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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 20, 2015 | 讻状讟 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 46

Study Guide Ketubot 46


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

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讘注诇 诇讜拽讛 讚拽转谞讬 讛转诐 诪诪讜谉 讜拽专讬 诇讬讛 诇诪诪讜谉 诪诇拽讜转 讗讬谉 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 讞爪讬 注专讻讬 注诇讬 谞讜转谉 讞爪讬 注专讻讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜谞讜转谉 注专讱 砖诇诐 诇讜拽讛 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讜拽讛 讘注专讱 砖诇诐

Rav Pappa said: What of the statement that is taught there, in the baraita, that it is only if he had intercourse with her that he is flogged? It is referring to the money of the fine. The Gemara asks: And does one call monetary payment flogging? The Gemara answers: Yes, and we learned in a baraita: One who says: Half my valuation is upon me, he gives half his valuation, in accordance with the sum fixed by the Torah according to sex and age (see Leviticus 27:2鈥3). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He is flogged and gives his full valuation. The Sages inquired: Why is he flogged? What transgression did he commit? Rav Pappa said: He is flogged by having to pay a full valuation. This proves that monetary payment can be referred to as flogging.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 讞爪讬 注专讻讜 讗讟讜 注专讱 讞爪讬讜 讜注专讱 讞爪讬讜 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讗讘专 砖讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜

The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is a rabbinic decree in the case of one who vows to donate half of his valuation, due to a case where one vowed the valuation of half of himself. And one who vows to donate the valuation of half of himself has effectively vowed to donate the valuation of a limb upon which his life depends, e.g., his head or heart, in which case it is as though he vowed to donate his entire valuation. Consequently, even one who vows to donate half of his valuation must donate his entire valuation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注谞砖讜 讗讜转讜 讝讛 诪诪讜谉 讜讬住专讜 讝讛 诪诇拽讜转

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhot of the defamer. The Sages taught the following baraita, based upon the following verses: 鈥淎nd the Elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:18鈥19). 鈥淎nd they shall fine [ve鈥檃nshu] him鈥; this is referring to money. 鈥淎nd chastise him鈥; this is referring to flogging.

讘砖诇诪讗 讜注谞砖讜 讝讛 诪诪讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜注谞砖讜 讗讜转讜 诪讗讛 讻住祝 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讗诇讗 讜讬住专讜 讝讛 诪诇拽讜转 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the phrase 鈥渁nd they fine [ve鈥檃nshu] him,鈥 although the word ve鈥檃nshu can refer to any punishment, in this case it is referring to money, as it is written: And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman. However, with regard to the statement of the baraita that: 鈥淎nd chastise him鈥; this is referring to flogging, from where do we derive this?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇诪讚谞讜 讬住专讜 诪讬住专讜 讜讬住专讜 诪讘谉 讜讘谉 诪讘谉 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘谉 讛讻讜转 讛专砖注

Rabbi Abbahu said: We learned the meaning of the word chastise in the case of a defamer by verbal analogy from the word chastise stated in the verse 鈥渋f a man have a stubborn and rebellious son [ben], that will not listen to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and though they chastise him, will not listen to them鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:18). And the implication of the word chastise in that verse is derived from the word son that appears in the same verse. And the implication of the word son [ben] with regard to a rebellious son is derived from the word bin in the verse 鈥淭hen it shall be if the wicked man deserve [bin] to be flogged鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2).

讗讝讛专讛 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诪谞诇谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诪诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪讜谞砖诪专转 诪讻诇 讚讘专 专注

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the warning, i.e., the prohibition that serves as the source for the flogging for a defamer? Rabbi Elazar says that the prohibition is derived from the verse 鈥淵ou shall not go up and down as talebearer鈥 (Leviticus 19:16). Rabbi Natan says that it is derived from: 鈥淭hen you shall keep yourself from every evil thing [davar ra]鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:10), which is expounded to mean dibbur ra, evil speech.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讛讗讬 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讬讗讬专 讜谞砖诪专转 诪讻诇 讚讘专 专注 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讬讗讬专 讗诇 讬讛专讛专 讗讚诐 讘讬讜诐 讜讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Elazar did not state that it is derived from this verse quoted by Rabbi Natan? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for the statement of Rabbi Pine岣s ben Yair, as it was taught: 鈥淭hen you shall keep yourself from every evil thing鈥; from here Rabbi Pine岣s ben Yair said: A person should not think impure thoughts by day and thereby come by night to the impurity of an emission.

讜专讘讬 谞转谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讛讗讬 讛讛讜讗 讗讝讛专讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 专讱 诇讝讛 讜拽砖讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara asks the reverse question: And what is the reason that Rabbi Natan did not state that it is derived from that verse cited by Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Natan explains that verse, which includes the term talebearer [rakhil], as a warning to the court that it should not be soft to [rakh la] this litigant and harsh to that one, but it must treat both sides as equals.

诇讗 讗诪专 诇注讚讬诐 讘讜讗讜 讜讛注讬讚讜谞讬 讜讛谉 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 诪讗诇讬讛谉 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讝讜诪诪讬讛 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛

搂 The Gemara cites another statement that deals with a defamer: If the husband did not say to witnesses: Come and testify for me that my wife committed adultery, but they testify for him of their own accord and are subsequently discovered to be liars, the husband is not flogged and does not give the one hundred sela, as he did not harm her. She and her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning.

讛讬讗 讜讝讜诪诪讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讜 讛讬讗 讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬讛 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind to say that she and her conspiring witnesses are stoned? If she is liable to be stoned, they are not conspiring witnesses, and conversely, if they are conspiring witnesses, they are stoned and she is exempt. Rather, this must mean: Either she or her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning. If they were telling the truth, she is stoned. If they conspired and offered false testimony, they are liable to be stoned.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讙专讬谞讛讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬砖讻讜专 注讚讬诐

The Gemara infers from the baraita that the reason the husband is not flogged or fined is that the husband did not tell them to testify, but if he told them to testify, although he did not hire them but merely persuaded them to testify that his wife had committed adultery as a betrothed woman, he is flogged and must pay the fine. This serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The husband is liable to the punishments of a defamer only if he hired witnesses.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗转讬讗 砖讬诪讛 砖讬诪讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜砖诐 诇讛 注诇讬诇讜转 讚讘专讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 诇讗 转砖讬诪讜谉 注诇讬讜 谞砖讱 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪诪讜谉

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda? Nowhere does the Torah explicitly state that the husband hired false witnesses. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Abbahu said: It is derived by a verbal analogy between the term placing, written with regard to a defamer, and the term placing, written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest. It is written here, with regard to a defamer: 鈥淎nd he place wanton charges against her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:14), and it is written there: 鈥淣either shall you place upon him interest鈥 (Exodus 22:24). Just as below, with regard to interest, the verse is referring to money, so too here, in the case of a defamer, it is referring to money, thereby indicating that the husband paid money in order to substantiate his false accusation.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 爪讬讚讜谞讬 讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗转讬讗 砖讬诪讛 砖讬诪讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Rav Yosef Tzidoni likewise taught in the school of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: It is derived from the verbal analogy between the term placing, written with regard to a defamer, and the term placing, written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖讻专谉 讘拽专拽注 诪讛讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讛讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讘驻专讜讟讛 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if the husband hired the false witnesses with land instead of money, what is the halakha? If he hired them with less than the value of a peruta, what is the halakha? If he hired both witnesses with a peruta, what is the halakha? Since this halakha is derived from the case of interest, perhaps, like the prohibition against charging interest, it applies only with regard to money, rather than land, and only with money that is greater than the value of a peruta.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讛讜 注诇 谞砖讜讗讬 讗讞讬讜 诪讛讜

Similarly, Rav Ashi raised a dilemma concerning a defamer: If he defamed his wife with regard to their first marriage, what is the halakha? In other words, if a man married a woman, divorced her, remarried her, and subsequently defamed her by claiming that she had committed adultery during the period of betrothal before their first marriage, what is the halakha? Similarly, if he performed levirate marriage and then defamed her with regard to his brother鈥檚 marriage to her, what is the halakha?

驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛讗 讞讚讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗转 讘转讬 谞转转讬 诇讗讬砖 讛讝讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讬讘诐

The Gemara comments: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as Rabbi Yona taught that the verse 鈥淎nd the father of the young woman shall say to the Elders: I gave my daughter to this man鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:16) serves to emphasize: I gave him to this man and not to the yavam, i.e., the brother of the original husband. Consequently, if one defames his yevama with regard to her original marriage to his brother, the unique halakhot of defamation do not apply.

诪讗讬 专讘谞谉 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讜爪讗转 砖诐 专注 讘讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 诇讘转讱 讘转讜诇讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 转讞转讬讜 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛

搂 In the course of the previous discussion, the Gemara mentioned a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of the Rabbis and what is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, referred to above (45b)? As it is taught in a baraita: How does the case of defamation proceed? It involves a situation where the husband came to the court and said to the father: So-and-so, I have not found indications of your daughter鈥檚 virginity. If there are witnesses who testify that she committed adultery under his authority, i.e., while betrothed to him, she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 转讞转讬讜 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛 讘转 住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 转讞转讬讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 讝讬谞转讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita, as this last statement is very surprising: If there are witnesses who testify that she committed adultery under his authority, does she have a marriage contract of one hundred dinars? She is punished by stoning. The Gemara explains that this is what the tanna said: If there are witnesses who testify that she committed adultery under his authority, she is liable to receive the punishment of stoning. However, if she engaged in licentious sexual relations at the outset, before her betrothal, when she was still a single woman, she is merely guilty of deceiving her husband with regard to her virginity, and therefore she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, which is the standard marriage contract of a non-virgin.

谞诪爪讗 砖砖诐 专注 讗讬谞讜 砖诐 专注 讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛 讜谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注 讘讬谉 讘注诇 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 讘注诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗诇讗 讻砖讘注诇 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗 讗诇讬讛 讜讗拽专讘 讗诇讬讛

The Gemara resumes its quotation of the baraita: If it was discovered that the bad name is not a bad name, i.e., the husband鈥檚 accusation was false, he is flogged and gives her father one hundred sela, whether he had intercourse with her or whether he had not had intercourse with her. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: These matters were stated only in a case where he had intercourse with his wife before defaming her. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, this is as it is written: 鈥淚f a man take a wife and go in unto her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:13), and: 鈥淎nd when I came near to her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:14), as both expressions refer to sexual intercourse.

讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讜讘讗 讗诇讬讛 讜讗拽专讘 讗诇讬讛 讜讘讗 讗诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诇讜转 讜讗拽专讘 讗诇讬讛 讘讚讘专讬诐

However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of the phrases 鈥渁nd go in unto her,鈥 and 鈥渁nd when I came near to her,鈥 if the couple never engaged in intercourse? The Gemara explains that, according to the Rabbis, 鈥渁nd go in unto her鈥 is referring to the wanton charges the husband leveled against his wife; 鈥渁nd when I came near to her鈥 means that he came near with words, not intercourse.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 诇讘转讱 讘转讜诇讬诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 诇讘转讱 讘转讜诇讬诐 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 诇讘转讱 讻砖专讬 讘转讜诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, this is as it is written: 鈥淚 did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:17), as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov claims that the husband had relations with her and discovered that she was not a virgin. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of 鈥淚 did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,鈥 if they did not have intercourse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis explain that he means: I did not find for your daughter the fitness of virginity, i.e., I have discovered that she was unfaithful.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诇讛 讘转讜诇讬 讘转讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讜讗诇讛 讘转讜诇讬 讘转讬 讜讗诇讛 讻砖专讬 讘转讜诇讬 讘转讬

The Gemara asks further: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, this is as it is written that the father replies: 鈥淎nd these are the tokens of my daughter鈥檚 virginity鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:17). He presents a cloth that proves she was a virgin, in opposition to the husband鈥檚 claim. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of 鈥淎nd these are the tokens of my daughter鈥檚 virginity鈥? The Rabbis answer that the father means: And these are the proofs of the fitness of my daughter鈥檚 virginity, i.e., he either brings witnesses to counter the testimony of the husband鈥檚 witnesses or provides some other proof that his daughter was a virgin at the time of her marriage.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜驻专砖讜 讛砖诪诇讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讜驻专砖讜 讛砖诪诇讛

The Gemara poses yet another question on the same lines: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, this is at it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall spread the garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:17). The father brings the sheet on which the couple had intercourse and shows that it is stained with blood. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who claim that a husband can defame his wife even if they have not engaged in intercourse, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥淎nd they shall spread the garment [hasimla]鈥?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 驻专砖讜 诪讛 砖砖诐 诇讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜驻专砖讜 讛砖诪诇讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讘讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 砖诇 讝讛 讜注讚讬诐 砖诇 讝讛 讜讘讜专专讬谉 讗转 讛讚讘专 讻砖诪诇讛 讞讚砖讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 砖诪诇讛 诪诪砖

Rabbi Abbahu said that the Rabbis interpret this expression as follows: They shall spread, i.e., examine, that which he placed against her [sam la]. In other words, they cross-examine the witnesses who testified against her, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd they shall spread the garment鈥; this teaches that the witnesses of this husband come forward, and likewise the witnesses of that father come forward, and the court clarifies the matter like a new garment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: The matters are as they are written, i.e., the verse refers to an actual cloth.

砖诇讞 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讙讬讜专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 讘讬讗讛 讻讚专讻讛 诇讘讬讗讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诇诪讻讜转 讜诇注讜谞砖讬谉 讗讘诇 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讞诇拽 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讘注讜诇 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜讬讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讻讚专讻讛

Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Giyyorei sent a message from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Although we have not found in the entire Torah that any verse distinguishes between sexual intercourse in a typical manner and sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, with regard to flogging or any other punishment. However, in the case of the defamer, the Torah does distinguish in this manner, as the husband is obligated to pay the fine only if he had intercourse with his wife, even it was in an atypical manner, and he defames her by claiming that she had previously had intercourse in a typical manner with someone else.

讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘注诇 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the husband should be liable even if he did not have intercourse with his wife. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov,

讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻讚专讻讛 讘注讬谞谉 讗诇讗 砖诇讞 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讘注讜诇 讻讚专讻讛 讜讬讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讘讻讚专讻讛

we require both this, i.e., the act of intercourse between the husband and wife, and that, i.e., the woman鈥檚 alleged act of intercourse with another man, to be performed in a typical manner in order for the laws of a defamer to apply, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov interprets the verses literally, meaning that the husband had intercourse with her and discovered she was not a virgin. Rather, Rav Kahana sent word in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan that the statement was as follows: He is obligated to pay the fine only if he had intercourse in a typical manner and defamed her with regard to intercourse performed in a typical manner, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘 讝讻讗讬 讘讘转讜 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讘讻住祝 讘砖讟专 讜讘讘讬讗讛 讝讻讗讬 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛 讜诪拽讘诇 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讬讬讛

MISHNA: A father has authority over his daughter with regard to her betrothal through money, through a marriage document, or through intercourse. Likewise, a father is entitled to items she has found, and to her earnings, and to effect the nullification of her vows, i.e., a father may nullify his daughter鈥檚 vows. And he accepts her bill of divorce on her behalf if she is divorced from betrothal before she becomes a grown woman. And although he inherits her property when she dies, e.g., property she inherited from her mother鈥檚 family, he does not consume the produce of her property during her lifetime.

谞砖讗转 讬转专 注诇讬讜 讛讘注诇 砖讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讬讬讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讜讘驻专拽讜谞讛 讜拽讘讜专转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 讞诇讬诇讬谉 讜诪拽讜谞谞转

If the daughter married, the husband has more rights and obligations than her father had before the marriage, as he consumes the produce of her property during her lifetime, and he is obligated to provide her sustenance, her redemption if she is captured, and her burial upon her death. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the poorest man of the Jewish people may not provide fewer than two flutes and a lamenting woman, which it was customary to hire for a funeral, as these too are included in the duties of burial.

讙诪壮 讘讻住祝 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗讛 讞谞诐 讗讬谉 讻住祝 讗讬谉 讻住祝 诇讗讚讜谉 讝讛 讜讬砖 讻住祝 诇讗讚讜谉 讗讞专 讜诪谞讜 讗讘讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna indicates that a father receives the money of his daughter鈥檚 betrothal. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the father is entitled to the money of her betrothal? Rav Yehuda said that the verse states, with regard to an emancipated Hebrew maidservant: 鈥淭hen she shall go out for nothing, without money鈥 (Exodus 21:11), from which it is inferred: There is no money for this master, i.e., her master does not receive money when she leaves him, but there is money for a different master, and who is this? Her father, who also had authority over her, like her master. When she leaves her father鈥檚 jurisdiction via betrothal, he is entitled to the betrothal money.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇讚讬讚讛 讛砖转讗 讗讘讬讛 诪拽讘诇 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 讘转讬 谞转转讬 诇讗讬砖 讛讝讛 讗讬讛讬 砖拽诇讗 讻住驻讗

The Gemara asks: But one can say that the betrothal money should go to her, as one can derive from the verse that there is no money for this master but there is money for the woman herself when she leaves her father鈥檚 domain. The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Now consider, her father accepts her betrothal, i.e., he can accept the money or document of betrothal from the man of his choice, as it is written: 鈥淚 gave my daughter to this man鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:16). Can one then say that she takes the money when her father accepts the betrothal on her behalf?

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽讟谞讛 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讬讚 讗讘诇 谞注专讛 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讬讚 讗讬讛讬 转拽讚砖 谞驻砖讛 讜讗讬讛讬 转砖拽讜诇 讻住驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞注讜专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讻诇 砖讘讞 谞注讜专讬诐 诇讗讘讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that this applies only to a minor, who does not have a hand, i.e., she is not legally competent to carry out transactions on her own behalf. However, in the case of a young woman, who does have a hand, she should betroth herself and she should also take her own betrothal money. The Gemara answers that there is a different exposition in this regard, as the verse states: 鈥淏eing in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:17), which teaches that all gains that a daughter accrues in her youth, i.e., when she is a young woman, belong to her father.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖诪注砖讛 讛讘转 诇讗讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讻讜专 讗讬砖 讗转 讘转讜 诇讗诪讛 诪讛 讗诪讛 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇专讘讛 讗祝 讘转 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪讘谞注讜专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讛讜讗 讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But consider that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the earnings of a daughter belong to her father? It is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant鈥 (Exodus 21:7); just as with regard to a maidservant, her earnings belong to her master, so too with regard to a daughter, her earnings belong to her father. Why do I need this exposition? Let him derive it from the phrase 鈥渂eing in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house.鈥 Rather, that phrase, 鈥渂eing in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house,鈥 is written with regard to the nullification of vows, but it is not referring to monetary matters.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪讬谞讛 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪拽谞住讗 诪诪讜谞讗 诪拽谞住讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

And if you would say: Let us derive from here that just as she is under her father鈥檚 authority with regard to vows, the same applies to monetary matters, this is not possible, because there is a principle that we do not derive monetary matters from ritual matters, as these are two separate areas of halakha. And if you would say: Let us derive this halakha from the fine paid by the rapist of a young woman, which the Torah explicitly states goes to her father (Deuteronomy 22:29), there is another principle, that we do not derive monetary matters from fines. Each fine imposed by the Torah is a novel law, from which nothing can be learned with regard to other monetary liabilities.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 砖讗谞讬 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讚讗讘讬讛 谞诪讬 砖讬讬讱 讘讬讛

And if you would say: Let us derive it from the compensation paid by a rapist for his victim鈥檚 humiliation and degradation, which is also paid to her father, the compensation for humiliation and degradation is different, as her father also has a share in it, because he too is humiliated and harmed by this unfortunate episode, and therefore one cannot learn the halakhot of other monetary matters from here.

讗诇讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚讻讬 诪诪注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讬爪讬讗讛 讚讻讜讜转讛 拽讗 诪诪注讟

Rather, the Gemara returns to the previous exposition of the verse: 鈥淭hen she shall go out for nothing, without money鈥 (Exodus 21:11). As for the question of why she does not receive the money herself, the Gemara explains that it is reasonable to assume that when the Merciful One excludes a case by means of this verse, He excludes a case where a girl leaves someone鈥檚 authority in the corresponding situation to the case of the Hebrew maidservant.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讛讗 讬爪讬讗讛 诇讛讗 讬爪讬讗讛 讛转诐 讙讘讬 讗讚讜谉 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 诪专砖讜转讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 讬爪讬讗讛 讚讗讘 讗讻转讬 诪讞住专讗 诪住讬专讛 诇讞讜驻讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this leaving of her father鈥檚 authority is not comparable to that leaving of her master鈥檚 authority: There, with regard to a master, when he frees her she leaves his authority entirely, whereas in the case of a girl who goes out from the jurisdiction of her father, she still lacks the process of being brought to the wedding canopy. As long as she is not fully married she remains partially under her father鈥檚 authority, as he is her heir and has rights to her earnings.

诪讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 诪讬讛讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 诪专砖讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 诇讛 谞讚专讬讛

The Gemara answers: From the perspective of her father鈥檚 right to effect the nullification of her vows, at least, she has left his domain via betrothal, as he no longer maintains exclusive rights to nullify her vows. As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 66b): With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband nullify her vows together. Since her father cannot nullify her vows on his own, the two types of leaving are indeed comparable.

砖讟专 讜讘讬讗讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬转讛 诇讗讬砖 讗讞专 讗讬转拽讜砖 讛讜讜讬讜转 诇讛讚讚讬

搂 The mishna taught that a father is entitled to accept betrothal of his daughter through a marriage document or through intercourse. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd she becomes another man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2). Since the verse does not specify how she becomes his wife, the different ways of becoming a wife are compared to each other, i.e., they are considered equal. Accordingly, the various methods of betrothal are the same with regard to the authority of the father.

讝讻讗讬 讘诪爪讬讗转讛

The mishna further taught that a father is entitled to items she has found.

  • 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...

Ketubot 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 46

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讘注诇 诇讜拽讛 讚拽转谞讬 讛转诐 诪诪讜谉 讜拽专讬 诇讬讛 诇诪诪讜谉 诪诇拽讜转 讗讬谉 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 讞爪讬 注专讻讬 注诇讬 谞讜转谉 讞爪讬 注专讻讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜谞讜转谉 注专讱 砖诇诐 诇讜拽讛 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讜拽讛 讘注专讱 砖诇诐

Rav Pappa said: What of the statement that is taught there, in the baraita, that it is only if he had intercourse with her that he is flogged? It is referring to the money of the fine. The Gemara asks: And does one call monetary payment flogging? The Gemara answers: Yes, and we learned in a baraita: One who says: Half my valuation is upon me, he gives half his valuation, in accordance with the sum fixed by the Torah according to sex and age (see Leviticus 27:2鈥3). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He is flogged and gives his full valuation. The Sages inquired: Why is he flogged? What transgression did he commit? Rav Pappa said: He is flogged by having to pay a full valuation. This proves that monetary payment can be referred to as flogging.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 讞爪讬 注专讻讜 讗讟讜 注专讱 讞爪讬讜 讜注专讱 讞爪讬讜 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讗讘专 砖讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜

The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is a rabbinic decree in the case of one who vows to donate half of his valuation, due to a case where one vowed the valuation of half of himself. And one who vows to donate the valuation of half of himself has effectively vowed to donate the valuation of a limb upon which his life depends, e.g., his head or heart, in which case it is as though he vowed to donate his entire valuation. Consequently, even one who vows to donate half of his valuation must donate his entire valuation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注谞砖讜 讗讜转讜 讝讛 诪诪讜谉 讜讬住专讜 讝讛 诪诇拽讜转

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the halakhot of the defamer. The Sages taught the following baraita, based upon the following verses: 鈥淎nd the Elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:18鈥19). 鈥淎nd they shall fine [ve鈥檃nshu] him鈥; this is referring to money. 鈥淎nd chastise him鈥; this is referring to flogging.

讘砖诇诪讗 讜注谞砖讜 讝讛 诪诪讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜注谞砖讜 讗讜转讜 诪讗讛 讻住祝 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讗诇讗 讜讬住专讜 讝讛 诪诇拽讜转 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the phrase 鈥渁nd they fine [ve鈥檃nshu] him,鈥 although the word ve鈥檃nshu can refer to any punishment, in this case it is referring to money, as it is written: And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman. However, with regard to the statement of the baraita that: 鈥淎nd chastise him鈥; this is referring to flogging, from where do we derive this?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇诪讚谞讜 讬住专讜 诪讬住专讜 讜讬住专讜 诪讘谉 讜讘谉 诪讘谉 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘谉 讛讻讜转 讛专砖注

Rabbi Abbahu said: We learned the meaning of the word chastise in the case of a defamer by verbal analogy from the word chastise stated in the verse 鈥渋f a man have a stubborn and rebellious son [ben], that will not listen to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and though they chastise him, will not listen to them鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:18). And the implication of the word chastise in that verse is derived from the word son that appears in the same verse. And the implication of the word son [ben] with regard to a rebellious son is derived from the word bin in the verse 鈥淭hen it shall be if the wicked man deserve [bin] to be flogged鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2).

讗讝讛专讛 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诪谞诇谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 诪诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪讜谞砖诪专转 诪讻诇 讚讘专 专注

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the warning, i.e., the prohibition that serves as the source for the flogging for a defamer? Rabbi Elazar says that the prohibition is derived from the verse 鈥淵ou shall not go up and down as talebearer鈥 (Leviticus 19:16). Rabbi Natan says that it is derived from: 鈥淭hen you shall keep yourself from every evil thing [davar ra]鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:10), which is expounded to mean dibbur ra, evil speech.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讛讗讬 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讬讗讬专 讜谞砖诪专转 诪讻诇 讚讘专 专注 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻谞讞住 讘谉 讬讗讬专 讗诇 讬讛专讛专 讗讚诐 讘讬讜诐 讜讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Elazar did not state that it is derived from this verse quoted by Rabbi Natan? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for the statement of Rabbi Pine岣s ben Yair, as it was taught: 鈥淭hen you shall keep yourself from every evil thing鈥; from here Rabbi Pine岣s ben Yair said: A person should not think impure thoughts by day and thereby come by night to the impurity of an emission.

讜专讘讬 谞转谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讛讗讬 讛讛讜讗 讗讝讛专讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 专讱 诇讝讛 讜拽砖讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara asks the reverse question: And what is the reason that Rabbi Natan did not state that it is derived from that verse cited by Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Natan explains that verse, which includes the term talebearer [rakhil], as a warning to the court that it should not be soft to [rakh la] this litigant and harsh to that one, but it must treat both sides as equals.

诇讗 讗诪专 诇注讚讬诐 讘讜讗讜 讜讛注讬讚讜谞讬 讜讛谉 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讜 诪讗诇讬讛谉 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讝讜诪诪讬讛 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛

搂 The Gemara cites another statement that deals with a defamer: If the husband did not say to witnesses: Come and testify for me that my wife committed adultery, but they testify for him of their own accord and are subsequently discovered to be liars, the husband is not flogged and does not give the one hundred sela, as he did not harm her. She and her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning.

讛讬讗 讜讝讜诪诪讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讜 讛讬讗 讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬讛 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind to say that she and her conspiring witnesses are stoned? If she is liable to be stoned, they are not conspiring witnesses, and conversely, if they are conspiring witnesses, they are stoned and she is exempt. Rather, this must mean: Either she or her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning. If they were telling the truth, she is stoned. If they conspired and offered false testimony, they are liable to be stoned.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讙专讬谞讛讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬砖讻讜专 注讚讬诐

The Gemara infers from the baraita that the reason the husband is not flogged or fined is that the husband did not tell them to testify, but if he told them to testify, although he did not hire them but merely persuaded them to testify that his wife had committed adultery as a betrothed woman, he is flogged and must pay the fine. This serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The husband is liable to the punishments of a defamer only if he hired witnesses.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗转讬讗 砖讬诪讛 砖讬诪讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜砖诐 诇讛 注诇讬诇讜转 讚讘专讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 诇讗 转砖讬诪讜谉 注诇讬讜 谞砖讱 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪诪讜谉

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda? Nowhere does the Torah explicitly state that the husband hired false witnesses. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Abbahu said: It is derived by a verbal analogy between the term placing, written with regard to a defamer, and the term placing, written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest. It is written here, with regard to a defamer: 鈥淎nd he place wanton charges against her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:14), and it is written there: 鈥淣either shall you place upon him interest鈥 (Exodus 22:24). Just as below, with regard to interest, the verse is referring to money, so too here, in the case of a defamer, it is referring to money, thereby indicating that the husband paid money in order to substantiate his false accusation.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 爪讬讚讜谞讬 讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讗讬 讗转讬讗 砖讬诪讛 砖讬诪讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Rav Yosef Tzidoni likewise taught in the school of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: It is derived from the verbal analogy between the term placing, written with regard to a defamer, and the term placing, written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖讻专谉 讘拽专拽注 诪讛讜 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讛讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讘驻专讜讟讛 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if the husband hired the false witnesses with land instead of money, what is the halakha? If he hired them with less than the value of a peruta, what is the halakha? If he hired both witnesses with a peruta, what is the halakha? Since this halakha is derived from the case of interest, perhaps, like the prohibition against charging interest, it applies only with regard to money, rather than land, and only with money that is greater than the value of a peruta.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讛讜 注诇 谞砖讜讗讬 讗讞讬讜 诪讛讜

Similarly, Rav Ashi raised a dilemma concerning a defamer: If he defamed his wife with regard to their first marriage, what is the halakha? In other words, if a man married a woman, divorced her, remarried her, and subsequently defamed her by claiming that she had committed adultery during the period of betrothal before their first marriage, what is the halakha? Similarly, if he performed levirate marriage and then defamed her with regard to his brother鈥檚 marriage to her, what is the halakha?

驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛讗 讞讚讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗转 讘转讬 谞转转讬 诇讗讬砖 讛讝讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讬讘诐

The Gemara comments: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as Rabbi Yona taught that the verse 鈥淎nd the father of the young woman shall say to the Elders: I gave my daughter to this man鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:16) serves to emphasize: I gave him to this man and not to the yavam, i.e., the brother of the original husband. Consequently, if one defames his yevama with regard to her original marriage to his brother, the unique halakhot of defamation do not apply.

诪讗讬 专讘谞谉 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讛讜爪讗转 砖诐 专注 讘讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 诇讘转讱 讘转讜诇讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 转讞转讬讜 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛

搂 In the course of the previous discussion, the Gemara mentioned a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of the Rabbis and what is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, referred to above (45b)? As it is taught in a baraita: How does the case of defamation proceed? It involves a situation where the husband came to the court and said to the father: So-and-so, I have not found indications of your daughter鈥檚 virginity. If there are witnesses who testify that she committed adultery under his authority, i.e., while betrothed to him, she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 转讞转讬讜 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛 讘转 住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 转讞转讬讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 讝讬谞转讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita, as this last statement is very surprising: If there are witnesses who testify that she committed adultery under his authority, does she have a marriage contract of one hundred dinars? She is punished by stoning. The Gemara explains that this is what the tanna said: If there are witnesses who testify that she committed adultery under his authority, she is liable to receive the punishment of stoning. However, if she engaged in licentious sexual relations at the outset, before her betrothal, when she was still a single woman, she is merely guilty of deceiving her husband with regard to her virginity, and therefore she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, which is the standard marriage contract of a non-virgin.

谞诪爪讗 砖砖诐 专注 讗讬谞讜 砖诐 专注 讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛 讜谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注 讘讬谉 讘注诇 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 讘注诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗诇讗 讻砖讘注诇 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗 讗诇讬讛 讜讗拽专讘 讗诇讬讛

The Gemara resumes its quotation of the baraita: If it was discovered that the bad name is not a bad name, i.e., the husband鈥檚 accusation was false, he is flogged and gives her father one hundred sela, whether he had intercourse with her or whether he had not had intercourse with her. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: These matters were stated only in a case where he had intercourse with his wife before defaming her. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, this is as it is written: 鈥淚f a man take a wife and go in unto her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:13), and: 鈥淎nd when I came near to her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:14), as both expressions refer to sexual intercourse.

讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讜讘讗 讗诇讬讛 讜讗拽专讘 讗诇讬讛 讜讘讗 讗诇讬讛 讘注诇讬诇讜转 讜讗拽专讘 讗诇讬讛 讘讚讘专讬诐

However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of the phrases 鈥渁nd go in unto her,鈥 and 鈥渁nd when I came near to her,鈥 if the couple never engaged in intercourse? The Gemara explains that, according to the Rabbis, 鈥渁nd go in unto her鈥 is referring to the wanton charges the husband leveled against his wife; 鈥渁nd when I came near to her鈥 means that he came near with words, not intercourse.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 诇讘转讱 讘转讜诇讬诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 诇讘转讱 讘转讜诇讬诐 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 诇讘转讱 讻砖专讬 讘转讜诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, this is as it is written: 鈥淚 did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:17), as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov claims that the husband had relations with her and discovered that she was not a virgin. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of 鈥淚 did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,鈥 if they did not have intercourse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis explain that he means: I did not find for your daughter the fitness of virginity, i.e., I have discovered that she was unfaithful.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诇讛 讘转讜诇讬 讘转讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讜讗诇讛 讘转讜诇讬 讘转讬 讜讗诇讛 讻砖专讬 讘转讜诇讬 讘转讬

The Gemara asks further: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, this is as it is written that the father replies: 鈥淎nd these are the tokens of my daughter鈥檚 virginity鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:17). He presents a cloth that proves she was a virgin, in opposition to the husband鈥檚 claim. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of 鈥淎nd these are the tokens of my daughter鈥檚 virginity鈥? The Rabbis answer that the father means: And these are the proofs of the fitness of my daughter鈥檚 virginity, i.e., he either brings witnesses to counter the testimony of the husband鈥檚 witnesses or provides some other proof that his daughter was a virgin at the time of her marriage.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜驻专砖讜 讛砖诪诇讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讜驻专砖讜 讛砖诪诇讛

The Gemara poses yet another question on the same lines: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, this is at it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall spread the garment鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:17). The father brings the sheet on which the couple had intercourse and shows that it is stained with blood. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who claim that a husband can defame his wife even if they have not engaged in intercourse, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥淎nd they shall spread the garment [hasimla]鈥?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 驻专砖讜 诪讛 砖砖诐 诇讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讜驻专砖讜 讛砖诪诇讛 诪诇诪讚 砖讘讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 砖诇 讝讛 讜注讚讬诐 砖诇 讝讛 讜讘讜专专讬谉 讗转 讛讚讘专 讻砖诪诇讛 讞讚砖讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 砖诪诇讛 诪诪砖

Rabbi Abbahu said that the Rabbis interpret this expression as follows: They shall spread, i.e., examine, that which he placed against her [sam la]. In other words, they cross-examine the witnesses who testified against her, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd they shall spread the garment鈥; this teaches that the witnesses of this husband come forward, and likewise the witnesses of that father come forward, and the court clarifies the matter like a new garment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: The matters are as they are written, i.e., the verse refers to an actual cloth.

砖诇讞 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讙讬讜专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 讘讬讗讛 讻讚专讻讛 诇讘讬讗讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诇诪讻讜转 讜诇注讜谞砖讬谉 讗讘诇 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讞诇拽 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讘注讜诇 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜讬讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讻讚专讻讛

Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Giyyorei sent a message from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Although we have not found in the entire Torah that any verse distinguishes between sexual intercourse in a typical manner and sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, with regard to flogging or any other punishment. However, in the case of the defamer, the Torah does distinguish in this manner, as the husband is obligated to pay the fine only if he had intercourse with his wife, even it was in an atypical manner, and he defames her by claiming that she had previously had intercourse in a typical manner with someone else.

讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讘注诇 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the husband should be liable even if he did not have intercourse with his wife. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov,

讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻讚专讻讛 讘注讬谞谉 讗诇讗 砖诇讞 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讘注讜诇 讻讚专讻讛 讜讬讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讘讻讚专讻讛

we require both this, i.e., the act of intercourse between the husband and wife, and that, i.e., the woman鈥檚 alleged act of intercourse with another man, to be performed in a typical manner in order for the laws of a defamer to apply, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov interprets the verses literally, meaning that the husband had intercourse with her and discovered she was not a virgin. Rather, Rav Kahana sent word in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan that the statement was as follows: He is obligated to pay the fine only if he had intercourse in a typical manner and defamed her with regard to intercourse performed in a typical manner, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘 讝讻讗讬 讘讘转讜 讘拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讘讻住祝 讘砖讟专 讜讘讘讬讗讛 讝讻讗讬 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛 讜诪拽讘诇 讗转 讙讬讟讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讬讬讛

MISHNA: A father has authority over his daughter with regard to her betrothal through money, through a marriage document, or through intercourse. Likewise, a father is entitled to items she has found, and to her earnings, and to effect the nullification of her vows, i.e., a father may nullify his daughter鈥檚 vows. And he accepts her bill of divorce on her behalf if she is divorced from betrothal before she becomes a grown woman. And although he inherits her property when she dies, e.g., property she inherited from her mother鈥檚 family, he does not consume the produce of her property during her lifetime.

谞砖讗转 讬转专 注诇讬讜 讛讘注诇 砖讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘讞讬讬讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讜讘驻专拽讜谞讛 讜拽讘讜专转讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 讞诇讬诇讬谉 讜诪拽讜谞谞转

If the daughter married, the husband has more rights and obligations than her father had before the marriage, as he consumes the produce of her property during her lifetime, and he is obligated to provide her sustenance, her redemption if she is captured, and her burial upon her death. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the poorest man of the Jewish people may not provide fewer than two flutes and a lamenting woman, which it was customary to hire for a funeral, as these too are included in the duties of burial.

讙诪壮 讘讻住祝 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗讛 讞谞诐 讗讬谉 讻住祝 讗讬谉 讻住祝 诇讗讚讜谉 讝讛 讜讬砖 讻住祝 诇讗讚讜谉 讗讞专 讜诪谞讜 讗讘讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna indicates that a father receives the money of his daughter鈥檚 betrothal. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the father is entitled to the money of her betrothal? Rav Yehuda said that the verse states, with regard to an emancipated Hebrew maidservant: 鈥淭hen she shall go out for nothing, without money鈥 (Exodus 21:11), from which it is inferred: There is no money for this master, i.e., her master does not receive money when she leaves him, but there is money for a different master, and who is this? Her father, who also had authority over her, like her master. When she leaves her father鈥檚 jurisdiction via betrothal, he is entitled to the betrothal money.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇讚讬讚讛 讛砖转讗 讗讘讬讛 诪拽讘诇 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 讘转讬 谞转转讬 诇讗讬砖 讛讝讛 讗讬讛讬 砖拽诇讗 讻住驻讗

The Gemara asks: But one can say that the betrothal money should go to her, as one can derive from the verse that there is no money for this master but there is money for the woman herself when she leaves her father鈥檚 domain. The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Now consider, her father accepts her betrothal, i.e., he can accept the money or document of betrothal from the man of his choice, as it is written: 鈥淚 gave my daughter to this man鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:16). Can one then say that she takes the money when her father accepts the betrothal on her behalf?

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽讟谞讛 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讬讚 讗讘诇 谞注专讛 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讬讚 讗讬讛讬 转拽讚砖 谞驻砖讛 讜讗讬讛讬 转砖拽讜诇 讻住驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞注讜专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讻诇 砖讘讞 谞注讜专讬诐 诇讗讘讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that this applies only to a minor, who does not have a hand, i.e., she is not legally competent to carry out transactions on her own behalf. However, in the case of a young woman, who does have a hand, she should betroth herself and she should also take her own betrothal money. The Gemara answers that there is a different exposition in this regard, as the verse states: 鈥淏eing in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:17), which teaches that all gains that a daughter accrues in her youth, i.e., when she is a young woman, belong to her father.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖诪注砖讛 讛讘转 诇讗讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讻讜专 讗讬砖 讗转 讘转讜 诇讗诪讛 诪讛 讗诪讛 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇专讘讛 讗祝 讘转 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪讘谞注讜专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讛讜讗 讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But consider that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the earnings of a daughter belong to her father? It is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant鈥 (Exodus 21:7); just as with regard to a maidservant, her earnings belong to her master, so too with regard to a daughter, her earnings belong to her father. Why do I need this exposition? Let him derive it from the phrase 鈥渂eing in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house.鈥 Rather, that phrase, 鈥渂eing in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house,鈥 is written with regard to the nullification of vows, but it is not referring to monetary matters.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪讬谞讛 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪拽谞住讗 诪诪讜谞讗 诪拽谞住讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

And if you would say: Let us derive from here that just as she is under her father鈥檚 authority with regard to vows, the same applies to monetary matters, this is not possible, because there is a principle that we do not derive monetary matters from ritual matters, as these are two separate areas of halakha. And if you would say: Let us derive this halakha from the fine paid by the rapist of a young woman, which the Torah explicitly states goes to her father (Deuteronomy 22:29), there is another principle, that we do not derive monetary matters from fines. Each fine imposed by the Torah is a novel law, from which nothing can be learned with regard to other monetary liabilities.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 砖讗谞讬 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讚讗讘讬讛 谞诪讬 砖讬讬讱 讘讬讛

And if you would say: Let us derive it from the compensation paid by a rapist for his victim鈥檚 humiliation and degradation, which is also paid to her father, the compensation for humiliation and degradation is different, as her father also has a share in it, because he too is humiliated and harmed by this unfortunate episode, and therefore one cannot learn the halakhot of other monetary matters from here.

讗诇讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚讻讬 诪诪注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讬爪讬讗讛 讚讻讜讜转讛 拽讗 诪诪注讟

Rather, the Gemara returns to the previous exposition of the verse: 鈥淭hen she shall go out for nothing, without money鈥 (Exodus 21:11). As for the question of why she does not receive the money herself, the Gemara explains that it is reasonable to assume that when the Merciful One excludes a case by means of this verse, He excludes a case where a girl leaves someone鈥檚 authority in the corresponding situation to the case of the Hebrew maidservant.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讛讗 讬爪讬讗讛 诇讛讗 讬爪讬讗讛 讛转诐 讙讘讬 讗讚讜谉 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 诪专砖讜转讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 讬爪讬讗讛 讚讗讘 讗讻转讬 诪讞住专讗 诪住讬专讛 诇讞讜驻讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this leaving of her father鈥檚 authority is not comparable to that leaving of her master鈥檚 authority: There, with regard to a master, when he frees her she leaves his authority entirely, whereas in the case of a girl who goes out from the jurisdiction of her father, she still lacks the process of being brought to the wedding canopy. As long as she is not fully married she remains partially under her father鈥檚 authority, as he is her heir and has rights to her earnings.

诪讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 诪讬讛讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 诪专砖讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 诇讛 谞讚专讬讛

The Gemara answers: From the perspective of her father鈥檚 right to effect the nullification of her vows, at least, she has left his domain via betrothal, as he no longer maintains exclusive rights to nullify her vows. As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 66b): With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband nullify her vows together. Since her father cannot nullify her vows on his own, the two types of leaving are indeed comparable.

砖讟专 讜讘讬讗讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬转讛 诇讗讬砖 讗讞专 讗讬转拽讜砖 讛讜讜讬讜转 诇讛讚讚讬

搂 The mishna taught that a father is entitled to accept betrothal of his daughter through a marriage document or through intercourse. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd she becomes another man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2). Since the verse does not specify how she becomes his wife, the different ways of becoming a wife are compared to each other, i.e., they are considered equal. Accordingly, the various methods of betrothal are the same with regard to the authority of the father.

讝讻讗讬 讘诪爪讬讗转讛

The mishna further taught that a father is entitled to items she has found.

Scroll To Top