once the Sanhedrin ceased holding sessions in that place, even a court of judges with semichah cannot try capital cases.) For if the accusation [brought by the husband] is discovered to be true, the girl must be executed.⁷As stated in Deuteronomy 22:20.

Cases involving rape or seduction, by contrast, are judged at all times in the presence of three [judges], as will be explained in Hilchot Sanhedrin.⁸Chapter 5, Halachah 5:3. Based on Hilchot Sanhedrin 5:17 and the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 177:2), it would appear that in the present age, the court should hold a person who makes such statements responsible and compel him to reach a settlement with the father of the girl whose reputation he maligned.

4. It is one of the Torah's positive commandments for the wife of a man who issued a slanderous report about her to remain married to him forever, as [Deuteronomy 21:19] states: "She must remain his wife."⁹Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 219) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 553) regard this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Sefer HaMitzvot states that this commandment also includes flogging him. This applies even if she is blind or a leper.

If he divorces her, he transgresses a negative commandment, as the verse continues: "He may never send her away as long as he lives."¹⁰Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 359) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 554) regard this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

[If he divorces her,] we compel him to remarry her, and he is not lashed, as explained with regard to a rapist.¹¹Chapter 1, Halachah 7. If, however, another man takes the initiative and consecrates her first,¹²In which instance, her first husband is forbidden to remarry her. she dies, or he is a priest, who is forbidden to marry a divorcee, he should be punished by lashes for divorcing her.

5. If immodest behavior [on the woman's part is discovered], or it is discovered that she is forbidden to him as a result of a negative commandment, a positive commandment, or even [a Rabbinic commandment, such as the prohibition against] a sh'niyah, he should divorce her with a get.¹³See Chapter 1, Halachah 5, and notes.

Why should the positive commandment [of remaining married to the woman] not supersede the negative commandment [of engaging in relations with an adulterous wife, or any other negative commandment] with regard to this man who issues a slanderous report or a rapist, and thus he should marry [or remain married to] this woman who is forbidden to him? For it is possible that she will not desire to remain married to him, and thus, both the positive and negative commandments will be observed.¹⁴Ketubot 40a explains that in such an instance the woman is taught to say that she does not desire to remain married to the man, so that there is no obstacle presented to the divorce.

6. What is implied by the term "issuing a slanderous report"? That a person should come to court and say: "I engaged in marital relations with this maiden,¹⁵There is a difference of opinion among our Sages whether or not all the following laws apply if the husband did not engage in marital relations with his wife. The Rambam follows the opinion that it is necessary for the couple to have engaged in marital relations. See the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh on Halachah 12. and I discovered that she was not a virgin. I investigated the matter and determined that she committed adultery after I had consecrated her.¹⁶I.e., the husband's claim is twofold: a) that contrary to his supposition, his bride was not a virgin; b) that she had committed adultery between the time he consecrated her, and the time he consummated the marriage. The latter dimension of the claim is more significant, because if substantiated, it involves the death penalty. The issue of a groom's claim that a bride presumed to be a virgin was not - without any knowledge of an adulterous relationship - is discussed in Hilchot Ishut 11:8-17. See Halachah 11. These are the witnesses in whose presence she committed adultery."¹⁷For no punishment will be administered by the court unless two witnesses testify to the wrongdoing.

The court then listens to the words of the witnesses and examines their testimony. If the truth of the claim is substantiated, the girl is executed by stoning.¹⁸The punishment given for adultery committed by a consecrated maiden (Deuteronomy 22:23 .

If the [girl's] father brings witnesses who nullify [the testimony] of the witnesses,¹⁹The term used for nullify here, hazamah, has a very specific meaning. It refers to witnesses who testify that it was impossible for the husband's witnesses to testify with regard to the alleged adultery, because the two witnesses were together in a different place at the time the first witnesses testified that the adultery took place. If the second pair of witnesses state that they were in the same place as the first pair and did not witness the commission of adultery, the testimony of the first pair is nullified, but the first pair of witnesses is not punished. This is referred to as hakashah. See Hilchot Edut, Chapter 18. and it is determined that they testified falsely, [the witnesses] should be executed by stoning,²⁰As stated in Deuteronomy 19:19, when the testimony of witnesses is nullified in the above fashion, the lying witnesses are giving the punishment they desired to have imposed upon the defendant. [the husband] should be flogged, and he should pay 100 sela'im.²¹Note the Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 553), who quotes opinions that maintain that if the girl's father brings witnesses who nullify the husband's witnesses through hakashah, the husband's witnesses are not punished, but the husband himself is required to pay the fine.

This is what is meant by [Deuteronomy 22:17]: "This is [evidence of] my daughter's virginity" - i.e., these are the witnesses who nullify [the testimony] of the husband's witnesses.

If the husband brings other witnesses who nullify [the testimony]²²Here again the intent is hazamah. of the father's witnesses, the maiden and the father's witness should be executed by stoning.²³Moreover, the witnesses must pay a fine of 100 sela'im to the husband. This is what is meant by [Deuteronomy 22:20]: "If the [accusation] is true." According to the Oral Tradition, the passage speaks of witnesses who nullify the testimony of other witnesses, and a third pair who nullify the testimony of the second pair.

7. When a man issues a slanderous report about his wife after she becomes a bogeret, he is free of liability for the lashes and for the fine, even though his witnesses testify that she committed adultery when she was a na'arah.²⁴The husband incurs these penalties at the time he makes his statements in court. At that time, the woman has already become a bogeret.

If the accusations are proven true, [the girl] should be executed by stoning, even though she is a bogeret.²⁵Generally, when a bogeret commits adultery she is executed by strangulation, a less severe means of execution. In this case, the woman is still given the penalty designated for a na'arah, as the Rambam explains. [The rationale is] that she was a na'arah when she committed adultery.

8. Whenever a na'arah is not entitled to a fine if she was raped or seduced,²⁶See Chapter 1, Halachah 9.

The rationale for this ruling can be explained as follows: Most of the women mentioned in that halachah are not granted a fine, because we assume that they are non-virgins. For this reason, the husband should not have presumed that she was a virgin.

With regard to an aylonit, she is never considered to be a na'arah. Until the age of twenty, she is considered to be a k'tanah, and after twenty, she is considered to be a bogeret. [her husband] is not punished by flogging or by a fine if he issues a slanderous report about her.

In addition, when a non-Jewish girl was converted below the age of three or a maidservant was freed below the age of three,²⁷In which case, she is entitled to a fine in the event of seduction or rape. [her husband] is not punished by flogging or by a fine if he issues a slanderous report about her. This applies even if a girl was conceived before her mother was converted and born after she was converted. [The rationale is based on Deuteronomy 22:19]: "Because [the husband] defamed the virtue of an Israelite maiden." [Implied is that] she must be conceived and born as an Israelite.

9. A man is not held liable when [his] witnesses are discovered to have lied [in the following situation]. He consecrates a maiden and divorces her, consecrates her again and then issues a slanderous report about her, bringing witnesses who say that she committed adultery during the first time she had been consecrated.²⁸Ketubot 46a leaves this issue unresolved. As such, we follow the more lenient ruling and free the man of punishment.

Similarly, a man is not held liable to be flogged or for a fine when [his] witnesses are discovered to have lied [in the following situation]. He issues a slanderous report about his yevamah, bringing witnesses who say that she committed adultery during the time she had been consecrated to his brother.²⁹Ketubot, loc. cit., explains that relations with a yevamah are excluded from these laws, because the relevant passage quotes the girl's father as saying (Deuteronomy 22:16 : "I gave my daughter to this man as a wife." This does not apply to the relationship between a yavam and a yevamah, for they are destined for each other by Divine decree.

Whenever a man is not liable [to be flogged and fined], he may divorce his wife if he desires to.³⁰The Mishneh LaMelech states that this statement applies with regard to the relationship between a yavam and a yevamah and similar instances, but does not apply with regard to the first law stated in this halachah. In that instance, the husband is not held liable because we are in doubt with regard to the law. For that same reason, he should be enjoined against divorcing his wife.

10. A man is not liable [for these penalties] unless he engages in relations with his wife in the ordinary manner and issues a slanderous report about her, saying that she engaged in relations [previously] in the ordinary manner.³¹I.e., if he issues a slanderous report that she had engaged in anal intercourse previously, he is not held liable (Ketubot 46a,b).

If he engaged in anal intercourse with his wife, and said that he discovered that she was not a virgin,³²I.e., he claims that witnesses supplied him with this information. he is not liable [for these penalties]. He is, however, given stripes for rebellious conduct.³³Although the Scriptural penalty is not imposed, our Sages required that he receive punishment for slandering his wife.

11. Similarly, if he says, "I discovered that she was not a virgin," but does not say that she committed adultery after he had consecrated her,³⁴See Hilchot Ishut 11:8-17. or if he claims that she committed adultery but did not bring witnesses, but rather the witnesses came on their own initiative, he is not liable [for these penalties]. Nevertheless, the witnesses are executed if their testimony is nullified.³⁵For they desired to have someone stoned, and thus should receive the appropriate penalty.

12. The Torah's statement [Deuteronomy 22:17]: "They will then spread the garment" is a euphemism. The intent is that they debate the private aspects of this matter.³⁶The Kessef Mishneh notes that this is a matter of debate in Ketubot 46a. Although the Sages advance the opinion quoted by the Rambam, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov states that the intent is that the girl's parents produce the sheet on which the couple engaged in relations. Since the Rambam follows Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov's opinion as reflected in Halachah 8, it is difficult to understand why he uses the Sages' explanation in this halachah. The commentaries explain that the two opinions in the Talmud are not mutually exclusive, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov would also accept the Sages' view.

Note also the gloss of Rav David Arameah, who states that when a husband brings witnesses who testify that the girl committed adultery, it is not sufficient for the parents to bring a blood-stained garment, for we fear that perhaps the blood came from another source. The testimony of witnesses, he explains, can be nullified only by other witnesses.

Similarly, [other expressions in the passage are to be understood non-literally. [For example,] "This is [evidence of] my daughter's virginity" means "these are the witnesses who nullify the testimony of the husband's witnesses."

The death penalty issued "if the [accusation] is true" is issued only when she has committed adultery after being consecrated [and is observed by] witnesses,³⁷More particulars about the execution are mentioned in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 3:8. as implied by [Deuteronomy 22:21]: "acting immorally [in] her father's house."³⁸It is when she is consecrated, but not married, that there is the possibility that she will "act immorally in her father's house," for that is where she lives. Before she is consecrated,³⁹Even if engaged. the Torah does not hold her liable at all, and a person who engages in relations with her is liable only for a financial penalty, whether he seduced her or raped her.