Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 16, 2015 | 讻状讛 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 42

Study Guide Ketubot 42


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜诪爪讬讗转讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讙讘转讛 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 讗讞讬谉

By contrast, with regard to her earnings and the lost items that she has found, although she has not collected them, e.g., she had yet to receive her wages, if the father died they belong to her brothers. These payments are considered the property of their father, as he was entitled to them before he passed away.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛诪驻转讛 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讛讗讜谞住 讗专讘注讛 讛诪驻转讛 谞讜转谉 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讜拽谞住 诪讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞住 砖谞讜转谉 讗转 讛爪注专 诇讗讘讬讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讚拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诪驻转讛 讚讗讬 诇注爪诪讛 讗诪讗讬 讬讛讬讘 诪驻转讛 诪讚注转讛 注讘讚

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? We already learned this in a mishna (Ketubot 39a): The seducer pays three types of indemnity and the rapist pays four. The seducer pays compensation for his victim鈥檚 humiliation and degradation and for the fine the Torah imposes on a seducer. A rapist adds an additional payment, as he pays compensation for the pain she suffered. The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the mishna to teach that the money is given to her father. The Gemara asks: It is also obvious that the money goes to her father, from the fact that a seducer pays these types of indemnity, as, if one claims that the money goes to her, why does a seducer pay her at all? After all, he acted with her consent, how can she then claim compensation?

注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention these cases in order to address the case where she stood for judgment before her father died, and then he died before collecting payment. In this case, there is a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis as to whether the sons inherit these payments from the father or whether the money belongs to the young woman.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗谞住转 讜驻讬转讬转 讗转 讘转讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗谞住转讬 讜诇讗 驻讬转讬转讬 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬讘

We learned in a mishna there (Shevuot 36b) that if someone said to another: You raped my daughter, or: You seduced my daughter, and the other says: I did not rape and I did not seduce, to which the father replied: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen, and afterward he admitted that he had raped or seduced the man鈥檚 daughter, he is obligated both in the payments of a rapist or a seducer as well as an additional one-fifth, and he must bring an offering for swearing falsely that he did not owe the money.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诪砖诇诐 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

Rabbi Shimon exempts him, as he does not pay the fine on his own admission. The accused individual is not considered to have taken a false oath in denial of a monetary charge because he would not have been obligated to pay the fine on the basis of his own admission of guilt. The Rabbis said to him: Although he does not pay the fine on his own admission, indeed he does pay compensation for the humiliation and degradation on his own admission. Consequently, he has denied a monetary claim, and therefore his false oath obligates him to add one-fifth and to bring an offering. This concludes the mishna.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗谞住转 讜驻讬转讬转 讗转 讘转讬 讜讛注诪讚转讬讱 讘讚讬谉 讜谞转讞讬讬讘转 诇讬 诪诪讜谉 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗谞住转讬 讜诇讗 驻讬转讬转讬 讜诇讗 讛注诪讚转谞讬 讘讚讬谉 讜诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘转讬 诇讱 诪诪讜谉 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬

In light of this mishna, Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: With regard to one who says to another: You raped my daughter, or: You seduced my daughter, and I made you stand in judgment for your actions, and you were found obligated to pay me money but you did not do so, and the defendant says: I did not rape, or: I did not seduce, and you did not make me stand in judgment, and I was not found obligated to pay you money, and the defendant took an oath that he was telling the truth and subsequently admitted his guilt, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, what is the halakha?

讻讬讜谉 讚注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗讬 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 拽谞住 讛讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讬 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛

Abaye explains the two sides of the dilemma: Since he stood trial and was found liable, is this considered a regular monetary obligation, and therefore he is liable to bring the offering for taking a false oath to deny a monetary claim? Or perhaps one can argue that although he stood trial and the court ordered him to pay, the payment is in essence a fine. Rabba said to him: Since he has already stood trial, it is considered a regular monetary payment, and he is liable to bring the offering of an oath.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗谞住转 讜驻讬转讬转 讗转 讘转讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗谞住转讬 讜诇讗 驻讬转讬转讬 讛诪讬转 砖讜专讱 讗转 注讘讚讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛诪讬转 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讜 注讘讚讜 讛驻诇转 讗转 砖讬谞讬 讜住讬诪讬转 讗转 注讬谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛驻诇转讬 讜诇讗 住讬诪讬转讬 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from the following baraita. Rabbi Shimon says: One might have thought that in the case of one who says to another: You raped my daughter, or: You seduced my daughter, and he says: I did not rape her, or: I did not seduce her, or if he claimed: Your ox killed my slave, and he says: It did not kill him, or if his slave said to him: You knocked out my tooth, or: You blinded my eye and you are therefore obligated to emancipate me, and he says: I did not knock it out, or: I did not blind your eye, and he takes an oath but later admitted to the truth of the accusation, one might have thought that he should be liable to bring an offering for a false oath denying a monetary claim.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讞砖 讘注诪讬转讜 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讗讜 讘转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讗讜 讘讙讝诇 讗讜 注砖拽 讗转 注诪讬转讜 讗讜 诪爪讗 讗讘讬讚讛 讜讻讞砖 讘讛 讜谞砖讘注 注诇 砖拽专 诪讛 讗诇讜 诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 砖讛谉 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛谉 诪诪讜谉 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讛谉 拽谞住

Therefore, with regard to the offering for a false oath in denial of a monetary claim, the verse states: 鈥淚f anyone sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of a deposit or of a pledge or of a robbery or have oppressed his neighbor, or have found that which was lost and deal falsely with it, and swear to a lie鈥 (Leviticus 5:21鈥22). Just as all these matters listed in the verse are unique in that they are monetary obligations equal in value to the loss one has caused another individual, so too, this halakha applies to all obligations that are monetary claims, which excludes these payments of a rapist, a seducer, and the like, as they are fines.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诇讗 讘砖诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉

What, is it not referring to a case where he has stood trial, and yet Rabbi Shimon does not render him liable for the oath as the payment was originally a fine? Rabba refutes this argument: No, that baraita is referring to a situation where he has not stood trial.

讜讛讗 诪讚专讬砖讗 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 砖诪砖诇诪讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讜讛讗讜谞住 讜讛诪驻转讛 讜诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪注诇讛 诪注诇 专讬讘讛

Abaye persists: But from the fact that the first clause of the baraita deals with one who has stood trial, it follows that the latter clause also deals with one who has stood trial. As the baraita teaches in its first clause: I have derived the halakha only for matters for which one pays the principal. With regard to the payments that are double the principal, and payments that are four and five times the principal, and those of the rapist, and the seducer, and the defamer, from where is it derived that all these are included in the liability to bring an offering for falsely taking an oath on a deposit? The verse states: 鈥淚f anyone sin and commit a trespass [ma鈥檃la ma鈥檃l]鈥 (Leviticus 5:21). The doubled usage of the word trespass serves to amplify and include any false oath taken in denial of monetary liability.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讻驻讬诇讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜诪讚专讬砖讗 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉

Abaye analyzes this statement: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a situation when he has not stood trial, is there double payment in that case? Everyone agrees that one who admits his guilt is exempt from the double payment, and yet this obligation is mentioned in the baraita. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a case where it is claimed that he has already stood trial and was declared liable to pay the double payment, and the accused individual denies this claim. Abaye summarizes his question: And from the fact that the first clause of this baraita deals with one who has stood trial, the latter clause also deals with one who has stood trial, and even so Rabbi Shimon does not deem him liable to bring an offering for his oath.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讻讬诇谞讗 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诇讱 专讬砖讗 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜住讬驻讗 讘砖诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜砖讬谞讜讬讬 讚讞讬拽讬 诇讗 诪砖谞讬谞谉 诇讱 讚讗诐 讻谉 讗诪专转 诇讬 诇讬转谞讬 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜 诇讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabba said to him: I could answer you that the first clause deals with one who is accused of already having stood trial and been deemed liable, and the latter clause deals with one who has not stood trial, and this entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. According to this answer, Rabbi Shimon concedes that after one has been deemed liable in court, the double payment attains the status of a regular monetary obligation rather than a fine, and therefore in the first case in the baraita he is liable to bring an offering and a payment for his admission. But I will not answer you a far-fetched answer, for if it is so, that the entire baraita represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, you could say to me: Let the tanna of the baraita either teach explicitly in the first clause: Rabbi Shimon says, or let him teach in the latter clause: This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诇讗 讻讜诇讛 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabba continued: Rather, I will say that the entire baraita is referring to one who has stood trial, and as for the difference in halakha, the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem one liable to bring the offering of an oath in a case where the plaintiff says that the defendant stood trial, was found liable, and swore falsely. And the latter clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who exempts one who confesses from bringing the offering of an oath.

讜诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专讬讛 诪讜讻讞砖

And I concede to you, Abaye, with regard to the liability to bring an offering for falsely taking an oath on a deposit, that the Merciful One exempts him from this offering here, based upon the verse 鈥淎nd deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of a deposit,鈥 (Leviticus 5:21), which indicates that one is liable to bring an offering only if he lied about a claim that was originally a monetary obligation.

讜讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诪诪讜谉 讛讜讬 诇讛讜专讬砖讜 诇讘谞讬讜

And when I say that Rabbi Shimon maintains that after one is declared liable in court his obligation to pay is considered a regular monetary payment rather than a fine, that is not to say that he is liable to bring an offering for falsely denying a monetary claim, but rather to say that the recipient of the payment bequeaths it to his sons. Unlike a fine, which does not pass by inheritance to one鈥檚 heirs, this is classified as a regular monetary payment. Consequently, if the perpetrator was deemed liable in court and ordered to pay the father of the girl he raped or seduced, and the father died before receiving payment, his sons inherit the right to that payment.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讛 诇讙讘讜转 注讚 砖诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪诪讜谉 讛讜讬 诇讛讜专讬砖讜 诇讘谞讬讜 诇注爪诪讛 讗诪讗讬 讚讗讞讬谉 讘注讬 诪讬讛讜讬

Abaye raised an objection to this last point from the mishna. Rabbi Shimon says: If the daughter did not manage to collect the payments before the father died, they belong to her. And if you say that this fine is a monetary payment to the extent that one can bequeath it to his sons after the trial, why does the money belongs to her? Since the trial has taken place, it should be the property of the brothers by inheritance from their father, as it is already considered a regular monetary obligation that is owed to the father.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 拽砖讗讬 讘讛 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讗讬驻专拽 注讚 讚讬转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬砖讗 讜驻讬专拽讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞转谉 讛讗讬砖 讛砖讜讻讘 注诪讛 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讻住祝 诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 转讜专讛 诇讗讘 讗诇讗 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛

Rava said: This matter was difficult for Rabba and Rav Yosef for twenty-two years without resolution, until Rav Yosef sat at the head of the academy and resolved it in the following manner: There, in the case of a rape, it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the man who laid with her shall give the young woman鈥檚 father fifty shekels of silver鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred: The Torah entitled the father to this money only from the time of giving. Consequently, if the father dies before receiving the money, he does not bequeath his right to the money to his sons. Instead, the daughter is considered to take her father鈥檚 place as the plaintiff, because she was the victim, and the money is paid to her.

讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讬 诇讛讜专讬砖讜 诇讘谞讬讜 讘砖讗专 拽谞住讜转

And when Rabba said that the fine imposed by a court is considered a regular monetary obligation with regard to one鈥檚 ability to bequeath it to his sons, he was not referring to this particular case of a rapist or seducer, but only to other fines, which do have the status of regular monetary obligations after the court delivers its verdict.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 注讘讚 讚讻转讬讘 讻住祝 砖诇砖讬诐 砖拽诇讬诐 讬转谉 诇讗讚讜谞讬讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 转讜专讛 诇讗讚讜谉 讗诇讗 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 讬转谉 诇讞讜讚 讜谞转谉 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, that the verb 鈥済ive鈥 is explained in this manner, with regard to an ox that killed a slave, where it is written: 鈥淗e shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver鈥 (Exodus 21:32), so too will you say that the Torah entitled the master only from the time of giving? The Gemara answers: 鈥淪hall give [yiten],鈥 is distinct, and 鈥渟hall give [venatan],鈥 is distinct. The first expression, which is stated with regard to an ox that killed a slave, does not indicate that the recipient acquires the right to the money only from the moment it is given, whereas the formulation employed in the case of rape does indicate that this is the case.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讞砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the main source for this halakha is the phrase 鈥渟hall give [venatan],鈥 when it was taught in the baraita that a man who rapes or seduces a woman is not liable to bring the offering for a false oath in denial of a monetary claim, rather than saying that this is derived from the fact that the verse states 鈥渁nd deal falsely,鈥 he should have said that it is derived from the fact that the verse states 鈥渟hall give,鈥 as this is the phrase that teaches that the payment is considered a fine even after he has stood trial.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讜讻讞砖 讻讙讜谉 砖注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 讜讘讙专讛 讜诪转讛 讚讛转诐 讻讬 拽讗 讬专讬转 讗讘讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 讬专讬转

In answer to this question, Rava said: When it was necessary to cite a proof from 鈥渁nd deal falsely,鈥 it was with regard to a situation where the young woman鈥檚 case was brought to trial, and the court ruled in her favor, and she reached majority and subsequently died before the money was paid. The reason that 鈥渁nd deal falsely鈥 is necessary in that case is because there, when the father inherits, it is from her that he inherits.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讛谉 拽谞住 诪诪讜谉 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖注讬拽专谉 拽谞住

The Gemara raises another difficulty: If so, the language of the baraita: Excluding these, as they are a fine, is inaccurate, as it is a regular monetary payment, not a fine. In answer to this question, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this phrase means: Excluding these, as they are originally a fine, and it is only once the court orders the man to pay that they are viewed as regular monetary payments.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讛讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讚诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Abaye raised an objection to this explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, based upon the mishna in Shevuot cited above (42a), which states: Rabbi Shimon exempts him, as he does not pay a fine on his own admission. The Gemara infers: The reason that he is not liable to bring a guilt-offering is because he has not stood trial. However, if he has stood trial and been found guilty, in which case he pays on his own admission when he later admits that he was already convicted in court, he should also be liable to bring an offering if he denies that he was convicted in court and takes an oath to that effect. This contradicts the claim that, according to Rabbi Shimon, even after one is convicted in court, the payment is still considered a fine.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专讬讛 诪讜讻讞砖 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讚讻讬 拽讗 转讘注 拽谞住讗 拽讗 转讘注

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis themselves, as follows: According to my opinion, although he has stood trial, the Merciful One exempts him from the offering, as derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of a deposit鈥 (Leviticus 5:21), which indicates that he is liable only for a claim that originally concerned regular a monetary payment. However, according to your opinion, you should at least concede to me in a case where he has not stood trial, that when one claims the money, he claims a fine and not a regular monetary payment.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 42-48 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The fourth chapter continues discussing the maiden who is seduced or raped. We will learn what payments are made and...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 42: Seduction Is Not Consent

A new chapter, a new mishnah. In the event of a seduction or rape, the compensation for degradation, humiliation, and...

Ketubot 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 42

诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜诪爪讬讗转讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讙讘转讛 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 讗讞讬谉

By contrast, with regard to her earnings and the lost items that she has found, although she has not collected them, e.g., she had yet to receive her wages, if the father died they belong to her brothers. These payments are considered the property of their father, as he was entitled to them before he passed away.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛诪驻转讛 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讛讗讜谞住 讗专讘注讛 讛诪驻转讛 谞讜转谉 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讜拽谞住 诪讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞住 砖谞讜转谉 讗转 讛爪注专 诇讗讘讬讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讚拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诪驻转讛 讚讗讬 诇注爪诪讛 讗诪讗讬 讬讛讬讘 诪驻转讛 诪讚注转讛 注讘讚

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the mishna teaching us? We already learned this in a mishna (Ketubot 39a): The seducer pays three types of indemnity and the rapist pays four. The seducer pays compensation for his victim鈥檚 humiliation and degradation and for the fine the Torah imposes on a seducer. A rapist adds an additional payment, as he pays compensation for the pain she suffered. The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the mishna to teach that the money is given to her father. The Gemara asks: It is also obvious that the money goes to her father, from the fact that a seducer pays these types of indemnity, as, if one claims that the money goes to her, why does a seducer pay her at all? After all, he acted with her consent, how can she then claim compensation?

注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention these cases in order to address the case where she stood for judgment before her father died, and then he died before collecting payment. In this case, there is a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis as to whether the sons inherit these payments from the father or whether the money belongs to the young woman.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗谞住转 讜驻讬转讬转 讗转 讘转讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗谞住转讬 讜诇讗 驻讬转讬转讬 诪砖讘讬注讱 讗谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗诪谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬讘

We learned in a mishna there (Shevuot 36b) that if someone said to another: You raped my daughter, or: You seduced my daughter, and the other says: I did not rape and I did not seduce, to which the father replied: I administer an oath to you, and the defendant said: Amen, and afterward he admitted that he had raped or seduced the man鈥檚 daughter, he is obligated both in the payments of a rapist or a seducer as well as an additional one-fifth, and he must bring an offering for swearing falsely that he did not owe the money.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 诪砖诇诐 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

Rabbi Shimon exempts him, as he does not pay the fine on his own admission. The accused individual is not considered to have taken a false oath in denial of a monetary charge because he would not have been obligated to pay the fine on the basis of his own admission of guilt. The Rabbis said to him: Although he does not pay the fine on his own admission, indeed he does pay compensation for the humiliation and degradation on his own admission. Consequently, he has denied a monetary claim, and therefore his false oath obligates him to add one-fifth and to bring an offering. This concludes the mishna.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗谞住转 讜驻讬转讬转 讗转 讘转讬 讜讛注诪讚转讬讱 讘讚讬谉 讜谞转讞讬讬讘转 诇讬 诪诪讜谉 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗谞住转讬 讜诇讗 驻讬转讬转讬 讜诇讗 讛注诪讚转谞讬 讘讚讬谉 讜诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘转讬 诇讱 诪诪讜谉 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬

In light of this mishna, Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: With regard to one who says to another: You raped my daughter, or: You seduced my daughter, and I made you stand in judgment for your actions, and you were found obligated to pay me money but you did not do so, and the defendant says: I did not rape, or: I did not seduce, and you did not make me stand in judgment, and I was not found obligated to pay you money, and the defendant took an oath that he was telling the truth and subsequently admitted his guilt, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, what is the halakha?

讻讬讜谉 讚注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗讬 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 拽谞住 讛讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讬 讜诪讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛

Abaye explains the two sides of the dilemma: Since he stood trial and was found liable, is this considered a regular monetary obligation, and therefore he is liable to bring the offering for taking a false oath to deny a monetary claim? Or perhaps one can argue that although he stood trial and the court ordered him to pay, the payment is in essence a fine. Rabba said to him: Since he has already stood trial, it is considered a regular monetary payment, and he is liable to bring the offering of an oath.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗谞住转 讜驻讬转讬转 讗转 讘转讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗谞住转讬 讜诇讗 驻讬转讬转讬 讛诪讬转 砖讜专讱 讗转 注讘讚讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛诪讬转 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讜 注讘讚讜 讛驻诇转 讗转 砖讬谞讬 讜住讬诪讬转 讗转 注讬谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛驻诇转讬 讜诇讗 住讬诪讬转讬 讜谞砖讘注 讜讛讜讚讛 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from the following baraita. Rabbi Shimon says: One might have thought that in the case of one who says to another: You raped my daughter, or: You seduced my daughter, and he says: I did not rape her, or: I did not seduce her, or if he claimed: Your ox killed my slave, and he says: It did not kill him, or if his slave said to him: You knocked out my tooth, or: You blinded my eye and you are therefore obligated to emancipate me, and he says: I did not knock it out, or: I did not blind your eye, and he takes an oath but later admitted to the truth of the accusation, one might have thought that he should be liable to bring an offering for a false oath denying a monetary claim.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讞砖 讘注诪讬转讜 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讗讜 讘转砖讜诪转 讬讚 讗讜 讘讙讝诇 讗讜 注砖拽 讗转 注诪讬转讜 讗讜 诪爪讗 讗讘讬讚讛 讜讻讞砖 讘讛 讜谞砖讘注 注诇 砖拽专 诪讛 讗诇讜 诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 砖讛谉 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛谉 诪诪讜谉 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讛谉 拽谞住

Therefore, with regard to the offering for a false oath in denial of a monetary claim, the verse states: 鈥淚f anyone sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord and deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of a deposit or of a pledge or of a robbery or have oppressed his neighbor, or have found that which was lost and deal falsely with it, and swear to a lie鈥 (Leviticus 5:21鈥22). Just as all these matters listed in the verse are unique in that they are monetary obligations equal in value to the loss one has caused another individual, so too, this halakha applies to all obligations that are monetary claims, which excludes these payments of a rapist, a seducer, and the like, as they are fines.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 诇讗 讘砖诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉

What, is it not referring to a case where he has stood trial, and yet Rabbi Shimon does not render him liable for the oath as the payment was originally a fine? Rabba refutes this argument: No, that baraita is referring to a situation where he has not stood trial.

讜讛讗 诪讚专讬砖讗 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 砖诪砖诇诪讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讜讛讗讜谞住 讜讛诪驻转讛 讜诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诪注诇讛 诪注诇 专讬讘讛

Abaye persists: But from the fact that the first clause of the baraita deals with one who has stood trial, it follows that the latter clause also deals with one who has stood trial. As the baraita teaches in its first clause: I have derived the halakha only for matters for which one pays the principal. With regard to the payments that are double the principal, and payments that are four and five times the principal, and those of the rapist, and the seducer, and the defamer, from where is it derived that all these are included in the liability to bring an offering for falsely taking an oath on a deposit? The verse states: 鈥淚f anyone sin and commit a trespass [ma鈥檃la ma鈥檃l]鈥 (Leviticus 5:21). The doubled usage of the word trespass serves to amplify and include any false oath taken in denial of monetary liability.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讻驻讬诇讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜诪讚专讬砖讗 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉

Abaye analyzes this statement: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a situation when he has not stood trial, is there double payment in that case? Everyone agrees that one who admits his guilt is exempt from the double payment, and yet this obligation is mentioned in the baraita. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a case where it is claimed that he has already stood trial and was declared liable to pay the double payment, and the accused individual denies this claim. Abaye summarizes his question: And from the fact that the first clause of this baraita deals with one who has stood trial, the latter clause also deals with one who has stood trial, and even so Rabbi Shimon does not deem him liable to bring an offering for his oath.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讻讬诇谞讗 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诇讱 专讬砖讗 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜住讬驻讗 讘砖诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讜砖讬谞讜讬讬 讚讞讬拽讬 诇讗 诪砖谞讬谞谉 诇讱 讚讗诐 讻谉 讗诪专转 诇讬 诇讬转谞讬 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜 诇讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabba said to him: I could answer you that the first clause deals with one who is accused of already having stood trial and been deemed liable, and the latter clause deals with one who has not stood trial, and this entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. According to this answer, Rabbi Shimon concedes that after one has been deemed liable in court, the double payment attains the status of a regular monetary obligation rather than a fine, and therefore in the first case in the baraita he is liable to bring an offering and a payment for his admission. But I will not answer you a far-fetched answer, for if it is so, that the entire baraita represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, you could say to me: Let the tanna of the baraita either teach explicitly in the first clause: Rabbi Shimon says, or let him teach in the latter clause: This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诇讗 讻讜诇讛 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讜专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabba continued: Rather, I will say that the entire baraita is referring to one who has stood trial, and as for the difference in halakha, the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem one liable to bring the offering of an oath in a case where the plaintiff says that the defendant stood trial, was found liable, and swore falsely. And the latter clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who exempts one who confesses from bringing the offering of an oath.

讜诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专讬讛 诪讜讻讞砖

And I concede to you, Abaye, with regard to the liability to bring an offering for falsely taking an oath on a deposit, that the Merciful One exempts him from this offering here, based upon the verse 鈥淎nd deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of a deposit,鈥 (Leviticus 5:21), which indicates that one is liable to bring an offering only if he lied about a claim that was originally a monetary obligation.

讜讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诪诪讜谉 讛讜讬 诇讛讜专讬砖讜 诇讘谞讬讜

And when I say that Rabbi Shimon maintains that after one is declared liable in court his obligation to pay is considered a regular monetary payment rather than a fine, that is not to say that he is liable to bring an offering for falsely denying a monetary claim, but rather to say that the recipient of the payment bequeaths it to his sons. Unlike a fine, which does not pass by inheritance to one鈥檚 heirs, this is classified as a regular monetary payment. Consequently, if the perpetrator was deemed liable in court and ordered to pay the father of the girl he raped or seduced, and the father died before receiving payment, his sons inherit the right to that payment.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讛 诇讙讘讜转 注讚 砖诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪诪讜谉 讛讜讬 诇讛讜专讬砖讜 诇讘谞讬讜 诇注爪诪讛 讗诪讗讬 讚讗讞讬谉 讘注讬 诪讬讛讜讬

Abaye raised an objection to this last point from the mishna. Rabbi Shimon says: If the daughter did not manage to collect the payments before the father died, they belong to her. And if you say that this fine is a monetary payment to the extent that one can bequeath it to his sons after the trial, why does the money belongs to her? Since the trial has taken place, it should be the property of the brothers by inheritance from their father, as it is already considered a regular monetary obligation that is owed to the father.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 拽砖讗讬 讘讛 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讗讬驻专拽 注讚 讚讬转讬讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬砖讗 讜驻讬专拽讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞转谉 讛讗讬砖 讛砖讜讻讘 注诪讛 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讻住祝 诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 转讜专讛 诇讗讘 讗诇讗 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛

Rava said: This matter was difficult for Rabba and Rav Yosef for twenty-two years without resolution, until Rav Yosef sat at the head of the academy and resolved it in the following manner: There, in the case of a rape, it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the man who laid with her shall give the young woman鈥檚 father fifty shekels of silver鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred: The Torah entitled the father to this money only from the time of giving. Consequently, if the father dies before receiving the money, he does not bequeath his right to the money to his sons. Instead, the daughter is considered to take her father鈥檚 place as the plaintiff, because she was the victim, and the money is paid to her.

讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讬 诇讛讜专讬砖讜 诇讘谞讬讜 讘砖讗专 拽谞住讜转

And when Rabba said that the fine imposed by a court is considered a regular monetary obligation with regard to one鈥檚 ability to bequeath it to his sons, he was not referring to this particular case of a rapist or seducer, but only to other fines, which do have the status of regular monetary obligations after the court delivers its verdict.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 注讘讚 讚讻转讬讘 讻住祝 砖诇砖讬诐 砖拽诇讬诐 讬转谉 诇讗讚讜谞讬讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讝讬讻转讛 转讜专讛 诇讗讚讜谉 讗诇讗 诪砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 讬转谉 诇讞讜讚 讜谞转谉 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, that the verb 鈥済ive鈥 is explained in this manner, with regard to an ox that killed a slave, where it is written: 鈥淗e shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver鈥 (Exodus 21:32), so too will you say that the Torah entitled the master only from the time of giving? The Gemara answers: 鈥淪hall give [yiten],鈥 is distinct, and 鈥渟hall give [venatan],鈥 is distinct. The first expression, which is stated with regard to an ox that killed a slave, does not indicate that the recipient acquires the right to the money only from the moment it is given, whereas the formulation employed in the case of rape does indicate that this is the case.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讞砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the main source for this halakha is the phrase 鈥渟hall give [venatan],鈥 when it was taught in the baraita that a man who rapes or seduces a woman is not liable to bring the offering for a false oath in denial of a monetary claim, rather than saying that this is derived from the fact that the verse states 鈥渁nd deal falsely,鈥 he should have said that it is derived from the fact that the verse states 鈥渟hall give,鈥 as this is the phrase that teaches that the payment is considered a fine even after he has stood trial.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讜讻讞砖 讻讙讜谉 砖注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 讜讘讙专讛 讜诪转讛 讚讛转诐 讻讬 拽讗 讬专讬转 讗讘讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 讬专讬转

In answer to this question, Rava said: When it was necessary to cite a proof from 鈥渁nd deal falsely,鈥 it was with regard to a situation where the young woman鈥檚 case was brought to trial, and the court ruled in her favor, and she reached majority and subsequently died before the money was paid. The reason that 鈥渁nd deal falsely鈥 is necessary in that case is because there, when the father inherits, it is from her that he inherits.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讛谉 拽谞住 诪诪讜谉 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖注讬拽专谉 拽谞住

The Gemara raises another difficulty: If so, the language of the baraita: Excluding these, as they are a fine, is inaccurate, as it is a regular monetary payment, not a fine. In answer to this question, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this phrase means: Excluding these, as they are originally a fine, and it is only once the court orders the man to pay that they are viewed as regular monetary payments.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讛讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讚诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 拽专讘谉 砖讘讜注讛 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Abaye raised an objection to this explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, based upon the mishna in Shevuot cited above (42a), which states: Rabbi Shimon exempts him, as he does not pay a fine on his own admission. The Gemara infers: The reason that he is not liable to bring a guilt-offering is because he has not stood trial. However, if he has stood trial and been found guilty, in which case he pays on his own admission when he later admits that he was already convicted in court, he should also be liable to bring an offering if he denies that he was convicted in court and takes an oath to that effect. This contradicts the claim that, according to Rabbi Shimon, even after one is convicted in court, the payment is still considered a fine.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专讬讛 诪讜讻讞砖 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 注诪讚 讘讚讬谉 讚讻讬 拽讗 转讘注 拽谞住讗 拽讗 转讘注

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis themselves, as follows: According to my opinion, although he has stood trial, the Merciful One exempts him from the offering, as derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd deal falsely with his neighbor in a matter of a deposit鈥 (Leviticus 5:21), which indicates that he is liable only for a claim that originally concerned regular a monetary payment. However, according to your opinion, you should at least concede to me in a case where he has not stood trial, that when one claims the money, he claims a fine and not a regular monetary payment.

Scroll To Top