Talmud su Deuteronomio 22:18

³⁰The text in Terumot 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 fifth³¹Mishnah Terumot 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.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah is to encourage a man to give an ample dowry to his daughter⁴³This presupposes the earlier practice that the ketubah was written and the dowry given at the time of the preliminary marriage, in contrast to the later practice which postponed these transactions to the time of the definitive marriage. In that case, the dowry has to be returned at the dissolution of the preliminary marriage and it is clear that the father wants to have the dowry returned to him. {Many Jewish communities in the Middle Ages enacted rules which guaranteed the return of the dowry to the wife’s family if the marriage was of short duration and/or there were no children; the best known being the rules of the community of Ṭulaiṭula (Toledo), Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘Ezer §118.). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Rebbi (Meïr)⁴⁴Since R. Meïr is not mentioned otherwise in this connection, it seems that this is a scribal mistake for R. Jehudah. learned from the calumniator⁴⁵The calumniator accuses his definitively married wife, who is an adolescent, of infidelity while preliminarily married. If his accusation is false, he pays the fine to the father, not to his wife. This shows that the father retains an interest in the money coming to his adolescent daughter even if she is definitively married. In the opinion of Maimonides (More Nebukhim, part 3, Chapter 49) and Nachmanides (Commentary to Deut. 22:19), the fine of the calumniator is 400 zuz since he wanted to steal from her the ketubah sum of 200 zuz by his accusation; as a thief he has to pay double restitution to the injured party. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that the father is the injured party. (Interpretation following R. Baruch Fränkel-Teomim.). Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored while in her father’s house and he calumniated her⁴⁶He is called a calumniator by the biblical text because he has to accuse his wife of adultery in front of the court, and for that he is punished if his accusation is not sustained. For the court to act on his accusation he has to produce two witnesses to the adultery since as husband he is his wife’s relative and barred from acting as a witness for or against her. after she became an adult, he is not flogged⁴⁷The expression “they shall punish him” in Deut. 22:17 is interpreted to mean “they have him flogged.” nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas⁴⁸In Deut. 22:18 it is written: They shall fine him 100 silver pieces and give them to the adolescent’s father. If the girl is no longer an adolescent, the punishment does not apply. but either she or the false witnesses are executed by stoning⁴⁹The standard punishment for adultery by a preliminarily married adolescent, Deut. 22:24. If the witnesses for the husband are shown to be false (cf. Note 86), they are stoned since any false witness is punished by the sentence that would have been passed upon the accused if the testimony had been true.? Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if he calumniated her when she was an adolescent and now she is an adult? He said to him, we heard that he pays to her father⁵⁰As long as the accusation is made when the girl is an adolescent, the verse gives the money to the father.. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: I am wondering how could the rabbis compare a ketubah to a fine when they are not comparable! For the ketubah is an obligation from the first hour⁵¹The groom has to accept all obligations of the ketubah before a definitive marriage is possible. but the fine is only at the end⁵²The fine is due only upon sentencing.; and you say so? He said to him, who says that to you? Even the [obligation of the] fine is from the first moment⁵³He holds that the act of rape creates the obligation to pay the fine rather than the court’s sentence.. It turns out that Rebbi Mana is like Rebbi Jeremiah and (like Rebbi Yose ben Ze‘ira)⁵⁴This probably should read: וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. “and Rebbi Yose like Rebbi Ze‘ira,” that the obligation of the fine starts with the rape and, therefore, fine and ketubah are parallel institutions; the rules of the fine may inspire rules of ketubah..