Powtórzonego Prawa 22:24 Odniesienia do Talmudu: Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin & Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

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..

It was stated⁹⁴Babli 46a, Sifry Deut. §237. In the interpretation of the Babli, R. Eliezer ben Jacob requires that the court hear testimony about virginal blood.: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the words should be said as they are written. What means “the words should be said as they are written”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse⁷³In the Babli, 46a, this interpretation is attributed to R. Eliezer ben Jacob, in Sifry Deut. 235, to R. Jehudah, as dissenting opinions., and accuses her not to be a virgin. “They spread the cloth⁸⁸Deut. 22:17. It was proven that this sentence cannot mean what it says.”. Not that “they spread the cloth” but until the things become clear like a cloth⁹⁵Usually, new cloth was simply bleached, not dyed. חִװֵר really means “pale”; only in a derivative sense it means “logically consistent”.. Assi said, “they spread the cloth”, the witnesses are not stoned, nor is the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas, until they say: you were with us at a certain place⁹⁶This is necessary to prove the witnesses guilty of perjury, cf. Note 86., and the husband hired them to testify falsely⁹⁷This is necessary to impose penalties on the husband.. If they said, you were with us at a certain place, but they did not say, the husband hired them to testify falsely? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁹⁸This attribution seems most unlikely. Since the argument is quoted in the Babli, 46a, as a tannaitic statement attributed to R. Jehudah, it is more likely that the original text was: In the name of R. Simeon ben Ioḥai.: It is said here “putting”, it is said there “putting”. Since “putting” there means money, also “putting” here must mean money⁹⁹The argument is a little more explicit in the Babli. It is written here, “he puts a libel on her”. It is written in Ex. 22:24: “you shall not charge interest to [the recipient of a loan].” From the principle that a word has only one meaning, one infers that the husband “puts” a libel on his wife by paying for it; then according to this opinion he cannot be punished unless he actually pays for the false testimony.. But did we not state: He did not say to the witnesses, come and testify in my case, but they came on their own, he is not flogged nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas but either she or the false witnesses would be stoned⁴⁹The 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.’¹⁰⁰The Babli agrees, 46a.? Because he did not say. But if he said, even if he did not hire them it is as if he hired them¹⁰¹This disagrees with the opinion given before. The husband must actively be involved in bringing the witnesses before the court but he does not have to pay them in order to become criminally liable. In general, a person who hires another to commit a crime (or simply induces him to commit a crime) cannot in general be prosecuted since “there is no agent for sin” (Babli Qiddušin 42b); exeptions to that rule must have a biblical basis.. If the father brought two groups of witnesses¹⁰²Who then are proven to have perjured themselves. (The Babli, Sanhedrin 9b, discusses only the simple case that the same witnesses testify both about the other witnesses and the husband’s involvment.). One side say, you were with us at a certain place. The other side say, the husband hired them to testify falsely. It is obvious that those who said, you were with us at a certain place, are stoned¹⁰³Since, if their testimony had been true, the husband’s witnesses would have been stoned., and those who said, the husband hired them to testify falsely, are flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas¹⁰⁴Since they testify to the involvement of the husband in the prosecution of his wife.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, neither by these not by those are they flogged and pay 100 tetradrachmas¹⁰⁴Since they testify to the involvement of the husband in the prosecution of his wife., but they are flogged because of “you shall not testify as a false witness against your fellow man.¹⁰⁶Ex. 20:17. The Babli disagrees, Makkot 2b, since “a prohibition violated without an action is not prosecutable” (cf. Nedarim 1:1, Note 2).”

MISHNAH: The following are stoned: A male having sexual relations with the mother, or the father’s wife⁵³Even if she is not his mother, Lev. 20:11. One infers from Lev. 20:27 that their blood be on them means that the punishment is stoning (Halakhah 9)., or the daughter-in-law, or a male, or an animal; or a female bringing an animal onto herself⁵⁴Lev. 20:12,13,15,16.. Also the blasphemer⁵⁵Lev. 24:23. It is a capital crime only if the Divine Name (which today is unknown) was used in the blasphemy., the worshipper of idols⁵⁶Deut. 17:5., he who gives one of his descendants to the Moloch⁵⁷Lev. 20:2., and the necromancer, and the medium⁵⁸Lev. 20:27. The necromancer is the person who raises the spirits of the dead; cf. 1S. 28. The medium is one who incorporates a spirit which predicts the future, speaking from the medium’s body, not his mouth.. Also one who desecrates the Sabbath⁵⁹Num. 15:36., or who curses father or mother⁶⁰Lev. 20:9., or who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden⁸Adultery by a preliminarily married virgin is punishable by stoning (Deut. 22:24), by a definitively married woman by “death” (Lev. 20:10), which by the preceding argument means the least painful of the four kinds of execution. Lev. 21:9 prescribes death by burning for the whoring daughter of a Cohen. The status (unmarried, preliminarily or definitively married) of the Cohen’s daughter is not spelled out. Since sexual activity of an unmarried woman is nowhere in the Bible classified as a capital crime [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(15)], it is assumed that the Cohen’s daughter mentioned in the verse cannot be unmarried (virgin or widowed). The problem remains whether Lev. 21:9 refers to a preliminarily or definitively married woman.
For R. Simeon, who holds that burning is more painful than stoning, Lev. 21:9 refers to any adulterous daughter of a Cohen, irrespective of the status of her marriage (Babli 50a). For the rabbis who hold that stoning is more painful than burning, Lev. 21:9 cannot refer to a preliminarily married maiden since then it would treat a Cohen’s daughter more leniently than an Israel’s, which contradicts the entire tenor of Lev. 21:1–9.
The formulation of the rabbis’ position is not quite correct since Deut. 22:24 applies only to a preliminarily married maiden (between the ages of 12 and 12 years 6 months; cf. Yebamot 1:3, Notes 159–160). In the text following, “preliminarily married” means “preliminarily married maiden”; “definitively married” means “definitively married or adult preliminarily married”., or who leads astray⁶¹The missionary for another faith who addresses individuals in private; Deut. 13:11, cf. Mishnah 16., or who seduces⁶²He acts in public; Halakhah 16., or the sorcerer⁶³Halakhah 19., or the deviant and rebellious son⁶⁴Deut. 21:21..