Powtórzonego Prawa 22:17 Odniesienia do Talmudu: Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot & Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

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..

“I came to her and did not find her a virgin⁸³Deut. 22:14..” Should we not worry that he found and made disappear⁸⁴It is difficult to accept that the court should take the case simply on the husband’s statement, in particular because the husband cannot be cross-examined as a witness since he is related to his wife and relatives are barred from being witnesses.? The husband brought witnesses that she committed adultery while in her father’s house. “This is proof of my daughters virginity.⁸⁵Deut. 22:17. The father also is barred from being a witness in a case involving his daughter.” Should we not worry that this is bird’s blood? The father brought witnesses to prove perjury by the husband’s witnesses⁸⁶The case is a regular criminal case to be adjudicated following all rules of criminal procedure; the only new feature is the punishment inflicted on the husband if his case is not sustained in court.
In talmudic law, there are unreliable witnesses and there are perjurers. If the story of the witnesses does not hold up under cross-examination, or if the witnesses’s story is contradicted by equally trustworthy witnesses, the witnesses are unreliable and their testimony is not accepted as basis of a judgment. Perjury with its attendant penalties (Deut. 19:18–20) only is impossible testimony, i. e., that the opposing party produces witnesses to testify that the other witnesses could not possibly have seen what they testify to since they were at another place at the time they pretend to have seen certain things.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in this paragraph there are witnesses, witnesses of perjury, and witnesses of perjury of the witnesses of perjury: The husband says, these are witnesses that she whored in her father’s house. The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: The father brought witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses. And the husband brought witnesses to prove perjury of the father’s witnesses. Some Tannaïm state: “If this was true,” that the father found witnesses to prove perjury of the husband’s witnesses⁸⁷The penalties mentioned in this paragraph can only be imposed if the case is one of proven formal perjury..

“And they spread out the cloth.⁸⁸Deut. 22:17. It was proven that this sentence cannot mean what it says.” That is all simile. Rebbi Ismael stated: That is one of three verses in the Torah which have been written as simile⁸⁹Sifry Deut. 237; in Finkelstein’s opinion not of the original Sifry text. A slightly enlarged version is in Sanhedrin 8:8, 26c 1. 6.. “If he gets up and walks outside on his support, the one who hit him is not prosecuted.⁹⁰Ex. 21:19, speaking of a person who deliberatly injures another. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 6; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 174.” Could anybody think that one walks in the market and the other is executed because of him? But what is “on his support”, in his health⁹¹If the injured person regains his health but then has a relapse and dies, the person who injured him cannot be prosecuted for murder.. “If the sun shone on him, he has blood.⁹²Ex. 22:2, speaking of a thief digging a tunnel under a house, who can be killed with impunity if found out since in the tunnel “he has no blood”.” Does the sun shine only on him? But just as the sun is particular that it brings peace to the entire world, so also this one, if one knows that [the other] is at peace with him and he kills him, he is guilty⁹³In the opinion of the Babli, Sanhedrin 72a/b, this can only be asserted of a father coming to steal from his son. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi (Note 89) it cannot be asserted of anybody. Cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 13; differently in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 192..