Deuteronomy 22:23

Deu_22:23-27. PURITY OF THE BETROTHED.

(24) His neighbour’s wife.—It is evident from the language of this precept that a betrothed virgin in Israel is regarded as a wife. The man who humbles her “hath humbled his neighbour’s wife.” This illustrates the language of Matthew 1 Joseph, when Mary was found with child, sought to put her away (as though she were already his wife). The angel said to him, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.” He “took unto him his wife.” From the construction of this law it follows that Jesus was the son of Joseph, according to the Scripture. The Evangelists do not seem to think it worth while to prove that He was the son of David except through his father (in law).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. betrothed] see on Deu_20:7.

in the city] Cp. Deu_22:24. In the city she would have been heard had she cried, but as she did not she must have been a consenting party.

23–27. Of Intercourse with a Betrothed Virgin: (1) Deu_22:23 f., with her consent, in which case both she and the man are stoned, as in the case of Adultery (Deu_22:22), for the bride-price having been paid at betrothal the woman is as good as married (Gen_29:21, Joe_1:8); (2) Deu_22:25-27, without her consent, in which case the man alone dies and nothing is done to the woman. These two laws are peculiar to D. Note in Deu_22:24 the Pl. address, and also in Deu_22:26 according to Sam. LXX, but Heb. has here the Sg.

For such cases Ḫammurabi has but one law, § 130: If a man has ravished another’s betrothed, who is virgin, while still in her father’s house, and has been caught in the act, that man shall die, but the woman go free. Among the Arabs if the woman is unmarried her relatives are not obliged to kill her, but no one may marry her (Musil, Ethn. Ber. 210).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In connection with the seduction of a virgin (נער, puella, a marriageable girl; בּתוּלה, virgo immaculata, a virgin), two, or really three, cases are distinguished; viz., (1) whether she was betrothed (Deu 22:23-27), or not betrothed (Deu 22:28, Deu 22:29); (2) if she were betrothed, whether it was (a) in the town (Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24) or (b) in the open field (Deu 22:25-27) that she had been violated by a man.

Deu 22:23-24

If a betrothed virgin had allowed a man to have intercourse with her (i.e., one who was not her bridegroom), they were both of them, the man and the girl, to be led out to the gate of the town, and stoned that they might die: the girl, because she had not cried in the city, i.e., had not called for help, and consequently was to be regarded as consenting to the deed; the man, because he had humbled his neighbour's wife. The betrothed woman was placed in this respect upon a par with a married woman, and in fact is expressly called a wife in Deu 22:24. Betrothal was the first step towards marriage, even if it was not a solemn act attested by witnesses. Written agreements of marriage were not introduced till a later period (Tobit 7:14; Tr. Ketuboth i. 2).

Deu 22:25-27

If, on the other hand, a man met a betrothed girl in the field, and laid hold of her and lay with her, the man alone was to die, and nothing was to be done to the girl. "There is in the damsel no death-sin (i.e., no sin to be punished with death); but as when a man riseth against his neighbour and slayeth him, even so is this matter." In the open field the girl had called for help, but no one had helped her. It was therefore a forcible rape.

Deu 22:28-29

The last case: if a virgin was not betrothed, and a man seized her and lay with her, and they were found, i.e., discovered or convicted of their deed, the man was to pay the father of the girl fifty shekels of silver, for the reproach brought upon him and his house, and to marry the girl whom he had humbled, without ever being able to divorce her. This case is similar to the one mentioned in Exo 22:15-16. The omission to mention the possibility of the father refusing to give him his daughter for a wife, makes no essential difference. It is assumed as self-evident here, that such a right was possessed by the father.

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of the city,.... Where the fact was committed; the Targum of Jonathan is,"to the gate of the court of judicature, which is in that city:"

and ye shall stone them with stones, that they die; a man that lay with a married woman, he and she were to be strangled; but this sort of adulterers and adulteresses were to be stoned, and it is thought that of this sort was the woman spoken of in Joh 8:3,

the damsel because she cried not, being in the city, and the man because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife; as she was by espousal, by contract, by promise, and so was guilty of adultery, which was punishable with death:

so thou shall put away evil from among you; see Deu 22:21.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

CHAPTER XXII.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

By this betrothing she had actually engaged herself to another man, and was in some sort his with, and therefore is sometimes so called, as Gen 29:21; Mat 1:20.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

General Information:

Moses speaks to the Israelites as if they were one man, so the word "you" is singular. (See: Forms of You)

engaged to a man

"who is promised to marry a man"

take ... and stone

These commands are addressed to Israel as a group and so are plural. (See: Forms of You)

take both of them

"then you must bring both the girl and the man who slept with her"

because she did not cry out

"because she did not call for help"

because he violated his neighbor's wife

The Israelites at that time thought of a man and woman who had engaged each other for marriage as husband and wife. The full meaning of this statement can be made explicit. AT: "because he slept with a girl who belongs to a fellow Israelite" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

you will remove the evil from among you

The adjective "evil" can be translated as a noun phrase. AT: "you must remove from among the Israelites the person who does this evil thing" or "you must execute this evil person" (See: Nominal Adjectives)

translationWords

virgin

gate

stone

die

evil

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

ומצאה איש בעיר [IF A DAMSEL THAT IS A VIRGIN BE BETROTHED UNTO A MAN] AND A MAN FIND HER IN THE CITY [AND LIE WITH HER] — (Because he found her outdoors) therefore he lay with her: a breach in the wall invites the thief; if she had remained at home (as becomes a chaste Jewish girl) this would not have happened to her (Sifrei Devarim 242:2-3).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

The subject of the betrothed maiden concerns a case of witnesses seeing from afar a man taking hold of a maiden and lying with her in the city, whereupon the witnesses shouted and warned them [of the sin thereof and its death-penalty]. In the opinion of our Rabbis, both of them are liable to stoning, for the woman also is under presumption of voluntary adultery since she did not cry out at all, for, it is normal for any woman who is raped in the city to scream for help and to be saved. If, however, the witnesses saw in the field that the man grabbed her and lay with her, she is under presumption of having been raped and is therefore free of punishment. The meaning of the phrase [For he found her in the field;] she cried is thus “that she probably screamed” [for even though the witnesses did not hear her cry it is presumed that she cried for help; or it may mean even if she had cried — there was none to save her,” for even if they heard that she did not cry she is free of punishment since there was none to save her. In general, if there are people to save her [and she did not cry] whether it be in the city or the field she is guilty; where there is none to save her whether it be in the city or the field she is free. Scripture speaks of the common case [i.e., that in the city there are people to save her, and in the field there are none — but the law as explained is the same in all cases].

Scripture states, and the man, because he afflicted the wife of his fellow. Now the term “affliction” applies only to forcible cohabitation, and yet the same verse already declared her guilty as if she committed adultery voluntarily!. Ramban asks: Since the term “affliction” applies only to forcible rape, how could she be condemned as if she had submitted voluntarily? The answer follows in the text. But the purport thereof is as follows: When we see a man take hold of a woman and lie with her we adjudge the woman to be consenting because she could have been saved from him, and we consider the man as if he is afflicting her for he did not entice her nor appeal to her to submit to him.Now, I know not the precise meaning of this law of “crying out.” If we see a maiden being overpowered by a man and she fights him with all her strength, weeps and takes hold of his clothes or his hair to save herself from him, and she did not realize [enough] to cry out, why should she be stoned? Rather, the “crying out” of which Scripture speaks is also the common case to deduce that ordinarily [if she did not cry for help] in the city it was a seduction [for had she cried out, people would have come to her rescue] and in the field [we presume] she was forced.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.