MISHNAH: The following adolescent girls¹. 22:28–29) that the man raping נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה “a virgin adolescent girl” has to pay her father 50 šeqel and must marry her. In the corresponding law about the seducer of a virgin (Ex. 22:15) he has to pay if he does not marry the girl. In that paragraph, the adolescent is not mentioned; but since it is stated that the father has the right to withhold her from the seducer, it follows that the girl cannot be an adult; she must be underage or adolescent. An adolescent is a girl in the first 6 months after she grows two pubic hairs, cf. Nedarim Chapter 10, Note 1. The age at which the fine can be claimed is the topic of Halakhah 3:9. can claim a fine: From someone who has intercourse with a bastard girl². 23:3., or a Gibeonite or a Samaritan girl, and one who comes to a female proselyte, a kidnap victim, or a slave girl who was redeemed, converted, or freed, at less than three years and one day of age³. Also from one who has intercourse with his sister, or his father’s sister, or his mother’s sister, or his wife’s sister, or his brother’s wife⁴, or his paternal uncle’s wife⁵, or a menstruating girl; he has to pay the fine since it is not a capital crime⁶ but should be deleted. even though he is subject to extirpation.

footnotes: ¹ The biblical law prescribes (Deut ² Obviously, one who rapes or seduces an eligible Jewish girl has to pay. The Mishnah enumerates only those categories where there might be an argument that he should not be required to pay. Each category is discussed in the Halakhah. A bastard is excluded from contracting a valid marriage in the native congregation in Deut ³ Cf. Mishnah 1:2. ⁴ If she was divorced or became a widow before the final marriage. The preliminary marriage activates all incest prohibitions implied by marriage. ⁵ But for a capital crime he does not pay since there cannot be two punishments for one crime. Extirpation is a divine punishment, outside the purview of a human court. ⁶ This word is in the ms. and editio princeps

HALAKHAH: “The following adolescent girls,” etc. It is written⁷. 22:29, speaking of the rapist.: “She should be his wife,” one who can be his wife⁸4:1). The inverse question could be asked if a bastard rapes a regular Jewish girl. The question is asked in the Babli, 29b.. Can the bastard girl be his wife? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “he should weigh silver appropriate for the bride-price of virgins⁹. 22:16, speaking of the seducer. In the Babli, 29b, R. Simeon ben Laqish argues differently.”, that added many virgins. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it had said “virgin’s brides-prices”; but it says only “appropriate for the bride-price of virgins”; the verse added them only for the bride-price¹⁰; e. g., if a bastard girl marries a proselyte.. But where was this said¹¹? As Ḥizqiah stated: “If refusing her father should refuse⁹. 22:16, speaking of the seducer. In the Babli, 29b, R. Simeon ben Laqish argues differently.,” not only if her father refuses; from where even if from Heaven they refuse¹²? The verse says “refusing should refuse”, in any case. But then a man who has intercourse with a slave girl should pay the fine! This is impossible, as it was stated: I could think that one who has intercourse with a Gentile slave-girl should be obligated, the verse says, “by bride-money he should take her as a wife to himself.” Only one whom he can marry; this excludes the Gentile slave whom he cannot marry¹³, she would be able to contract a marriage only by manumission by which she would become a full-fledged proselyte. Cf. Halakhah 1:4, Notes 181–184.. But he cannot marry his sister and he pays the fine! There is a difference since she can be married to others. But his daughter can be married to others and he does not pay the fine¹⁴! There is a difference since it is a capital crime and nobody who commits a capital crime pays money¹⁵.

footnotes: ⁷ Deut ⁸ This argument will be used at the end of the paragraph to exclude the slave-girl from consideration since she cannot legally marry anybody. The bastard can legally marry a proselyte or another bastard (Mishnah Qiddušin ⁹ Ex ¹⁰ It implies only that even a virgin disqualified in general still has a claim to a full ketubah ¹¹ That the fine must be paid. ⁹ Ex ¹² By a biblical prohibition. ¹³ While the Gentile slave-girl of a Jewish owner becomes pseudo-Jewish by baptism in a miqweh ¹⁴ Mishnah 3:2. ¹⁵ Even if he cannot be convicted because there were no two eyewitnesses to the act.

“The Gibeonite.” Rebbi Yose said, they were worried about them only because of the detriment to the families¹⁶ 4:1.. Could you not say, because of the disability of slaves¹⁷. 9:21) imply that they had servile status? Since nowhere in the Bible we hear that they were freed, their descendants then would still be slaves and unable to contract marriages.? If that were true, one who cohabits with a Gibeonite would not be subject to a fine¹⁸; but we have stated: One who cohabits with a Gibeonite is subject to a fine¹⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Gibeonites are descendants of genuine proselytes; they are only excluded from intermarrying with Jews because they are considered undesirable. The extended discussion of the problem of Gibeonites is in Qiddušin ¹⁷ Would the fact that the Gibeonites were “wood cutters and water drawers for the congregation” (Jos ¹⁸ Mishnah 3:2. ¹⁹ Therefore, even in the time of Joshua the Gibeonites were subordinate but not servile.

“A Samaritan.” That follows him who said, a Samaritan is a like full Jew. But for him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, it is not so. As they disagreed²⁰ 3:4, Note 98; Berakhot 7:1, Note 59.: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect. Even if you say, a Samaritan is like a Gentile, why are Samaritans disqualified? Not because of a Gentile and a slave²¹17, 24ff. clearly states that the settlers from Babylon, Kuta, etc. at the start were idolators; if they intermarried with the remainders of the Israelite populations there, their descendants all acquired the status of descendants of Gentiles (or slaves) from Israelite mothers.? If a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard²² 7:6, Note 129; it is rejected there since the child of a Jewish woman from a Gentile, together with her mother, is disqualified from priesthood but not a bastard (Notes 130,131).. But a bastard girl can claim a fine! For restrictions or family relations you consider him a Gentile or a slave who had intercourse with a Jewish woman; the child is a bastard. But for a fine you consider this as a Jew having intercourse with a Gentile woman, in which case the child is a Gentile²³.

footnotes: ²⁰ Cf. Demay ²¹ Since 2K. ²² This is the argument of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish in Yebamot ²³ The separation from Samaritans is purely one of practice, with no theoretical basis, and disapproved of by the Mishnah. In the Babli, 29b/30a, the argument (attributed to R. Meïr) is rejected, in order not to reward a sinner (the rapist or seducer.)

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a man who rapes or seduces an orphan girl does not have to pay²⁴. 22:29 states that “the man who had intercourse with her has to give her father 50 silver [šeqel].” This seems to negate the obligation if there is no father to collect the fine.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai said, that is a disagreement, it follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean²⁵. But following Rebbi Aqiba she can claim the fine and the fine becomes her property. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said “at less than three years and one day of age,” and is she not like an orphan²⁶? And did we not state: “Because he raped her,²⁷. 22:29. In the Babli, 44b, and Mekhilta dR. Ismael(Mišpaṭim 17; ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 309), the inference is from Ex. 22:16. In any case, R. Yose the Galilean seems to contradict himself.” that includes an orphan for a fine, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean? Rebbi Aḥai said, explain it that he had intercourse with her when her father was alive; when her father died, he already had the obligation to give to her father²⁸.

footnotes: ²⁴ Since Deut ²⁵ He holds in Mishnah 3:7 that an underage girl which was preliminarily married and then divorced as a virgin has no claim to the fine (since by the preliminary marriage she was emancipated from her father’s power.) R. Aqiba holds that she can claim the fine for herself. ²⁶ Neither the proselyte nor the freedwoman are under the authority of a father; nevertheless, the Mishnah gives them the right to claim the fine. ²⁷ Deut ²⁸ For R. Yose the Galilean the fine belongs to the father’s heirs.

²⁹ 7:1, fully explained there in Notes 3–73, shortened also Baba Qama 7:2 (fol. 5d), Makkot 1:1 (fol. 31a); Babli Ketubot32b, Baba Qama 36a, Makkot 7b, 13b. The variant readings from Terumot are noted ת. There, we have stated: “If somebody eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth.” And we have stated: “The following are flogged.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Corresponding to his guilt.” You sentence him for one offence but you may not sentence him for two offences. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence a number [of times] because of his guilt.”

footnotes: ²⁹ The parallel (with very minor deviations) to the remainder of the Halakhah is in Terumot

³⁰ is close enough that the explanations given there are valid here, but the details of the texts differ too much to be presented as variant readings of one and the same text. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth³¹ 6:1.,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as we have stated: “The following adolescent girls can claim a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator. (Deut. 22:18) “They shall punish him,” flogging; (Deut. 22:19) “and they shall fine him”, money. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech; therefore, nothing can be inferred. Another explanation: one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he [eats] fat in error but is intentional about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice? So here, he is flogged and he pays. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

footnotes: ³⁰ The text in Terumot ³¹ Mishnah Terumot

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases, as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of an animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him from paying money. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Nathan bar Hoshiah said, one speaks about an adolescent girl, the other about an adult woman. The adolescent has a fine but nobody is flogged for her; for the adult he is flogged but pays no fine, she cannot be sold; she has no claim for shame and blemish. The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or remitted [the fine] for him. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays but is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one offence but you may not sentence him for two offences. From perjured witnesses. Just as you say there, perjured witnesses pay but are not flogged, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Nathan bar Hoshaiah: (Deut. 25:2): “For his evil deed.” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! “If somebody eats heave intentionally he pays the principal but not the fifth.” In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said he pays, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. He explains following Rebbi Meïr who says, he is flogged and he pays.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to pay money.

Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since whoever eats heave is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since whoever eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since whoever muzzles his cow is flogged. Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged. He reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously. But here, when he muzzled he is subject to flogging but only later for payment. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say that because for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers.

In error for heave and intentional for leavened, in error for heave and intentional for nazir, in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement. If one explains it with two things, it is fine. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

There, we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. This is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since “Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so theDay of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm and those rabbis? Prohibitions without extirpation. Rebbi Judan said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the adolescent girls who can claim a fine” cannot follow the rabbis! Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it according to everybody if it refers to a bastard male who sleeps with a bastard girl.

But is his brother’s wife not his sister-in-law? Explain it that the man’s brother had children and had performed the preliminary wedding with a woman when he died and [the surviving] brother came and raped her.

MISHNAH: The following cannot claim a fine: One who comes to a proselyte woman, a kidnap victim, or a slave girl who was redeemed, converted, or freed, at more than three years and one day of age³. Rebbi Jehudah says, the redeemed kidnap victim is in her holiness³⁵ even if she is an adult.

footnotes: ³ Cf. Mishnah 1:2. ³⁵ She is trustworthy if she asserts that she is a virgin.

HALAKHAH: “The following cannot claim a fine,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah excepted the kidnap victim only for the fine³⁶ of one mina and forbids her to marry a Cohen.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Also for the ketubah of a mina or 200 [zuz]³⁷ stays intact.”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even to let her eat heave. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish³⁸, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Dosa both said the same, as we have stated there³⁹ 3:6.: The kidnap victim eats heave, the words of Rebbi Dosa. Rebbi Ḥanina⁴⁰ came in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rebbi Dosa⁴¹.

footnotes: ³⁶ But he accords her only the ketubah ³⁷ Tosephta 3:4: “R. Jehudah says, a kidnapped underage Israel girl, even one 10 years old, remains in her holiness and her ketubah ³⁸ In the Babli, 36b, this is the opinion of R. Joḥanan. ³⁹ Mishnah Idiut ⁴⁰ He should be R. Ḥinena, not R. Ḥanina the teacher of R. Simeon ben Laqish. ⁴¹ The Babli, 36b, which has to follow this ruling since it attributes it to R. Joḥanan, explains it away as applying only to the fine, that a sinner should not get away with his crime, and for rabbinic heave; in all other respects one follows the anonymous majority.

MISHNAH: The one who comes to his daughter, his granddaughter from his daughter or his son, his wife’s daughter, his wife’s granddaughter from her daughter or her son⁴². 18,20 which are both capital crimes and may involve a virgin girl. does not pay the fine since he committed a capital crime and should be executed by the court; for anybody committing a capital crime⁴³ does not pay cash as it is said⁴⁴. 21:22. The next verse reads: “But if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life.” This excludes the imposition of a fine in a murder trial.: “If there is no case of murder, a fine shall be imposed.”

footnotes: ⁴² These are the only cases among the incest prohibitions of Lev ⁴³ Even if he cannot be executed because of missing eyewitnesses to a due warning and the deed. ⁴⁴ Ex

HALAKHAH: “The one who comes to his daughter,” etc. If another man had come to her, would the fine not be her father’s⁴⁵? Explain it that another man came to her before her father died and then her father died⁴⁶. That follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But following Rebbi Aqiba, she collects a fine and the fine is hers⁴⁷.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Why does the Mishnah state in this case that he does not have to pay the fine because he committed a capital crime; in that particular case it is because he would have to pay the fine to himself. ⁴⁶ If the girl was raped by a third person during her father’s lifetime but the father died before he could collect the fine, the girl collects the fine for herself. But if she was raped by her father, she cannot claim the fine from the estate because the rape was a capital crime. ⁴⁷ Their disagreement is in Mishnah 4; cf. also Note 25.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: We understand that, since it said⁴⁴. 21:22. The next verse reads: “But if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life.” This excludes the imposition of a fine in a murder trial. “if there is no case of murder, a fine shall be imposed”, that if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life? Why does the verse say, it is a case of murder? To add the case of premeditation and warning⁴⁸. Rebbi Yose said, is that not a Mishnah, “for anybody committing a capital crime does not pay cash”, that it deals not only with cases of error. ⁴⁹ 7:1, Notes 16,18; Babli 35a.Ḥizqiah said, one states a baraita⁵⁰. 24:21.: “The slayer of an animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him from paying money.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Ex ⁴⁸ Which is a case where a person actually could face execution. ⁴⁹ Cf. fol. 27b, line 30; Terumot ⁵⁰ Lev

MISHNAH: If an adolescent girl had been preliminarily married but was divorced⁵¹, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says she cannot collect the fine; Rebbi Aqiba says, she can collect the fine and it belongs to her.

footnotes: ⁵¹ If she was raped while still preliminarily married, it was a capital crime and she cannot collect the fine.

HALAKHAH: “An adolescent girl who had been preliminarily married,” etc. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean? “Who was not preliminarily married.⁵². 22:15) and the rapist (Deut. 22:28) it is emphasized that the fine is due only for “a virgin who was not preliminarily married.” Now the verse cannot mean “a virgin not currently preliminarily married” since it is obvious that seduction or rape of a preliminarily married girl is a capital crime and, therefore, free from paying the fine and the mention of her status would be superfluous. R. Aqiba also agrees with this analysis of the verse (Babli 38a), only he reads it that for “a virgin who was not preliminarily married” the fine is payable to her father; otherwise it is payable to the girl whose preliminary marriage emancipated her from her father’s power. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 38a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim, Neziqin 17; a similar argument is Sifry Deut. 244. An argument strictly following R. Yose the Galilean is in Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Ioḥai Mišpaṭim, pp. 207–208.”

footnotes: ⁵² In both the rules about the seducer (Ex

Before she was preliminarily married, he gives to her father; after she had been preliminarily married, he gives to herself⁵³.. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose the Galilean⁵⁴, if she is an adolescent, he gives to her father⁵⁵; if she is an adult, does he give it to herself? If she is a virgin, he gives to her father; if she is injured by wood, does he give it to herself? It is different, because it is written “an adolescent”, adolescent but not adult. “A virgin,” a virgin not one injured by wood. Is it not written⁵². 22:15) and the rapist (Deut. 22:28) it is emphasized that the fine is due only for “a virgin who was not preliminarily married.” Now the verse cannot mean “a virgin not currently preliminarily married” since it is obvious that seduction or rape of a preliminarily married girl is a capital crime and, therefore, free from paying the fine and the mention of her status would be superfluous. R. Aqiba also agrees with this analysis of the verse (Babli 38a), only he reads it that for “a virgin who was not preliminarily married” the fine is payable to her father; otherwise it is payable to the girl whose preliminary marriage emancipated her from her father’s power. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 38a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim, Neziqin 17; a similar argument is Sifry Deut. 244. An argument strictly following R. Yose the Galilean is in Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Ioḥai Mišpaṭim, pp. 207–208. “who was not preliminarily married,” “who was not preliminarily married,” to infer from there by an equal cut⁵⁶? Since in one case it is 50, so in the other case it is 50⁵⁷. 22; it is taken from Deut. 22 to be 50 holy šeqel which in talmudic theory are 200 zuz.. Does Rebbi Yose⁵⁸ not have “50”? He has “silver, silver”⁵⁹. 22:16, “he shall weigh silver”; in Deut. 22:29 “50 silver pieces”. The same argument is quoted in the Babli, 38b.. Since “silver” written at one place is 50, so “silver” [written at the other place]⁵⁷. 22; it is taken from Deut. 22 to be 50 holy šeqel which in talmudic theory are 200 zuz. also is 50.

footnotes: ⁵³ This is R. Aqiba’s opinion; a mention of R. Aqiba might have been omitted by the scribe; the statement is ascribed to R. Aqiba in the Mekhilta ⁵⁴ As shown at the end of the paragraph, this should read “R. Aqiba”. ⁵⁵ The rule for the rapist is formulated for “a virgin adolescent”, when the payment of 50 pieces of silver is due to her father; in the rule for the seducer, only “a virgin” is mentioned, and payment of “bride money”, due to the woman at the dissolution of the marriage. On the face of it, the rule for the seducer does not exclude an adult victim. ⁵² In both the rules about the seducer (Ex ⁵⁶ The second hermeneutical rule, that equal expressions in two different paragraphs lets one transfer rules from one paragraph to the other. A condition for the applicability of that rule is that the expressions should be “free”, not needed to establish a rule. For R. Yose the Galilean, the expressions “who was not preliminarily married” are not free since they establish a nontrivial rule; they cannot be used to argue by “equal cut”. But for R. Aqiba the expressions are essentially superfluous and can be used. ⁵⁷ The amount of bride money is not stated in Ex ⁵⁸ Rebbi Yose the Galilean who cannot accept R. Aqiba’s “equal cut” as valid. ⁵⁹ In Ex ⁵⁷ The amount of bride money is not stated in Ex

If he came to her before she was preliminarily married, then she was preliminarily married and divorced⁶⁰. Does the statement of Rebbi Aḥai not imply that he pays? Did we not state: “For he had mistreated her,⁶¹. 22:29. A reason is given for the punishment of the rapist; therefore, the punishment applies any time the reason applies.” to include the orphan for the fine, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean⁶². 245, R. Eliezer holds that this refers only to the rapist, for whom the reason is given, but not to the seducer, for whom the rules do not extend to the orphan. In the Babli, 44b, R. Yose the Galilean applies the same rule to the orphaned victim of the seducer by an argument reproduced in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim, Neziqin 17.. Rebbi Aḥai said, explain it that he came to her before her father died; when subsequently her father died he already was obligated to give to her father⁶³. One came to her before her father died and subsequently her father died; one came to her before she was preliminarily married, subsequently she was divorced⁶⁴. Rebbi Ze‘ira said that Rav Ḥisda asked: If one came to her before she was married and then she was married⁶⁵? Since you say there, she is under her husband but he has to pay to her father, so in this case she is under her husband but he has to pay to her father.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Does R. Yose the Galilean require the rapist to pay even after his victim was preliminarily married? ⁶¹ Deut ⁶² In Sifry Deut ⁶³ R. Yose the Galilean is not contradicting himself; he only exempts the rapist or seducer of the preliminarily married girl if the sexual act happened while the girl was no longer in the father’s power. But if it happened earlier, even though the court proceedings had not started at the father’s death or the girl’s preliminary marriage, the obligation of rapist or seducer is not erased. ⁶⁴ The two cases are parallel. ⁶⁵ Who collects the fine if an adolescent was raped and then (both preliminarily and definitively) married before the rape was adjudicated in court?

MISHNAH: The seducer pays for three things and the rapist for four. The seducer pays for shame, diminution of value⁶⁶, and fine. The rapist in addition pays for suffering; the seducer does not pay for suffering. The rapist pays immediately, the seducer only if he divorces her⁶⁷. 22:29. That verse, stipulating that the fine goes to the father, then decrees that the rapist has to marry his victim and is barred from ever divorcing her. In contrast, the payment of the seducer is formulated in Ex. 22:16 as payment of a virgin’s ketubah in case of a divorce.. The rapist drinks from his pot⁶⁸; the seducer may divorce if he wishes.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ The computation of payments for shame and diminution of value are explained in Mishnah 8. Usually, the diminution of value refers to the loss of virginity but, in the case of forcible rape, it may also include the consequences of bodily injury such as a scar or a broken bone. ⁶⁷ The rapist’s fine is formulated as a fine in Deut ⁶⁸ He has to marry her even if she is ugly and deformed.

HALAKHAH: “The seducer pays three,” etc. This does not follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon freed the rapist from paying for suffering⁶⁹. To what can you compare this? To one who cuts somebody’s wart when that one would have cut it himself in the future. To what can you compare this? To one who cuts somebody’s trees when that one would have cut them himself in the future. They said to him, you cannot compare one who is deflowered by rape to one who is deflowered by consent; you cannot compare one who is deflowered on a dungheap to one who is deflowered in the bridal chamber! How does Rebbi Simeon interpret ’’because he mistreated her”? They said in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it that he raped her on thorns.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ In the Babli, 39a, there is a short discussion on what the suffering is for which the rapist has to pay. In the opinion of Samuel, represented in the Yerushalmi by his student’s student Rav Ḥisda, it is the suffering inflicted by the attack. This is rejected in the Babli, since R. Simeon could not have opposed that payment. The payment for suffering therefore is restricted in the Babli to payment for the pain caused by the rupture of the hymen. In contrast, the Yerushalmi starts out with assuming that the pain is that of the deflowering and ends up with embracing the point of view of Samuel.

“The seducer only if he divorces her,” etc. Rav Ḥisda said, if he does not want to keep her. But if he decides to keep her, he does not give anything. Rebbi Ismael stated: “He should weigh silver appropriate for the bride-price of virgins⁹. 22:16, speaking of the seducer. In the Babli, 29b, R. Simeon ben Laqish argues differently.”, which indicates that his obligation is for him that of bride-price, and bride-price is the ketubah⁷⁰ his obligations are transformed into ketubah obligations due at the dissolution of the marriage; not only the 200 zuz basic fee but also the sums fixed for shame and diminution of value.; as it also says⁷¹. 34:12. “add for me much bride-price and gifts.”

footnotes: ⁹ Ex ⁷⁰ This implies that all ⁷¹ Gen

Rebbi Eleazar asked: Do the daughters of the rape victim have the rights given by the ketubah stipulations⁷² document. The one in question here (Mishnah 11) states that the daughters, who do not inherit in the presence of sons, will have to be fed and lodged from the inheritance until they marry (they have a lien on the inheritance which has to be satisfied before the sons, the heirs, can take any money from the inheritance.) Since R. Ismael stated in the preceding paragraph that the seducer has to write a virgin’s ketubah, it is clear to him that all stipulations of Mishnaiot 4:8–12 apply to the future children of the seduced girl. The only problem is with the rape victim who, never facing divorce, does not have a ketubah in the opinion of the rabbis who disagree with R. Yose ben R. Jehudah later in this paragraph. In the Babli, 54a, this question is also asked and similarly left unanswered. In practice, this is a negative answer since “the burden of proof is on the claimant” and in the absence of a rule the daughters cannot prove their claim.? It is clear to me that the rape victim has no [ketubah] of the male children, and that the seduced victim has no [ketubah] of the male children⁷³ of male children (Mishnah 4:10) stipulates that if a man has sons from different wives, the amounts of the different ketubot are first taken from the inheritance and distributed among the sons of the wives; the remainder is then split evenly among the sons (except that an eventual male firstborn takes a double portion). The reason given for this stipulation is that fathers should be encouraged to give their daughters ample dowries which become part of the ketubah obligations of their husbands, to make them attractive to prospective suitors. Therefore, the stipulation is necessary to insure that the property remains in the possession of the direct descendants of the givers. But since the rape victim and the seduced girl are married by biblical decree, they cannot expect dowries.. If you say that he questions in both cases, we could ask, do the daughters of the rape victim and the daughters of the seduced girl have the rights given by the ketubah stipulations? That is a problem following the rabbis⁷⁴, but it is obvious following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah; as it was stated: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, the rapist gives a mina as ketubah⁷⁵ of a virgin for a minimal sum of 200 zuz, the rapist already paid the fine of 200 zuz to the girl’s father. He therefore writes for his wife an additional ketubah of the non-virgin..

footnotes: ⁷² Mishnaiot 4:8–12 contain a number of stipulations which the courts will enforce whether or not they were written in the ketubah ⁷³ The ketubah ⁷⁴ And is unanswered. ⁷⁵ In contrast to the seducer who writes the ketubah

MISHNAH: How does he⁷⁶ drink from his pot? Even if she is lame, even if she is blind, or even if she is afflicted with boils⁷⁷. If a matter of immorality was found with her⁷⁸ or she could not marry in Israel⁷⁹, he may not keep here since it is written⁸⁰. 22:29.: “She shall be his wife,” a wife appropriate for him.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ The rapist mentioned in Mishnah 5. ⁷⁷ He has to marry her and is prohibited from divorcing her. ⁷⁸ If she was found guilty of adultery or incest. In that case, the husband is not permitted to keep her. ⁷⁹ If she was a bastard or a Gibeonite. ⁸⁰ Deut

HALAKHAH: “How does he drink from his pot,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It should not have said “she shall be his wife” for the calumniator⁸¹. 22:13–19. Since the verse treats this as accusing his wife of a capital crime, it must be that he accuses her of adultery while living in her parents’ house but preliminarily married to him. If he cannot prove the accusation, he is fined 100 pieces of silver (400 zuz) and “she shall be his wife; he cannot send her away all his days.” Since he can only accuse her if she is his wife, the first clause of this sentence is superfluous. It should be noted that since the husband is related to his wife, he is barred from testifying in court against her. Deut. 22:14 states only that he calumniates her and asserts that he did not find her a virgin. That would be a civil case, discussed in the first Chapter. To make this a criminal case, one must assume that the husband brought witnesses to the adultery. This is the standard rabbinic interpretation of the case. Without invocation of the rule of gezerah šawah, Sifry Deut. 238 reads the verse as applying the rules of Mishnah 6 to the case of the calumniator.; it is superfluous since she already is his! Why does the verse say, “she shall be his wife”? You should infer from this by an equal cut⁸² is legitimate.. One has to infer from “she shall be his wife”, “she shall be his”⁸³. 22:19 (the calumniator) and 22:29 (the rapist).. Since “she shall be his” which is said there means a wife appropriate for him, so “she shall be his” which is said here means a wife appropriate for him. Then since “she shall be his” which is said there means a wife appropriate for him and he pays the fine, so “she shall be his” which is said here means a wife appropriate for him and he pays the fine⁸⁴. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Ulla [ben]⁸⁵ 15a. Ismael, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It should not have said “she shall be his wife” for the calumniator; it is superfluous since she already is his! Why does the verse say, “she shall be his wife”? You should infer from this by an equal cut. One has to infer from “she shall be his wife”, “she shall be his”. Since “she shall be” which is said there means that if he divorced her one tells him to take her back, so “she shall be his” which is said here means that if he divorced her one tells him to take her back. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated⁸⁶: “In the cases of both the rapist and the calumniator who divorced, one forces them to take back. If they were Cohanim they absorb the forty⁸⁷. 25:3)..”

footnotes: ⁸¹ The man who claims that his bride was not a virgin; Deut ⁸² Cf. Note 56. The preceding argument makes it clear that the expression “she shall be his wife” is not needed for any inference; the application of the rule of gezerah šawah ⁸³ Identical expressions in Deut ⁸⁴ Only the calumniator pays 100 pieces of silver, the rapist 50. ⁸⁵ The Amora who is called Ulla in the Babli is always called Ulla ben Ismael in the Yerushalmi. That must be the reading here also. The text as written, Ulla in the name of R. Ismael (Tanna of the 2nd generation) in the name of R. Eleazar (Amora) does not make sense. Ulla’s argument, in a very complicated formulation, is also in the Babli, Makkot ⁸⁶ Tosephta 3:7. ⁸⁷ Since a Cohen may not take back his divorcee, by divorcing her he committed a sin which cannot be repaired and “absorbs” 39 lashes (which are called 40 in Deut

As it was stated⁸⁸. 241; Tosephta Sanhedrin 10:10.: “Living married to a husband⁸⁹. 22:22. While the man sleeping with a preliminarily married girl is stoned, the adulterer with a woman who had lived with her husband while preliminarily married is strangled; Sifry Deut. 241.,” that includes one who had received her husband in her father’s house while preliminarily married; the one who comes after him is strangled. Not only a regular intercourse but even perverse⁹⁰. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband⁹¹ 9b, the preliminarily married girl who had perverse relations with her husband is no longer a virgin in criminal law but any other man can remove her status of virgin only by penetration.? As we have stated: If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled⁹². 22:23–27. The second man sleeps with a married woman who is not a virgin, Deut. 22:22.. The preliminarily married adolescent girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they are all stoned⁹³ 9b, Sanhedrin 66b, Yerushalmi Qidduṡin 1:1 (fol. 58b); Tosephta Sanhedrin 10:9.. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. If ten men “touched” her⁹⁴ 4:2, Note 59. and then one penetrated, they are all stoned. If they all penetrated, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. A single girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they all pay the fine. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder is free⁹⁵. If she chose one of them, the others were freed from the prohibition⁹⁶. If she said, he⁹⁷ is impossible, she repeatedly chooses. If he was married to her sister, he already is freed⁹⁸. 18:18). He pays but does not marry her.. If she died, he is freed. If he died, one does not force the levir⁹⁹.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Sifry Deut ⁸⁹ Deut ⁹⁰ Perverse intercourse is one which leaves the woman a virgin but leads to sexual satisfaction. ⁹¹ As is implicit in the text here and made explicit in the Babli, Qiddušin ⁹² Speaking of the virgin preliminarily married girl Deut ⁹³ The same statement in slightly different formulations in the Babli, Qiddušin ⁹⁴ Their penises touched her genitals without injuring the hymen; cf. Yebamot ⁹⁵ They are freed from the biblically imposed fine of the rapist; they still can be sued for claims of diminution of value and suffering. ⁹⁶ This sentence clearly refers to the prior case that all the men raping her are liable for the fine. In that case, all of them are required to marry her and forbidden to divorce her. But since a woman cannot have more than one husband, she may choose one of them. The others then do not infringe on the prohibition to divorce her since they cannot marry her. ⁹⁷ Her first choice among the rapists. ⁹⁸ A man raping his wife’s sister cannot marry her (Lev ⁹⁹ If the childless rapist dies before he marries his victim, there is no obligation on the levir to marry her since the rape is no marriage; it only creates an obligation of marriage.

MISHNAH: About an orphan girl who had been preliminarily married and was divorced¹⁰⁰, Rebbi Eleazar says that the rapist has to pay but the seducer does not¹⁰¹.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ This Mishnah follows R. Aqiba (Mishnah 3) who holds that the underage girl who is emancipated from her father’s power either by her marriage arranged by the father or the father’s death has the status of an orphan and collects the fine for herself. ¹⁰¹ What he has or does not have to pay is a matter of dispute in the Halakhah.

HALAKHAH: “About an orphan girl who had been preliminarily married and was divorced,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar¹⁰² follows the opinion of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said that she can collect the fine and it belongs to her, so Rebbi Eleazar said that she can collect the fine and it belongs to her. Then also for a seduced one? Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar¹⁰³, explain it that she remitted it to him¹⁰⁴. Can anybody remit anthing that does not belong to him¹⁰⁵? Explain it for an orphan; as it was stated in the House of Rebbi thus¹⁰⁶: The orphan, Rebbi Eleazar said that the rapist has to pay her but the seducer does not. Can anybody remit something which is not in his possession? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ura: The fine is not due from the first moment on¹⁰⁷. As we have stated there¹⁰⁸: “If she came to court before her father died, [the payments due] belong to her father and if the father died they belong to the brothers.” If you say that the fine is due from the first moment, it would belong to the brothers from the first moment¹⁰⁹! Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The Mishnah deals with shame and diminution of value¹¹⁰. As Rebbi Mana said, how is it? The rapist is obligated for everything and the seducer is free from everything¹¹¹. Rebbi Abin said, [Rebbi] Shammai asked: What does it mean that the rapist has to pay but the seducer does not? The rapist has to pay everything but the seducer is free [from paying] for shame and diminution of value but is obligated for the fine¹¹². That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Or, the rapist is free [from paying] for shame and diminution of value but is obligated for the fine but the seducer is free from everything? That is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s¹¹³.

footnotes: ¹⁰² Ben Shamua, the Tanna. ¹⁰³ Bar Pada, the Amora. ¹⁰⁴ Rashi and all of his followers explain that, since she legally is an adult, she slept with him of her own free will and the law will assume that in doing so she forgave him all payments due. The Babli, 40a, simply states that practice follows R. Eleazar without discussing the reason. ¹⁰⁵ It seems that this Amora did not have “an orphan” in his Mishnah. He asks whether the consent of the minor has any legal consequences since the money is her father’s and she has no possibility of depriving him of his claim. ¹⁰⁶ This is our Mishnah. The text seems to indicate that this is a later edition of the Mishnah and that in the first Mishnah the orphan was not mentioned. ¹⁰⁷ The question is whether the fine is due because of the seducer’s illegal act, then it is due from the moment of the act and the seduced girl has the possibility to forgive all monetary claims to her lover, or whether it is due only upon sentence by the court. In the latter case, forgiveness would need a conscious act by the seduced and, by the time the case comes to court, she could well have changed her mind and go after the money. Then there is no reason that the law should assume that she remitted all money claims to her seducer. ¹⁰⁸ Mishnah 4:1. ¹⁰⁹ The Mishnah states that the heirs have claim to the money only if the father had a claim, i. e., if the case came before the court during the father’s lifetime. The Mishnah also asserts that the money belongs to the girl if the case came before the court after the father’s death. If a claim had existed from the moment of the seduction, it should have been part of the inheritance. Therefore, there is no claim before the case came to court. ¹¹⁰ Since the monetary value of these claims depends on the determination of the court, they certainly do not exist from the time of the seduction. ¹¹¹ This is the ruling accepted by the Babli, 40a. ¹¹² Since she has no power to forgive the fine at the moment of the act, this claim still exists. But since she was a willing partner, she certainly will have forgiven him any payment for shame and diminution of value. ¹¹³ While it is difficult to understand why the rapist should not pay for the shame (since he will have to pay for the shame of an adult victim who has no fine), otherwise the ruling follows R. Yose the Galilean in Mishnah 4.

MISHNAH: How much is shame worth? Everything depends on the offender and the offended¹¹⁴. For diminution of value one considers her as if she were a slave girl to be sold; how much would she have been worth before¹¹⁵ and how much would she be worth now. The fine is equal for everybody since everything determined by the Torah is equal for everybody.

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ The amount is in the discretion of the court subject to the guidelines expressed here. ¹¹⁵ As a virgin.

HALAKHAH: “How much is shame worth? Everything depends on the offender and the offended,” etc. One cannot compare one who is offended by a person of high standing to one offended by a person of low standing. The shame for a person of high standing is great but the injury he incurs is small. The shame for a person of low standing is small but the injury he incurs is great¹¹⁶.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ While the amount of damages is fixed in cases involving virgins, in the case an adult insults another adult, the injured party can sue for damages which have to be fixed following the principle stated here.

MISHNAH: Anytime there is a sale there is no fine and anytime there is a fine there is no sale. The underage girl is subject to sale but not to fine; the adolescent can claim a fine but has no sale; the adult has neither fine nor sale¹¹⁷. 21:7) and in legal texts “son” and “daughter” are always interpreted to mean minors. This Tanna is of the opinion that the fine applies only to the adolescent since the victim is called “an adolescent virgin” in Deut. 22:28 (but in the case of the seducer she simply is called “a virgin”.) It is agreed that the adult cannot claim a fine (she will be able to claim damages.).

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ It is generally agreed that a father can sell his daughter as a domestic slave only as long as she is a minor since the verse calls her “daughter” (Ex

HALAKHAH: “Anytime there is a sale,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is Rebbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis there can be sale and fine together. Following Rebbi Meïr: From one day old until the age of 3 years and one day there is sale but no fine. From the age of 3 years and one day until she becomes an adult there is a fine but no sale. The adult, neither sale nor fine¹¹⁸. Following the rabbis¹¹⁹: From one day old until the age of 3 years and one day there is sale and fine together. From the age of 3 years and one day until she grows two pubic hairs there is sale but no fine. After she grows two pubic hairs until she becomes an adult¹²⁰ there is a fine but no sale. The adult, neither sale nor fine.

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ In the Bablylonian sources (Babli 40b, 29a; Tosephta 3:8), R. Meïr is reported to decree sale but no fine for a girl from the age of one day until adolescence, fine but no sale for the adolescent, and nothing for the adult. Since for a rape at age below three years the hymen is supposed to repair itself, there is no place for the fine at that age. The statement that a father cannot sell his daughter once she reaches the age of marriage, 3 years and one day, is found only here. In any case, the statement is purely theoretical since the institution of Hebrew slaves was not re-established on the return from Babylonia even though the girl was supposed to be sold in marriage. ¹¹⁹ In the Babylonian sources, the rabbis hold that a daughter can be sold until she becomes an adolescent and she can claim the fine starting at the age of 3 years and one day. As explained in the preceding Note, it does not seem reasonable to have a fine for the rape of a girl below the age of 3 years and one day. Therefore, it seems that the statements regarding girls below and above the age of 3 years and one day should be switched. ¹²⁰ A period of 6 months.

There¹²² 7:15; Tosephta 10:8. From “Rebbi Yasa” to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Sanhedrin 7:14; the readings from there are noted ן., we have stated: “He who comes to a preliminarily married adolescent is guilty¹²³. 22:24. The penalty for adultery (if the act is observed by two independent witnesses) is death by strangling. only if she was an adolescent, virgin, preliminarily married, in her father’s house¹²⁴66b), the law does not apply if the girl had been delivered to the husband’s emissaries to be brought to his place for the final wedding.. If two came upon her, the first is stoned and the second strangled¹²⁵.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That is Rebbi Meïr’s. But following the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “A lad” is written in the paragraph¹²⁶. 22:19, “girl” is written in the masculine form נער “a lad”. R. Meïr takes this as a restriction that the rules apply only to the adolescent in the strict sense. The rabbis take the spelling to mean that one deals with a girl that is not yet feminine, not yet sexually awakened. (Instead of postulating a unique Hebrew-Phoenician root נער III “youth”, the rabbis probably derive נער from the root עור “to awake”.). How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written “a young woman”; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult¹²⁷. 22:19; the case of the calumniator must deal also with the possibility that the wife is criminally responsible, as pointed out by R. Meïr. Therefore, נַעֲרָ in the context of sexual offenses must mean “underage and adolescent”.. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, “a lad” is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned¹²⁸. 22:21. An underage person is not criminally responsible; the seduction of a minor is statutory rape. If the criminal sanctions do not apply, why should the rest of the rules apply to an underage girl?! What do the rabbis with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it if he came to her as to a male¹²⁹.

footnotes: ¹²² Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹²³ To be stoned, Deut ¹²⁴ As the Babli explains (Sanhedrin ¹²⁵ Since she was no longer a virgin. ¹²⁶ In the entire Pentateuch with the exception of Deut ¹²⁷ Deut ¹²⁸ Deut ¹²⁹ The rapist is punished even if he uses the נַעֲרָ as if she were a נַעַר, without penetration.

Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law for him who comes to a minor¹³⁰? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law for him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading “an adolescent¹³¹. 22:29.”, not an adult.¹³² Read “an adolescent”, not a minor! “‘Because he mistreated her’, that includes a minor for a fine”, read ‘because he mistreaded her’,¹³¹. 22:29. that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Jacob won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: Why? He understood it from the following¹³³. 22:26, speaking of the preliminarily married rape victim. It should be obvious that the rape victim is innocent; why does the verse have to emphasize this?: “The man who had lain with her alone should die.” Did we not know that “the girl has not committed a capital crime”? Then why does the verse say: “Do not do anything to the girl, the girl has not committed a capital crime”? That includes him who comes to a preliminarily married underage girl that he is stoned and she is free¹³⁴.

footnotes: ¹³⁰ A preliminarily married underage girl, whether by seduction or rape. ¹³¹ In Deut ¹³² The man who commits adultery with an adult preliminarily married woman is punished for adultery, as if it were with a definitively married woman. ¹³¹ In Deut ¹³³ Deut ¹³⁴ The verse is not written for the adolescent rape victim, whose innocence is obvious, but for the consenting underage girl who would have committed a capital crime had she been adolescent. But because of her age, her seduction was statutory rape and she is immune from any form of punishment.

MISHNAH: One who says, I seduced X’s daughter, pays for shame and diminution of value on his own testimony but he does not pay the fine¹³⁵ 1:10; Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 3b). But the fine is assessed in a criminal trial and confessions are inadmissible in criminal trials.. One who says, I stole and I slaughtered or sold, pays the value on his own testimony but neither double restitution nor four or five times¹³⁶. 22:2,3).. My ox killed X or X’s ox, he pays on his own testimony¹³⁷. My ox killed X’s slave, he does not pay on his own testimony¹³⁸. 21:32) whose status is discussed in the Halakhah.. This is the principle: Anybody who has to pay more than the damage he caused does not pay on his own testimony¹³⁹.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ Payments for shame and diminution of value are civil claims and for civil claims “the admission of the debtor is worth 100 witnesses” (Tosephta Baba Meṣi‘a ¹³⁶ The criminal fine for stealing livestock is double the value if the animal is found alive, but four or five times its value if it was slaughtered or stolen (Ex ¹³⁷ Restitution in civil law. ¹³⁸ The payment is a fixed sum of 30 šeqel (Ex ¹³⁹ Since any excess payment has the character of a penalty.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, I seduced X’s daughter,” etc. ¹⁴³ 5:7. Rebbi Isaac asked: Would he have to pay the slave’s value on his own testimony? What is his problem? Are the entire 30 [šeqel]¹³⁸. 21:32) whose status is discussed in the Halakhah. a fine or is only the excess over his value a fine? If you say, the entire 30 [šeqel] are a fine, he does not pay. If you say, the excess over his value is a fine, he pays¹⁴⁴. There, we have stated¹⁴⁵ 5:5. The topic of the Mishnah is the obligation to bring a purification sacrifice for a false oath (Lev. 5:4). The sacrifice is due for “an expression of the lips for worse or good”, i. e., if the oath changes the situation as far as monetary obligations are concerned. If A was accused by B to have seduced B’s daughter (when B has no witnesses to prove his claim) and A swore falsely, A is obligated for a sacrifice since by admitting guilt he would have had to pay for shame and diminution of value.: “‘Your ox killed my slave’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is free.¹⁴⁶” Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it if he killed a slave afflicted with boils¹⁴⁷. He said to him, what does it say afterwards¹⁴⁸, not the continuation of the Mishnah.? “‘Your ox killed my son’! The other said, ‘he did not kill’. ‘I want you to swear’ and he said ‘Amen’, he is obligated.¹⁴⁹” Why do you not explain it that he was afflicted with boils, then he would be free¹⁵⁰. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage¹⁵¹. 21:30: “If weregilt is imposed on him, he shall pay the redemption of his person, all that is imposed on him.” The question is, to which person does “his person” refer? Is the weregilt assessed by the person killed or the owner of the ox? The question is discussed in Baba Qama Tosephta 4:7, Yerushalmi 4:7 (4c), Babli 27a, 40a; Babli Makkot 2b; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim p. 285, dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 182.. He said to him, if following him who says “he shall pay the redemption of his person”, the one’s who caused the damage, everything is a fine¹⁵². Can one say to him, be also in the clear with Heaven¹⁵³? Let us hear from the following: It happened that Rabban Gamliel knocked out his slave Tebi’s tooth¹⁵⁴. 21:26,27). On the other hand, there is an interpretation of Lev. 25:46 which reads the statement about Gentile slaves, “for ever you shall have them work for you” that manumission of Gentile slaves without a good reason is forbidden. In the Yerushalmi (Yebamot11:6, Note 134) this interpretation is ascribed to R. Yose the Galilean, in the Babli to Rav Jehudah (Berakhot 47b) or R. Aqiba (Soṭah 3b). Another interpretation of the verse [Babli Niddah 47a; Sifra Behar Parašah 6(6)] insists that slaves can be used only for work, not sexual purposes.. He came to Rebbi Joshua¹⁵⁵ 74b/75a, reads the story as a ruling by R. Joshua that anybody who freed himself by confession from a fine cannot be fined even if later the fact is proven by two witnesses. It holds that Rabban Gamliel should have produced witnesses before talking informally to R. Joshua who even in a private setting could not forget about his position of president of the court. and said to him, I found a reason to free my slave Tebi. He said to him, what do you have in your hand? Fines can be imposed only by witnesses! Could they not say to him, do your duty before Heaven? That means one does not tell him, do your duty before Heaven! Rebbi Gamliel ben Avina¹⁵⁶ 1:1, Note 61). asked before Rebbi Mana: Does Rabban Gamliel follow him who said, it is permitted to manumit? He said to him, the story in itself implies that it is forbidden to manumit since, otherwise, he could have freed him immediately!

footnotes: ¹⁴³ The entire Halakhah is part of a larger text in Šebuot ¹³⁸ The payment is a fixed sum of 30 šeqel (Ex ¹⁴⁴ The slave’s market value. ¹⁴⁵ Mishnah Šebuot ¹⁴⁶ This Tanna assumes that the entire 30 šeqel to be paid for the slave are a fine which cannot be collected upon the confession of the guilty party. Therefore, the oath did not change the situation as far as monetary obligations are concerned and no purification sacrifice is possible. ¹⁴⁷ If the slave could not be sold on the slave market, he has no value and certainly all of the 30 šeqel are a criminal fine and not due upon confession. ¹⁴⁸ This is a baraita ¹⁴⁹ Since he would have to pay damages upon agreeing that his ox did the damage, his false oath requires a sacrifice. ¹⁵⁰ If no damages were due. ¹⁵¹ Ex ¹⁵² In that case there is no direct connection between the amount to be paid and the damage caused. ¹⁵³ Is there a moral obligation to pay when there is no legal way to force payment? ¹⁵⁴ A slave has to be freed if his owner injures one of his limbs (Ex ¹⁵⁵ The Babli, Baba Qama ¹⁵⁶ Elsewhere, the name is Ininia (cf. Peah