Ketubot

HER HANDIWORK, HOWEVER, AND ANYTHING SHE FINDS EVEN IF SHE HAD NOT COLLECTED [THE PROCEEDS]. BELONG TO HER BROTHERS IF HER FATHER DIED. GEMARA. What [new law] does he teach us?  Have we not [already] learned: The seducer pays three forms [of compensation] and the violator four. The seducer pays compensation for indignity and blemish as well as the statutory fine, and the violator pays an additional [form of compensation] in that he pays for the pain?  — It was necessary [to teach us  that the compensation is due] TO HER FATHER.  [But] that [the compensation is due] to her father is also obvious, since a seducer has to pay for it? For if [it were to be given] to herself [the objection could be raised], why should the seducer pay [to her when] he acted with her consent?  — It was necessary [to tell us  of the case where] HER ACTION WAS TRIED [which is a point in] dispute between R. Simeon and the Rabbis. We have learned elsewhere: [If a man said to another] 'You have violated or seduced my daughter', and the other replied. 'I did not violate or seduce her'. 'I adjure you' [said the first] and the other responded. 'Amen', but afterwards admitted his guilt, he is liable.  R. Simeon, however, exempts him, for no fine is paid on one's own admission.  They,  however, said to him: Though no man pays a fine on his own admission he nevertheless pays compensation for indignity and blemish  on his own admission. Abaye enquired of Rabbah:  What is the law according to R. Simeon  where a man said to another, 'You have violated or seduced my daughter, and I have brought you to law and you were ordered to pay me [a stipulated sun, of] money' and the other replied. 'I have neither violated nor seduced her, nor have you brought me to law nor have I been ordered to pay you any money', and after he had taken an oath  he admitted his guilt? Is [his liability], since his action had been tried,  civil  and he consequently incurs thereby a sacrifice for [having taken a false] oath, or is it possible that, though his action had been tried, his liability  is still regarded as penal?  — The other replied: It is a civil liability and he incurs thereby the obligation to bring a sacrifice for a false oath. He  pointed out to him  the following objection: R. Simeon, said, As it might have been presumed that if a man said to another, 'You have violated or seduced my daughter' and the other replied 'I have neither violated nor seduced her', [or if the first said]. 'Your ox has killed my bondman' and the other replied, 'He did not kill him', or if a bondman said to his master,  'You have knocked out my tooth' or 'You have blinded my eye'.  and he replied. 'I have not knocked it out' or 'I have not blinded it' and [the defendant] took the oath  but afterwards admitted his liability it might have been presumed that he is liable,  hence It was explicitly stated in Scripture, And he deal falsely with his neighbour  a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbour; or have found that which was lost, and deal falsely therein, and swear to a lie,  as these are distinguished by the characteristics of being civil cases so must all [other cases where similar liabilities  may be incurred be distinguished by the characteristics] of being civil. These, therefore, are excluded [from liability]  since they are penal.