Talmud su Deuteronomio 22:19

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.

Rav Huna insists on interpreting the contract text. Rav Huna explained: “The sons shall inherit but the daughters must be fed.” Since the sons inherit movables, the daughters also are fed from movables. Samuel said, the daughters are not fed from movables. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “The female children you shall have from me shall dwell in my house and be supported from my property.” It was stated on this: From real estate but not from movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav Huna follows Rebbi and Samuel follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “One uses both guaranteed property and non-guaranteed property for the support of the wife and the daughters, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, guaranteed property may be taken by sons from sons, by daughters from daughters, by sons from daughters, and by daughters from sons. But non-guaranteed property may be taken by sons from daughters but not by daughters from sons.” They said, Rav Huna reversed himself. They said, that was well done, ketubah is a biblical commandment but support of the daughters is from their words. May their words uproot a biblical commandment? It must be that they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah. [Even if you say, they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah.]²⁰⁹Inserted here by the corrector who prepared the editio princeps; missing in Yebamot. But is the money stipulated in their mother’s ketubah not also real estate⁶⁶Deut. 22:19.?

There¹²²Mishnah Sanhedrin 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 guilty¹²³To be stoned, Deut. 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 house¹²⁴As the Babli explains (Sanhedrin66b), 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 strangled¹²⁵Since she was no longer a virgin..” 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 paragraph¹²⁶In the entire Pentateuch with the exception of Deut. 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 adult¹²⁷Deut. 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 stoned¹²⁸Deut. 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 male¹²⁹The rapist is punished even if he uses the נַעֲרָ as if she were a נַעַר, without penetration..