Kommentar zu Schemot 22:15

וכי יפתה AND IF A MAN ENTICE [A VIRGIN] — i. e. if he speaks kindly to her until she submits to him. Thus does also the Targum take it: ארי ישדל “if a man persuades”, the root שדל (the Pael conjugation) in Aramaic being the equivalent of פִּתָּה in Hebrew.

AND IF A MAN ‘Y’FATEH’ — “speaks to her emotions [until she submits to him]. And so did Onkelos render it arei y’shadeil, the term shidul in Aramaic being like pitui [persuasion, seduction], in the Sacred Language. ‘MAHOR YIMHARENAH’ (HE SHALL SURELY PAY A DOWRY FOR HER) TO BE HIS WIFE — he shall assign her a marriage portion as is the manner of a man to his wife by writing her a kethubah (marriage contract), and he shall marry her.” Thus far is Rashi’s language.
But this is not correct, for the term pitui [does not mean “speaking to her feelings,” as Rashi put it], but winning over another person’s will by falsehood. A similar usage of the term is found in these verses: ‘yifteh l’vavchem’ (your heart will be deceived);²³⁰Deuteronomy 11:16. ‘vayift’ (and he seduced) my heart secretly;²³¹Job 31:27. if my heart ‘niftah’ (have been enticed) unto a woman.²³²Ibid., 9. This is why people whose minds are not adroit in discriminating matters, and whose hearts can be easily bent by a few words at the beginning of a discussion, are called p’ta’im (simple-minded ones), just as it is said, ‘peti’ (the simple-minded) believeth every word,²³³Proverbs 14:15. and he who seduces a virgin in order to have sexual relations with her, bends her will to his desire by words of falsehood, and is therefore called m’fateh (seducer).
Onkelos, however, divided the term pitui into two meanings. Thus here he translated it: y’shadeil, which is an expression for cunning and effort that a person exercises towards another in order to do with him as he pleases, regardless of whether this effort is by means of words or deeds. Thus Onkelos translated: ‘vayei’aveik’ a man with him²³⁴Genesis 32:25. See Vol. 1, pp. 404-405 where Ramban discusses in brief the same theme as here. — v’ishtadeil (and a man ‘wrestled craftily’ with him). And Yonathan ben Uziel²³⁵See Vol. 1, p. 127 Note 152. translated: ‘v’shovavticho’ (and I will turn thee about), and put hooks into thy jaws²³⁶Ezekiel 38:4. — ‘v’ishtadlinoch.’ And in the Targum of the Scroll of Ruth we find: Where hast thou gleaned to-day? ‘v’anah asit’ (and where wroughtest thou)?²³⁷Ruth 2:19. It is of interest to note that Ramban refers to “the Targum of the Scroll of Esther” instead of ascribing it as he had done in the preceding reference to the Targum on the Book of Ezekiel. This indicates that Ramban held them to be of different authorship. Such indeed is the prevailing opinion in modern scholarship (see P. Churgin, Targum Kethuvim, pp. 140-151). — ‘u’lan ishtadalt l’me’bad’ (and where have you ‘endeavored’ to work)? — And she said: The man’s name with whom ‘asithi’ (I wrought) to-day is Boaz,²³⁷Ruth 2:19. It is of interest to note that Ramban refers to “the Targum of the Scroll of Esther” instead of ascribing it as he had done in the preceding reference to the Targum on the Book of Ezekiel. This indicates that Ramban held them to be of different authorship. Such indeed is the prevailing opinion in modern scholarship (see P. Churgin, Targum Kethuvim, pp. 140-151). is translated in the Targum: ‘d’ishtadalith imei’ (with whom I ‘endeavored’). For all effort involving skill, with which a person attempts to achieve something, is called hishtadluth (endeavoring). Thus the Rabbis have said in the Mishnah:²³⁸Aboth 2:5. “And where there are no men, hishtadeil (strive) to be a man.” And in the Gemara²³⁹Berachoth 58a. we find: “A man should always yishtadeil (strive) to go out to welcome kings of Israel.” And in Scripture it is written: and he [i.e., the king] ‘mishtadar’ (labored) to rescue him,²⁴⁰Daniel 6:15. — employing every skill [to save Daniel].
In my opinion, associated with this term [hishtadluth — striving] is the expression, rebellion ‘v’eshtadur’ (and sedition) have been made therein,²⁴¹Ezra 4:19. meaning, rebellion and “much striving.” For even in the Sacred Language these letters [the lamed and the reish of y’shadeil, y’shadeir] interchange. Thus we find: mazaloth (constellations)²⁴²II Kings 23:5. and mazaroth;²⁴³Job 38:32. niml’tzu (sweet),²⁴⁴Psalms 119:103. and nimr’tzu (forcible);²⁴⁵Job 6:25. ‘mifl’sei’ (the balancing of) the clouds,²⁴⁶Ibid., 37:16. and ‘mifr’sei’ (the spreadings of) the clouds.²⁴⁷Ibid., 36:29. Similarly in Aramaic: va’alu (and behold),²⁴⁸Daniel 7:8. and va’aru.²⁴⁹Ibid., Verse 7. Sharshereth (chain)²⁵⁰Further, 28:14. is termed by the Sages shalsheleth.²⁵¹Mikvaoth 10:5. There are Mishnaic texts where it is written, “hishtadeir [instead of hishtadeil — both terms meaning ‘strive’] to be a man.”²³⁸Aboth 2:5. It is for this reason that Onkelos renders ki y’fateh — arei y’shadeil (he will endeavor); he will attempt by devious means to invest the virgin with a sense of trust in him, by many ruses, until she submits to him. And since seduction may be achieved in many ways — sometimes with words, sometimes with money, sometimes by falsehood to mislead her, and sometimes even by truth, as when he really wishes to marry her — therefore Onkelos did not use a precise term for it, but rendered it as an expression of “endeavor.” However, in the verse, lest your heart be ‘yifteh,’²³⁰Deuteronomy 11:16. he used the other meaning and translated it: ‘dilma yit’ei,’ for there it means, “perhaps you will be misled.”
And that which the Rabbi [Rashi] explained: “‘Mahor yimharenah’ (he shall surely pay a dowry for her) to be his wife — he shall assign her a marriage portion as is the manner of a man to his wife, by writing her a kethubah (marriage contract)” — this is not correct, for if the seducer marries her, he pays no penalty,²⁵²Verse 16, and Kethuboth 39a. and if he divorces her after the marriage, there is no monetary obligation upon him by law of the Torah, since a kethubah is a matter of Rabbinic ordinance. Rather, mohar means gifts — the gifts which a man sends to his betrothed, jewels of silver and jewels of gold²⁵³Genesis 24:53. and clothes for the wedding ceremony and marriage, these being called sivlonoth in the language of the Rabbis.²⁵⁴Kiddushin 50a. Thus they said: “Mohari go back [upon the death of the wife].”²⁵⁵Baba Bathra 145a. This applies to a case where the marriage was not consumated (Even Ha’ezer 50, 4). And Onkelos rendered the verse, And Shechem said… Multiply upon me greatly ‘mohar’ and gift²⁵⁶Genesis 34:12. — “multiply upon me greatly moharin [in the plural] and gifts,” and Shechem would not have vowed to write Dinah many kethuboth. Instead, mohar means gifts, as I have explained. It is possible that the word is derived from the expression ‘m’heirah chushah’ (hasten, stay not),²⁵⁷I Samuel 20:38. because the mohar is the first thing which hastens the wedding, as the groom hurries and sends these presents ahead of him in eager haste and then he comes to his father-in-law’s house to make the wedding or the feast, just as the Sages have spoken of “parties of sivlonoth” (when presents are presented to the betrothed).²⁵⁸Pesachim 49a. The meaning of ‘mahor yimharenah’ to be his wife is then, that the seducer should send her presents and necessities for the wedding in order to become his wife. There is thus a hint here that both the seducer and the seduced can prevent the marriage, since Scripture uses such language rather than saying expressly that he should take her to him as his wife; for there is no commandment upon him to marry her unless he so desires, and if he does not want her to begin with, he is to pay fifty shekels of silver.²⁵⁹Deuteronomy 22:29. As explained further on in Ramban, this fine [stated in the case of a violator] applies also to a seducer — if he or she refuses marriage. After that Scripture states²⁶⁰Verse 16 here. that if the father refuses to give her unto him, he shall pay him money according to the ‘mohar’ which men give to virgins whom they marry. The reason for this fine is that the seducer has spoiled her reputation in the eyes of young men, thus the father will have to give her many presents and they will not give her any dowry, therefore it is right that the seducer should pay it. Our Rabbis have said²⁶¹Mechilta here in the verse, and Kethuboth 10a. that the amount of this mohar was determined by Scripture in the case of the violator to be fifty shekels of silver,²⁶²Deuteronomy 22:29. the law of the violator and of the seducer being alike in this respect. Scripture, however, did differentiate between them in that in the case of the violator it says, and she shall be his wife… he may not put her away all his days,²⁶²Deuteronomy 22:29. the reason [for this distinction between the violator, who must marry the maiden whom he has raped, and is forbidden to divorce her ever, and the seducer, who does not have to marry the seduced girl, but may instead pay the penalty mentioned in the Torah], is that usually it is handsome young men²⁶³Ezekiel 23:6. who seduce virgins, and the beautiful daughters of prominent families, [in the hope of marrying them]. But since it is not proper that he should gain from his sin, [i.e., that the girl should have to marry the seducer], therefore He explained that he cannot marry her against their will [hers and that of her father], but instead must pay them. Also, because she too sinned in this matter, He did not impose it on him to have to marry her against his will, but instead it is enough if he pays the penalty [of the fifty shekels of silver], and if he marries her with her consent and that of her father, she has the same status in relation to him as all women, having no claim to a kethubah from him by law of the Torah [but only by Rabbinic ordinance]. Similarly, it is usually the sons of prominent families who rape the daughters of those less-known families who have no power against them. Therefore He said in the case of the violator, and she shall be his wife²⁶²Deuteronomy 22:29. — against his will. And in the opinion of our Rabbis,²⁶⁴Kethuboth 39b. there too [in the case of the violator] the maiden and her father can withhold consent, as it would not be correct that he should marry her against her will, and thus do her two evils. Sometimes she may be of a more honorable family than he, and it is inconceivable that she should be further disgraced by his sinful act. The fair law is thus that the decision as to the marriage of the raped maiden be left to her discretion and that of her father, and not to the violator; instead, [if she desires it] he must marry her against his will,²⁶⁵“Even if she be lame, even if she be blind, and even if she is afflicted with boils” (ibid., 39 a). in order that violent men should not take liberties with the daughters of Israel.
Now this law of seduction only applies to a na’arah,²⁶⁶A na’arah is a maiden between the age of twelve years and a day and twelve and a half. After that she counts as a bogereth — past her maidenhood. The period of yalduth (childhood) is from three years and a day to twelve years and a day. as does the law of violation [which applies only to a girl between the ages of twelve years and a day, and twelve and a half], for there Scripture expressly stated, if a man find a ‘n’arah’ that is a virgin,²⁶⁷Deuteronomy 22:28. but here He did not mention na’arah. The reason for this is that the term na’arah mentioned there [in the case of a violator], is used in order to exclude the bogereth [a woman who has passed the stage of maidenhood], who is considered an adult woman, whereas a girl who is a minor [between the ages of three years and a day and twelve years and a day], is also included under the terms of the law of violation. But here [in the case of seduction], it was not necessary to exclude a bogereth, for it is self-understood that one who seduces a bogereth pays nothing, as he did it with her mature consent. Besides, a father has no rights at all in his daughter after the days of her maidenhood, as it is written, ‘bin’ureihah’ (in her maidenhood) in her father’s house,²⁶⁸Numbers 30:17. and here He said, If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him,²⁶⁰Verse 16 here. thus indicating that he [the father] can give her to him as a wife, seeing that he has the authority to take her betrothal-money, and this applies only when she is a minor or a na’arah,²⁶⁶A na’arah is a maiden between the age of twelve years and a day and twelve and a half. After that she counts as a bogereth — past her maidenhood. The period of yalduth (childhood) is from three years and a day to twelve years and a day. just as the Rabbis interpreted:²⁶⁹Kiddushin 3b. “All benefits which accrue during maidenhood belong to her father.”²⁷⁰There was no need for Scripture here to write na’arah to exclude a bogereth from the law of seduction, since the verse if her father utterly refuse etc. could not possibly speak of a bogereth. Hence it is self-understood that the section deals here with a na’arah, and there was no need to mention it. But in the case of violation etc. But in the case of a violation it was necessary to write na’arah, in order to exclude a bogereth²⁶⁶A na’arah is a maiden between the age of twelve years and a day and twelve and a half. After that she counts as a bogereth — past her maidenhood. The period of yalduth (childhood) is from three years and a day to twelve years and a day. from that law, because we might have thought that if she were a bogereth he should pay the fifty shekels of silver to her, [instead of to her father; it was therefore necessary to state] that it is a Scriptural decree [that if she is a bogereth he is free from that penalty], the reason being that since she is in full control of herself, she should guard herself against such a mishap.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained mohar as being an expression of “binding” [that he should bind her to him as a wife], similar in usage to the verse, Let the idols of them be multiplied ‘acheir maharu’ (who bind themselves to another god).²⁷¹Psalms 16:4. It is generally translated: “that make suit unto another.” According to Ibn Ezra: “that bind (or connect) themselves with another god.” Ramban’s own interpretation of that verse follows later in the text. But this is not correct; instead, the meaning of mohar is as I have explained it on the basis of the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory. And in my opinion acheir maharu²⁷¹Psalms 16:4. It is generally translated: “that make suit unto another.” According to Ibn Ezra: “that bind (or connect) themselves with another god.” Ramban’s own interpretation of that verse follows later in the text. means, “those who are ‘hasty’ in thought, [from the root maheir — fast] and follow another god precipitately, without consideration and without knowledge.” In the writings of the grammarians²⁷²R’dak in Sefer Hashorashim, root acheir. [acheir maharu is explained as meaning]: “those who give mohar (gifts) to another god,” meaning that they bring him sacrifice and offering.

אשר לא ארשה, for if the girl had been betrothed to someone the penalty would be death by stoning as spelled out in Deuteronomy 22,24.

מהר ימהרנו לו לאשה, “he shall make all the preparations required to marry her.” Nachmanides understands this as the seducer (groom) sending the girl the customary gifts סבלונות, a groom sends prior to the wedding. These are expensive gifts, not boxes of chocolate or a bunch of flowers. They are items that the bride needs as part of her outfits to prepare her for a dignified wedding ceremony. The wedding canopy would usually be erected after the bride had received these gifts from her husband to be. The reason why the Torah phrased this procedure in the way it did, instead of writing: “he must marry her forthwith,” is because it is not the seducer’s duty to marry her unless she has indicated her willingness to become his wife. If she does not agree to marry her seducer, the latter must still send her these gifts, as by seducing her he has greatly diminished the chances that another young man would want to marry this girl whose virginity has been jeopardized. Such a girl‘s father would have to tempt prospective suitors with a much larger dowry in order to make them consent to marry his daughter. Our sages say that the value of the mohar described in our verse is 50 shekel (Ketuvot 38), similar to the amount payable by a rapist to the father of the girl whom he had raped. The difference in law between the rapist and the seducer is merely that the former cannot ever divorce his wife (whom he had raped before she became his wife) against her will The seducer has a choice both in marrying his “victim” and eventually divorcing her if he so desires. The reason suggested for this rule is that it is not uncommon for young men to seduce girls who are of marriageable age. It would not be appropriate that the sinner should benefit by his deed in forcing marriage of his “victim” against her will. We must not forget that the girl who allowed herself to be seduced had been guilty of frivolous conduct also. This is why the Torah did not apply the same harsh rules to him that it applied to the rapist who forced himself on his victim. It suffices that he is made to pay a hefty financial fine. Moreover, rapists, as a rule, force their attentions on girls who are minors, and it would not be fair to force such a victim to be married to her violator against her will. If we were to do this she would become a victim of the same person a second time. Both she and her father can object to the rapist marrying her, whereas the rapist himself has no choice in the matter. In both situations the Torah limits these rules to when the girl in question is not yet older than 12 and a half years. In the verses dealing with rape this is spelled out in detail, i.e. הנערה (Deut. 22,28) Fully adult girls, (12 and a half+ receive the compensation themselves, not their father). In our verse here the Torah does not need to write the word נערה to indicate that this is the oldest girl to whom this legislation applies, seeing that if she were older the father would not be in the picture as the recipient of the fine stipulated by the Torah. She would not herself qualify as a potential recipient of a fine, seeing no crime had been committed against her interests. All she had had to do was to decline the invitation to engage in intimacies with the man in question.

He must set aside a dowry for her. Rashi explains [as he does] because if מהר ימהרנה denoted מְהִירוּת (speed) rather than מוֹהַר (dowry), then there should be a patach under the mem [ מַהֵר יְמַהֲרֶנָּה ]. Because in all of Scripture, מְהִירוּת is written in the verbal form that has a dagesh [i.e., in the pi’el form].

V. 15 u. 16. Aus dem im V. 16 ausgesprochenen Umstande, dass die Verheiratung des Mädchens von der Verfügung des Vaters abhängt, sowie aus der ergänzenden Gleichstellung mit dem Dewarim 22, 18 besprochenen Falle, wo die Person des Mädchens durch נער bezeichnet ist, wodurch, wie wir bereits zu Bereschit 24, 16 bemerkt, überall קטנה mit inbegriffen und בוגרת ausgeschlossen ist, steht es fest, dass hier von einem Mädchen die Rede ist, das noch unter Disposition des Vaters steht, also vor erlangter geschlechtlicher Volljährigkeit. Wir haben somit den Fall der Verführung eines unmündigen, noch unter Obhut des Vaters stehenden Mädchens. Die V. 16 statuierte Pön, קנס, ist dem Vater zu zahlen, wie in der zitierten Parallelstelle V. 29. ausdrücklich die Bestimmung lautet: ונתן וגו׳ לאבי הנערה חמשים כסף, und dürfte sich der ganze Fall somit unter dem Begriff des Diebstahls, גנבה, darstellen. Wie die allgemeine Rechtsachtung eine solche sein soll, dass jeder sein Eigentum, ihr vertrauend, ruhig außer Augen lassen kann, und der Dieb den höhnenden Missbrauch dieses Vertrauens durch קנס zu büßen hat: so sollen auch Väter die Unschuld ihrer Töchter nicht durch Schloss und Riegel verwahren müssen, sie sollen sie der allgemeinen Sittlichkeitsachtung anvertrauen können, und derjenige, der, dieses Vertrauen missbrauchend, durch Verführung die Sittenreinheit ihres Kindes stiehlt, der hat als Dieb an der Unschuld ihres Kindes, das Verbrechen wie ein Dieb durch Pön, קנס, zu büßen, wenn nicht durch Heirat das Unrecht gesühnt wird.

.כי יפתה איש, “if a man seduces, etc.” having concluded dealing with the subject of stealing animals or chattel, the Torah turns next to the subject of “stealing someone’s heart;” such a thief is called: .מפתה

מהר ימהרנה HE SHALL SURELY GIVE HER THE MARRIAGE PRICE — He shall assign her a marriage portion as is the practice of a man to do to his wife, i. e. he shall write her a Ketuba (marriage contract providing for a marriage portion) and shall marry her (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:15:3).

מהר ימהרנה כמהר הבתולות, 50 shekel, just like someone raping a virgin. The penalty money is to be given to the victim’s father as spelled out in Deuteronomy 22,29. Seduction results in the same compensation as rape.

As is the law regarding a man and his wife. [Rashi is explaining that the dowry comes only with their marriage,] rather than him giving it to her immediately as a fine. For otherwise, why does it say [in the next verse], “If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he must give the weight of silver. . .”? But he already gave her the fine!

אשר לא אורשה. Dem nichtjüdischen Eherechte fehlt der Begriff אירוסין, darum haben wir auch kein deutsches Wort dafür. Verlobung entspricht ihm nicht. Verlobung ist nur das Gelöbnis, sich ehelichen zu wollen, allein begründet noch kein eheliches Verhältnis. Ein Vergehen der Verlobten ist kein Ehebruch. Eine ארוסה gehört aber persönlich bereits ausschließlich dem Manne an, sie ist ihm durch קידושין angetraut, aber noch nicht mit ihm vermählt, das Vergehen einer נערה מאורסה ist sogar geschärfter Ehebruch; es fehlt nur das Übergehen in das Haus eines Mannes, das erst durch נשואין vollzogen wird. Die Etymologie von ארש, siehe Jeschurun Jahrgang Vlll, Seite 277. Da nach der als Halacha rezipierten Ansicht des R. Akiba (Ketubot 38 a) das Gesetz auch dann seine Anwendung findet, wenn das Mädchen bereits einmal eine Verlobte war, .ארוסה שנתארמלה או נתגרשה, sobald sie nur jetzt keine ארוסה ist, so ist אשר לא אורסה im Präsenz zu übersetzen. Nach der entgegenstehenden Ansicht wäre es reines Präteritum: die noch nicht verlobt war.

אשר לא אורשה, “who had not been betrothed.” If the girl had been betrothed the penalty would be death by stoning.

מהר. ימהרנה, als Wurzel von מהר , eilen, zugleich verwandt mit מחר, wovonמחיר : das Erwerbmittel, das Tauschmittel (undמחר , der für den fortgehenden eintretende andere Tag: morgen) scheint מהר im Kal: ein Ziel eifrig anstreben zu bedeuten, und zwar speziell: die engste Aneignung einer Person, die eheliche Verbindung erstreben. Übertragen auf das Verhältnis zur Gottheit: אחר מהרו (Ps. 16, 4), die sich mit einem andern Gott zu verbinden gestrebt haben. Daher מֹהַר, das, was der Mann der Frau für deren Verbindung mit ihm aussetzt: das Ehegut, das, was nach dem jüdischen Eherechte der Mann der Frau in der כתובה verschreibt. Selbst nach der überwiegend rezipierten Ansicht, dass כתובה דרבנן, scheint das, was später allgemeine Rechtsordnung, תנאי ב׳׳ד, geworden, ursprünglich Sitte gewesen zu sein, die nur später zur allgemein bindenden Rechtsschuld erhoben wurde. In beiden Fällen, hier und Dewarim 22, 18, wird die hier nach dem מהר zu bemessene Pön an die Stelle einer eigentlich einzugehenden Eheverbindung auferlegt, und besteht die Pön nur darin, dass, was sonst, sei es nach Brauch oder nach Recht, bei Auflösung einer Ehe durch Tod oder Scheidung der Frau zu leisten wäre, hier statt der Eingehung der Ehe zu leisten ist. In der zitierten Stelle wird die zu leistende Pön auf fünfzig Schekel fixiert. Nach den Mischna Pea 8, 8 niedergelegten Ansätzen: מי שיש לו מאתים זוז לא יטול לקט וגו׳, "wer zweihundert Sus ( — d.i. fünfzig Schekel Landesmünze סלע מדינה, die nur 1/8 der tyrischen Währung, כסף צורי, in welcher alle Silbermünzen der תורה zu verstehen sind, an Gehalt hatten —) im Vermögen hat, darf nichts aus Armenmitteln nehmen", würden die fünfzig Schekel der תורה ausreichen, um das Notwendigste an Alimenten und Kleidung für eine Person auf acht Jahre zu bestreiten. Also auch um ohne Geschäftsverdienst vom Kapital zu leben, sicherte eine solche Summe auf eine geraume Reihe von Jahren die Existenz. Als Betriebskapital dürfte es als fürs ganze Leben ausreichend betrachtet werden, da, ebendas. 9, ein Betriebskapital von fünfzig Sus, also der vierte Teil, als genügend zur selbständigen Ernährung erklärt wird: מי שיש לו חמשים זוז והוא נושא ונותן בהם הרי זה לא יטול. Nehmen wir an, dass ein also ausgestattetes Mädchen erst mit dem zwanzigsten Jahre völlig fähig sein würde, sich durch irgend einen Geschäftsbetrieb selbständig zu ernähren, so würde es von dem Zeitpunkte an, mit welchem es nach jüdischer Rechtsnorm aus der engern Beziehung zum väterlichen Hause tritt und mehr auf sich hingewiesen ist, also in der Regel von zurückgelegten zwölf und ein halb Jahren, sieben Jahre vom Kapital zehren können und dann noch eine hinreichende Summe in Händen haben, um sich davon durch eine Erwerbstätigkeit ferner zu ernähren. Es konnte also der Vater damit ihre Zukunft für alle Zeit sicher stellen.

מהור ימהרנו לו, “he must make her his wife by paying the accepted price for brides. The reason for this is in order to restore her dignity in the eyes of her peers, so that she will not be married by another man at bargain basement prices reducing her status permanently, and being permanently reminded of her inferiority. Since she had not reached the age of 12 and a half, she had been too young to realise the consequences of being seduced. After having gone through the formalities, her husband can divorce her, seeing he had not raped her but she had consented.