R. Papa replied: By the expression1 If he had intercourse he is flogged',2 which was used there,3 the monetary fine4 [was meant].5 But could one describe a monetary fine as 'flogging'? — Yes, and so indeed we have learned:6 If a man said, 'I vow to pay half of my valuation'7 he most pay half of his valuation. R. Jose the son of R. Judah ruled: He is flogged8 and must pay his full valuation. [And in reply to the question,] why should he be flogged? R. Papa explained: He is 'flogged'8 by [having to pay his] full valuation.9 What is the reason?10 — [The ruling10 in the case of a vow for] a half of one's valuation11 is a preventive measure against the possibility [of a vow for] the value of half of one's body,12 such a half13 being an organic part14 on which one's life depends.15
Our Rabbis taught: And they shall fine him16 refers to17 a monetary fine; And chastise him18 refers to17 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';19 whence, however, is it deduced that 'And chastise him' refers to flogging? — R. Abbahu replied: We deduce 'Shall chastise'18 from 'Shall chastise',20 and 'Shall chastise'20 from 'Son',21 and 'Son'21 from 'Son'22 [occurring in the Scriptural text:] Then it shall be, if the wicked man deserve23 to be beaten.24
Whence is the warning25 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.26 R. Nathan replied: From Then thou shalt keep thee27 from every evil thing.28 What is the reason that R. Eleazar does not make his deduction29 from the latter30 text?28 — That text28 he requires for [the same deduction] as [that made by] R. Phinehas b. Jair: From the text,31 Then thou shalt keep thee from every evil thing;28 R. Phinehas b. Jair deduced29 that a man should not indulge in [morbid] thoughts by day that might lead him to uncleanness by night.32 What then is the reason why R. Nathan does not make his deduction from the former33 text?34 — That text34 is a warning to the court that it must not be lenient with one35 [of the litigants] and harsh to the other.
If [a husband] did not tell the witnesses,36 'Come and give evidence for me' and they volunteered to give it, he37 is not to be flogged nor is he to pay the hundred sela'.38 She, however, and the witnesses who testified falsely against her are hurried39 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.39 Now the reason then40 is because he did not even tell them [to give their evidence].41 Had he, however, told them [he would have been subject to the prescribed penalties]42 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 penalties42 unless he has hired the witnesses.43
What is R. Judah's reason? R. Abbahu replied: An analogy is drawn between the two forms of the root 'to lay'.44 Here45 it is written, And lay46 wanton charges against her,47 and elsewhere it is written, Neither shall ye lay48 upon him interest,'49 as there49 [the offence is committed through the giving of] money50 so here [also it can be committed only by the giving of] money.51 R. Nahman b. Isaac said, and so did R. Joseph the Zidonian recite at the school52 of R. Simeon b. Yohai: An analogy is drawn between the two forms of the root 'to lay'.53
R. Jeremiah raised the question: What is the ruling54 where [the husband] hired them55 with a piece of land?56 What [if he hired them] for a sum less than a perutah?57 What [if both witnesses were hired] for one perutah?
R. Ashi enquired: What [is the ruling where a husband]58 brought an evil name [upon his wife] in respect of their first marriage? What [if a levir59 brought up an evil name] in respect of his brother's marriage? — You may at all events solve one [of these questions].60 For R. Jonah taught: I gave my daughter unto this man61 only unto this man62 but not to a levir.63
What [is the ruling of] the Rabbis and what [is that of] R. Eliezer b. Jacob?64 — It was taught: What constitutes65 the bringing up of an evil name [against one's wife]?66 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.67 '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?68 — 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.69 If it was ascertained that the evil name had no foundation in fact70 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 penalties71 apply only where he had intercourse [with her].
According to R. Eliezer b. Jacob72 one can well understand why Scripture used the expressions, 'And go in unto her'73 and 'When I came nigh to her',74 but according to the Rabbis75 what [could be the meaning of] 'And go in unto her'73 and' When I came nigh unto her'?74 'And go in unto her'73 with wanton charges, and 'When I come nigh to her'74 with words.
According to R. Eliezer b. Jacob72 one can well see why Scripture used the expression, 'I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity',76 but according to the Rabbis75 what [could be the sense of the expression], 'I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity'? — I found not far77 thy daughter witnesses to establish her claim to tokens of virginity.78
It was quite correct for Scripture, according to R. Eliezer b. Jacob,79 to state, And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity;80 but according to the Rabbis81 what could be the sense of [the expression,] 'And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity'?80 — And yet these are the witnesses who establish78 the tokens of my daughter's virginity.
One can well understand, according to R. Eliezer b. Jacob,79 why Scripture wrote, And they shall spread the garment,'80 but according to the Rabbis81 what [could be the sense of the instruction,] And they shall spread the garment? — R. Abbahu replied: They explain82 [the charge] which he submitted against her;83 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.84
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];85 for he is not held guilty unless, having had intercourse with her, [even]86 in an unnatural manner, he brought up an evil name upon her in respect of a natural intercourse.
In accordance with whose view?87 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?1 — 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 DAUGHTER2 IN RESPECT OF HER BETROTHAL [WHETHER IT WAS EFFECTED] BY MONEY,3 DEED4 OR INTERCOURSE;5 HE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING SHE FINDS AND TO HER HANDIWORK; [HE HAS THE RIGHT] OF ANNULLING HER VOWS6 AND HE RECEIVES HER BILL OF DIVORCE;7 BUT HE HAS NO USUFRUCT8 DURING HER LIFETIME.9 WHEN SHE MARRIES, THE HUSBAND SURPASSES HIM [IN HIS RIGHTS] IN THAT HE HAS10 USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME,11 BUT HE IS ALSO UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF MAINTAINING AND RANSOMING HER12 AND TO PROVIDE FOR HER BURIAL. R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN THE POOREST MAN IN ISRAEL MUST PROVIDE13 NO LESS THAN TWO FLUTES AND ONE LAMENTING WOMAN.
GEMARA. 'BY MONEY'. Whence is this14 deduced? — Rab Judah replied: Scripture said, Then shall she go ant for nothing without money,15 [which implies that] this master16 receives no money17 but that another master does receive money;18 and who is he? Her father.19 But might it not be suggested that it20 belongs to her?21 — Since22 it is her father who contracts23 her betrothal, as it is written in Scripture, I gave my daughter unto this man,24 would she take the money!25 But can it not be suggested that this26 applies only to a minor27 who has no legal right28 [to act on her own behalf], but that a na'arah29 who has such rights30 may herself contract her betrothal, and she herself receives the money? — Scripture stated, Being in her youth in her father's house,31 [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,32 as33 the handiwork of a maidservant belongs to her master so does the handiwork of a daughter belong to her father'.34 Now what need was there,35 [it may be asked, for this text when] deduction36 could have been made from [the text of] 'Being in her youth in her father's house'?31 Consequently [it must be admitted, must it not, that] that text was written in connection only with the annulment of vows?37 And should you suggest that we might infer this38 from it,39 [it could be retorted that] monetary matters cannot be inferred from ritual matters.39 And should you suggest that we might infer it is from [the law of] fine,40 [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,41 [it could be retorted] that indignity and blemish are different,42 since [the rights] of her father [are also, are they not], involved43 in it?44 — [This], however, [is the explanation]:45 It is logical to conclude that when the All-Merciful excluded46 [another] going out,47 the exclusion Was meant to be [understood in a manner] similar to the original.48 But49 one 'going out', surely, is not like that of the other: For50 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?51 — 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 damsel52 it is her father and her husband who jointly annul her vows.53
DEED OR INTERCOURSE. Whence do we [deduce this]?54 — Scripture said, And becometh another man's wife55 is [from which it may be inferred that] the various forms of betrothal57 are to be compared to one another.57
HE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING SHE FINDS,
- To Next Folio -