Finally it is not without interest to note that the higher legal significance of the "contraction," as compared with that of the English _sponsalia_, is due mainly to the influence of the Jewish law. The code of Moses mentions no fixed ceremonies for concluding marriage.[597] But precisely the same relation as by the Puritans is fixed between marriage and betrothal. For criminal assault upon the betrothed "damsel that is a virgin" and for adultery the death penalty is prescribed.[598] Later, however, the rabbinical law establishes "certain legal formalities for the act of concluding marriage. The act consisted of two distinct parts, intervened by the lapse of a certain time, the betrothment and the nuptials."[599] To constitute a legal betrothment the mere consent of the parties did not suffice. The performance of a solemn act was required. This consisted in the man's giving to his chosen bride in the presence of two witnesses either a written instrument, _sh'tar_, or a piece of money, _kaseph_, and saying: "Be thou consecrated (wedded) to me."[600] The contract thus made is not a "mere promise to marry," with civil consequences for non-fulfilment. "It is the very initiation of marriage. The betrothed parties are in some respects regarded as married, though not yet entitled to the marital rights nor bound to fulfil any of the mutual duties of conjugal life.... The betrothment could be dissolved only through death or a formal bill of divorce."[601] [Footnote 597: MIELZINER, _The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce_, 75.] [Footnote 598: Deut. 20:7; 22:22-29.] [Footnote 599: MIELZINER, _op. cit._, 75.] [Footnote 600: _Ibid._, 78. "As the formality of contracting marriage by money had in the Rabbinical Law merely a symbolical character, a coin of the least value (the _peruta_, the smallest used in Palestine), and even any other object representing such a value, could be used."--_Ibid._, 79. The practice may have been derived from the Roman _coemptio_. "The rabbinical formality differs, however, from the Roman in this, that the act is done by the man only; _he_ gives the money or its value, and _he_ speaks the formula, while her consent is expressed by her silent acceptance of both. This passivity on her side is in consequence of the Talmudic principle based on the expression used in the Mosaic law: 'If A Man Taketh A Wife;' he takes and she _is_ taken; he is the active and she the passive party."--_Talm. Kiddushin_, 2_b_ and 3_b_; MIELZINER, _op. cit._, 78 n. 2. During the Middle Ages it became customary to use a plain ring instead of the piece of money: _ibid._, 79, 80.] [Footnote 601: MIELZINER, _The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce_, 76.] Among the Jews it was quite customary for the betrothal to be preceded by an "engagement," but it was not legally required.[602] The Puritan went farther in this regard, regulating proposal and courtship, as well as the pre-contract and nuptials, by statute.