Parallel
כתובות 46
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
R. Papa replied: By the expression If he had intercourse he is flogged', which was used there, the monetary fine [was meant]. But could one describe a monetary fine as 'flogging'? — Yes, and so indeed we have learned: If a man said, 'I vow to pay half of my valuation' he most pay half of his valuation. R. Jose the son of R. Judah ruled: He is flogged and must pay his full valuation. [And in reply to the question,] why should he be flogged? R. Papa explained: He is 'flogged' by [having to pay his] full valuation. What is the reason? — [The ruling in the case of a vow for] a half of one's valuation is a preventive measure against the possibility [of a vow for] the value of half of one's body, such a half being an organic part on which one's life depends. Our Rabbis taught: And they shall fine him refers to a monetary fine; And chastise him refers to flogging. One can readily understand why 'And they shall fine' refers to a monetary payment since it is written, 'And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them unto the father of the damsel'; whence, however, is it deduced that 'And chastise him' refers to flogging? — R. Abbahu replied: We deduce 'Shall chastise' from 'Shall chastise', and 'Shall chastise' from 'Son', and 'Son' from 'Son' [occurring in the Scriptural text:] Then it shall be, if the wicked man deserve to be beaten. Whence is the warning against bringing up an evil name [upon one's wife] deduced? R. Eleazar replied: From Thou shalt not go up and dawn as a talebearer. R. Nathan replied: From Then thou shalt keep thee from every evil thing. What is the reason that R. Eleazar does not make his deduction from the latter text? — That text he requires for [the same deduction] as [that made by] R. Phinehas b. Jair: From the text, Then thou shalt keep thee from every evil thing; R. Phinehas b. Jair deduced that a man should not indulge in [morbid] thoughts by day that might lead him to uncleanness by night. What then is the reason why R. Nathan does not make his deduction from the former text? — That text is a warning to the court that it must not be lenient with one [of the litigants] and harsh to the other. If [a husband] did not tell the witnesses, 'Come and give evidence for me' and they volunteered to give it, he is not to be flogged nor is he to pay the hundred sela'. She, however, and the witnesses who testified falsely against her are hurried to the place of stoning. 'She and the witnesses who testified against her'! Can this be imagined? — But [this is the meaning]: 'She or her witnesses are hurried to the place of stoning. Now the reason then is because he did not even tell them [to give their evidence]. Had he, however, told them [he would have been subject to the prescribed penalties] even though he did not hire them. [This ruling thus serves the purpose] of excluding the view of R. Judah concerning whom it was taught: R. Judah ruled, [a husband] incurs no penalties unless he has hired the witnesses. What is R. Judah's reason? R. Abbahu replied: An analogy is drawn between the two forms of the root 'to lay'. Here it is written, And lay wanton charges against her, and elsewhere it is written, Neither shall ye lay upon him interest,' as there [the offence is committed through the giving of] money so here [also it can be committed only by the giving of] money. R. Nahman b. Isaac said, and so did R. Joseph the Zidonian recite at the school of R. Simeon b. Yohai: An analogy is drawn between the two forms of the root 'to lay'. R. Jeremiah raised the question: What is the ruling where [the husband] hired them with a piece of land? What [if he hired them] for a sum less than a perutah? What [if both witnesses were hired] for one perutah? R. Ashi enquired: What [is the ruling where a husband] brought an evil name [upon his wife] in respect of their first marriage? What [if a levir brought up an evil name] in respect of his brother's marriage? — You may at all events solve one [of these questions]. For R. Jonah taught: I gave my daughter unto this man only unto this man but not to a levir. What [is the ruling of] the Rabbis and what [is that of] R. Eliezer b. Jacob? — It was taught: What constitutes the bringing up of an evil name [against one's wife]? If [a husband] came to the Beth din and said, 'I, So-and-so, found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity'. If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while living with hint she is entitled to a kethubah for a maneh. 'If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while living with him [you say,] she is entitled to a kethubah for a maneh'! But is she not in that case subject to the penalty of stoning? — It is this that was meant: If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while she was living with him she is to be stoned; if, however, she committed adultery before [her marriage] she is entitled to a kethubah for a maneh. If it was ascertained that the evil name had no foundation in fact the husband is flogged and he must also pay a hundred sela' irrespective of whether he had intercourse [with her] or whether he did not have intercourse [with her]. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: These penalties apply only where he had intercourse [with her]. According to R. Eliezer b. Jacob one can well understand why Scripture used the expressions, 'And go in unto her' and 'When I came nigh to her', but according to the Rabbis what [could be the meaning of] 'And go in unto her' and' When I came nigh unto her'? 'And go in unto her' with wanton charges, and 'When I come nigh to her' with words. According to R. Eliezer b. Jacob one can well see why Scripture used the expression, 'I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity', but according to the Rabbis what [could be the sense of the expression], 'I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity'? — I found not far thy daughter witnesses to establish her claim to tokens of virginity. It was quite correct for Scripture, according to R. Eliezer b. Jacob, to state, And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity; but according to the Rabbis what could be the sense of [the expression,] 'And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity'? — And yet these are the witnesses who establish the tokens of my daughter's virginity. One can well understand, according to R. Eliezer b. Jacob, why Scripture wrote, And they shall spread the garment,' but according to the Rabbis what [could be the sense of the instruction,] And they shall spread the garment? — R. Abbahu replied: They explain [the charge] which he submitted against her; as it was taught: 'And they shall spread the garment' teaches that the witnesses of the one party and those of the other party come, and the matter is made as clear as a new garment. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: The words are to be taken in their literal sense: [They must produce] the actual garment. R. Isaac son of R. Jacob b. Giyori sent this message in the name of R. Johanan: Although we do not find anywhere in the Torah that Scripture draws a distinction between natural and unnatural intercourse In respect of flogging or other punishments, such a distinction was made in the case of a man who brought an evil name [upon his wife]; for he is not held guilty unless, having had intercourse with her, [even] in an unnatural manner, he brought up an evil name upon her in respect of a natural intercourse. In accordance with whose view? If [it be said to be] in accordance with the view of the Rabbis [the husband, it could be retorted, should have been held guilty] even if he had no intercourse with her. If [it be said to be] in agreement with the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob
—
must not the intercourse in both cases be in a natural manner? — The fact, however, is, said R. Kahana in the name of R. Johanan, that the husband is not held guilty unless he had intercourse In a natural manner and he brought up an evil name upon her in respect of a natural intercourse. MISHNAH. A FATHER HAS AUTHORITY OVER HIS DAUGHTER IN RESPECT OF HER BETROTHAL [WHETHER IT WAS EFFECTED] BY MONEY, DEED OR INTERCOURSE; HE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING SHE FINDS AND TO HER HANDIWORK; [HE HAS THE RIGHT] OF ANNULLING HER VOWS AND HE RECEIVES HER BILL OF DIVORCE; BUT HE HAS NO USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME. WHEN SHE MARRIES, THE HUSBAND SURPASSES HIM [IN HIS RIGHTS] IN THAT HE HAS USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME, BUT HE IS ALSO UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF MAINTAINING AND RANSOMING HER AND TO PROVIDE FOR HER BURIAL. R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN THE POOREST MAN IN ISRAEL MUST PROVIDE NO LESS THAN TWO FLUTES AND ONE LAMENTING WOMAN. GEMARA. 'BY MONEY'. Whence is this deduced? — Rab Judah replied: Scripture said, Then shall she go ant for nothing without money, [which implies that] this master receives no money but that another master does receive money; and who is he? Her father. But might it not be suggested that it belongs to her? — Since it is her father who contracts her betrothal, as it is written in Scripture, I gave my daughter unto this man, would she take the money! But can it not be suggested that this applies only to a minor who has no legal right [to act on her own behalf], but that a na'arah who has such rights may herself contract her betrothal, and she herself receives the money? — Scripture stated, Being in her youth in her father's house, [implying that] all the advantages of her youth belong to her father. [Consider], however, that which R. Huna said in the name of Rab: 'Whence is it deduced that a daughte handiwork belongs to her father? [From Scripture] where it is said, And if a van sell his daughter to be a maidservant, as the handiwork of a maidservant belongs to her master so does the handiwork of a daughter belong to her father'. Now what need was there, [it may be asked, for this text when] deduction could have been made from [the text of] 'Being in her youth in her father's house'? Consequently [it must be admitted, must it not, that] that text was written in connection only with the annulment of vows? And should you suggest that we might infer this from it, [it could be retorted that] monetary matters cannot be inferred from ritual matters. And should you suggest that we might infer it is from [the law of] fine, [it could be retorted, could it not, that] monetary payments cannot be inferred from fines? And should you suggest that it is might be inferred from [the law of compensation for] indignity and blemish, [it could be retorted] that indignity and blemish are different, since [the rights] of her father [are also, are they not], involved in it? — [This], however, [is the explanation]: It is logical to conclude that when the All-Merciful excluded [another] going out, the exclusion Was meant to be [understood in a manner] similar to the original. But one 'going out', surely, is not like that of the other: For in the case of the master [the maidservant] goes entirely out of his control while in the 'going out' from the control of her father [the daughter's] transfer to the bridal chamber is still lacking? — In respect of the annulment of vows, at any rate, she passes out of his control; for we have learned: In the case of a betrothed damsel it is her father and her husband who jointly annul her vows. DEED OR INTERCOURSE. Whence do we [deduce this]? — Scripture said, And becometh another man's wife is [from which it may be inferred that] the various forms of betrothal are to be compared to one another. HE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING SHE FINDS,
—