Rujukan Talmud untuk Keluaran 22:17: Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot, Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin & Avot DeRabbi Natan

MISHNAH: The following adolescent girls¹The biblical law prescribes (Deut. 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 girl²Obviously, 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. 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 age³Cf. Mishnah 1:2.. 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 wife⁴If she was divorced or became a widow before the final marriage. The preliminary marriage activates all incest prohibitions implied by marriage., or his paternal uncle’s wife⁵But 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., or a menstruating girl; he has to pay the fine since it is not a capital crime⁶This word is in the ms. and editio princeps but should be deleted. even though he is subject to extirpation.

HALAKHAH: “The following adolescent girls,” etc. It is written⁷Deut. 22:29, speaking of the rapist.: “She should be his wife,” one who can be his wife⁸This 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 Qiddušin4:1). 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 virgins⁹Ex. 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-price¹⁰It implies only that even a virgin disqualified in general still has a claim to a full ketubah; e. g., if a bastard girl marries a proselyte.. But where was this said¹¹That the fine must be paid.? As Ḥizqiah stated: “If refusing her father should refuse⁹Ex. 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 refuse¹²By a biblical prohibition.? 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 marry¹³While the Gentile slave-girl of a Jewish owner becomes pseudo-Jewish by baptism in a miqweh, 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 fine¹⁴Mishnah 3:2.! There is a difference since it is a capital crime and nobody who commits a capital crime pays money¹⁵Even if he cannot be convicted because there were no two eyewitnesses to the act..

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp¹⁴⁹The ramp on which the priest ascends to the altar since it is forbidden to build steps to the altar (Ex. 20:22). The ramp was physically separated from the altar.? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp¹⁵⁸But on the altar one is liable at least in violation of a positive commandment. Babli Menaḥot 37b/38a.. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides¹³⁵It is axiomatic that the Torah contains no unnecessary statements. If an item is singled out and there is no apparent reason for this one has to conclude that anything to be inferred about this particular item applies to all similar cases.. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide¹⁵⁹From here on and the next paragraphs there is a parallel (but not an exact copy) in Sanhedrin 7:5 Notes 72–125.
One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general category was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire category.” R. Abun bar Ḥiyya states that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more.. As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells¹⁶⁰Lev. 19:26. Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples in the prohibition of witchcraft (Ex. 22:17), but no penalty is indicated.. Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class¹⁶¹To use witchcraft is a capital crime (Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:5); in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices.? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case¹⁶²Hermeneutical principle #5 on R. Ismael’s list states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. If both general expression and details declare the same., one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately..