Torah Community Connections

Week 61 - Friday - 26 January 2001

KETUBOT CHAPTER 3 MISHNAH 9

If one says, "I seduced the daughter of so and so" - he pays "shame" and pegam by his own declaration, but does not pay the fine. If one says, "I stole," or "I slaughtered," or "I sold" - he pays the principal by his own declaration, but he does not make twofold, fourfold or fivefold payments; "My ox killed so-and-so," or "the ox of so-and-so" - then this one pays by his own declaration; "My ox killed the servant of so-and-so" - he does not pay by his own declaration. This is the general rule: whoever pays more than the damage done, does not pay by his own declaration.

Kehati

Our mishnah is based on the legal ruling that "whoever confesses to a fine is exempt."

If one - comes to the Court and - says, "I seduced the daughter of so-and-so" - he is believed, even though he deteriorates her status, and obviously, one who says, "I violated the daughter of so-and-so," which impairs her less is believed (Gemara), he pays "shame" and pegam by his own declaration - we obligate him to pay for "shame" and pegam on the basis of his testimony, having admitted that he seduced her, for these constitute monetary restitutions and not fines, but does not pay the fine - we do not obligate him to pay the fine of "fifty silver," since one who confesses to a fine is exempt. This law is derived from the verse, "Whomever the judges declare guilty shall pay twofold to his neigh-bor" (Ex. 22:8); the Sages understood "whomever the judges shall declare guilty," to exclude the person who admits his guilt (B. K.64b).

If one says, "I stole," or "I slaughtered," or "I sold" - it is written, "If a man steal an ox, or a sheep, and slaughter it, or sell it, he shall pay five cattle for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep" (Ex. 21:37); and also, "whomever the judges shall declare guilty shall pay twofold to his neighbor," which teaches that whoever steals anything makes a twofold payment (this also applies to the theft of an ox or a sheep that was not slaughtered or sold). Since the twofold, fourfold, and fivefold payments constitute fines, if a thief says to the Court, 'I stole, or I slaughtered, or I sold'" - an ox or a sheep, he pays the principal by his own declaration - he is only obligated to pay the actual value of the animal) on the basis of his own admission, since this is not a fine, but monetary restitution, but he does not make twofold payments, fourfold or fivefold payments - as these are fines, and one who confesses to a fine is exempt.

If one says, "My ox - which is "mu'ad"-i.e., it has gored three times and its owner was warned to watch it (see our introduction to Tractate B. K.) - killed so and so" - and I am liable to pay "kofer" (ransom), as it is written, "If there be laid on him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is laid upon him" (Ex. 21:30); or - if one says, "My mu'ad ox killed the ox of so-and-so" - and I am obligated to compensate for the damage it caused, as it is written, "he must pay an ox for an ox" (Ex. 21:36), then this one pays by his own declaration - for the payment of kofer (ransom) and the payment for the damage caused by a mu'ad ox are not a fine, but monetary restitution.

But if one says, "My ox killed the servant of so-and-so" - regarding which the Torah writes, "he shall give to his master thirty shekels of silver" (Ex. 21:32), he does not pay by his own declaration - since the payment of the "thirty shekels" is not a monetary restitution, but a fine, and "one who confesses to a fine is exempt."

This is the general rule - regarding fines: whoever pays more than the damage done - e.g., twofold payments, fourfold and fivefold payments; or an ox that killed a servant, even if the servant is worth less than one sela, the owner of the ox must pay thirty selas; and similarly concerning payment for violation, seduction, or slandering one's wife, he does not pay by his own declaration - for these are fines, and the person who confesses to a fine is exempt.

The Gemara explains that the law is the same if one pays less than what he has damaged, e.g., the half-damages for a shor tam "an ox that has not gored three times" (see our introduction to Tractate B. K.), because it is a fine and not payable by one's own admission. However, since there exists a payment of half-damages for "pebbles" cast by an animal's hoof and breaking a vessels, traditionally defined as mone-tary restitution (and not a fine), our mishnah confines itself to "whoever pays more than the damage."

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 1

A na'arah who was seduced - her shame and her pegam and her fine are her father's; and the pain, for the one who was seized. If she stood in judgment before her father died, then they are the father's. If the father died, then they are the brothers'. If she did not manage to stand in judgment before the father died, then they are her own. If she stood in judgment before she became of age, then they are the father's. If the father died, then they are the brothers'. If she did not manage to stand in judgment before she became of age, then they are her own. Rabbi Shimon says, If she did not manage to collect before the father died, then they are her own. Her handi-work and what she finds, even though she did not collect, and the father died - then they are the brothers'.

Kehati

Our mishnah discusses the father's rights with regard to the payments by the violator and the seducer.

A na'arah who was seduced - her shame and her pegam and her fine - the payments for shame and pegam and the fine which the seducer pays, as was taught above (3:4), are her father's; and the pain for one who was seized - violated; in addition to shame and pegam, and the fine, the payment for pain which the violator pays also belongs to her father.

The expression tefusah is based on the word 'utefasah', "and he seizes her and lie with her" (Deut. 22:28) (Rashi).

If she stood in judgment - she sued the seducer or the violator, to claim her payments, before her father died, then they - all the payments, are the father's - belong to her father.

If the father died - after she sued when she was a girl a (na'arah), then they are the brothers' - the payments belong to the brothers, because she sued during her father's lifetime and he acquired the payments, and after his death they are inherited by his sons, who are her brothers.

If she did not manage to stand in judgment before the father died, then they are her own - if her father died before she sued, he does not acquire the payments, and they are not his to bequeath to his sons. The Gemara deduces this from the passage (Lev. 25:46), "And you may make them an inheritance for your sons after you" - your rights for your sons, and not your daughters rights for your sons; i.e., a person may not bequeath as an inheritance to his sons, rights which the Torah granted him because of his daughter. According to another interpretation, the above law applies only to fines, but "shame" and "pegam," which are monetary restitution, are acquired by the father even before she sued, and can be bequeathed to his sons (Rashi, according to Hameiri and Ramban; see Tosefot Yom Tov).

If she stood in judgment - against the seducer or against the violator, during her father's lifetime, before she became of age, then they - the payments, are the father's - and if the father died - after she sued, then they are the brothers' as was explained above, the father already acquired the payments, and they are bequeathed as an inheritance to his sons.

If she did not manage to stand in judgment before she became of age - and similarly, if she wed before she stood in judgment, then they are her own - since she matured (or wed) before she sued, and was no longer under the jurisdiction of her father, the payments belong to her.

Rabbi Shimon says, even though she sued during her father's lifetime, if she did not manage to collect - the above payments, before the - her - father died, then they are her own - Rabbi Shimon rules that even though she stood in judgment, her father acquires the payments in order to bequeath them to his sons only when they come into his possession, as it is written, "and the man who lay with her shall give to the maiden's father fifty silver" - the father acquires the money only once it is actually given to him. The halakhah does not follow Rabbi Shimon.

Her handiwork - which the na'arah did during her father's lifetime, and what she finds - lost objects which she finds during her father's lifetime, even though she did not collect - the wages for her handiwork, they belong to her father, and therefore, if the father died - then they are the brothers' - since it belongs to the father, he may bequeath it to his sons. The Gemara explains that the mishnah included "and what she finds," even though "collection," does not apply to a lost object, to teach that her handiwork shares the status of what she finds: just as what she finds belongs to her father during his lifetime and after his death to her (and not her brothers) so does also her handiwork belong to her (Ket. 43a).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives