DANIEL SCHIFF
29. Hos. 2:4ff. and Jer. 3:8. It is possible that the deuteronomic legislation evidenced in Deut. 22:22 and 24:1ff. was enacted as an attempt to include the wife in the more serious penalty. See Anthony Philips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law(New York , 1970), pp. 110-112.
30. Sanhedrin 56a-b, based in Gen. 2:16; Maimonides , Hilchot Melakhim, 9:5. 31. Sanhedrin 58a, based in Gen. 2:24.
32. Sanhedrin 74a; Yoma 82a.
34. Bava Meizia 58b.
33. Sanhedrin 40b-41a. Yad, Sanhedrin 12:1-2. Eidut raises the issues of the witnesses’ suitability and credibility; hatra’ah relates to a specific set of warnings that had to be provided to the guilty party before the commission of the crime if capital punishment were to be considered.
36. Epstein, Laws and Customs, p. 209. 37. See Num. 5:29, Jere. 3:1. 38. Sotah 27b. See also Yevamor 24b.
30. Maimonides , Hilchot Ishut, 24:17, 18. See also Benzion Schereschewsky, Dinei HaMishpacha(Jerusalem , 1984), pp. 409-410.
40. See infra at p. 15 for the reasons given by Maimonides for mamzerut. Arguably the very same reasons provide the fundamental motivation behind the strong rabbinic prohibition of the wife’s continuing relationship with either the husband or the paramour.
41. Based on Deut. 23:3 but made explicit by the rabbis in Kiddushin 3:12 and Yevamor 4:13. See also Maimonides , Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 15:1.
43, Moreh Nevukhim, 111.49. This translation from Shlomo Pines , The Guide of the Perplexed (Chicago , 1963), Vol. 2, p. 611.
44. Sefer HaChinukh, Mitzvah 560.
45. Ibid., 34.
113