Introduction
This week’s daf begins analyzing the mishnah we concluded with last week.
The Talmud claims that the mishnah we learned at the end of last week’s daf seems to teach basically the same information that we learned in a mishnah appearing on daf 39—that the seducer pays compensation for embarrassment, blemish and the fine and the rapist also pays for the pain. So the only new information we learn in this Mishnah is that the father receives the payments.
It is even obvious that the payments go to the father. This is because we know that the seducer must make payment even though he acted with her consent. It would not make sense for him to pay her since she was a willing party. Therefore, it is obvious that the payments belong to the father. So we are still searching for a mishnah
The final answer is that the mishnah was necessary to teach us the dispute between R. Shimon and the other rabbis. The rabbis hold that if the father dies before he collects these payments, they belong to her brothers. R. Shimon holds that she receives the money.
Introduction
Today’s section begins with a mishnah from Shevuot. My commentary is basically taken from Mishnah Yomit Shevuot 5:4. Shevuot is about the consequences of making a false oath.
This mishnah teaches that in order for one who makes a false oath to be liable to bring a sacrifice he must deny something to which if he had admitted would have caused him to be liable. Since he is not liable to pay a fine for a self-admission, he is not liable if he denies owing a fine. He is liable only if he denies owing something which is considered financial compensation.
In the scenario in our mishnah a man approaches another man and accuses him of having raped or seduced his daughter and therefore owing him the 50 shekels, plus the other penalties we have learned about in the earlier mishnayot. The person responds that he didn’t do so, and then when the claimant adjures him (makes him take an oath), he affirms the adjuration. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, when he admits that he did in fact rape or seduce the other man’s daughter, he will be liable for a sacrifice for his false oath. Of course he will also be obligated to pay the fine and the other financial penalties.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees. Since there is a rule in Jewish law, that one who admits to a crime does not have to pay the fine for having done so, even if this person had admitted to having raped or seduced the daughter, he would not have been obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, there was no denial of money, and the laws of the oath of deposit do not apply.
The Sages respond to Rabbi Shimon that although one who admits to a crime does not have to pay a fine, he does have to pay compensatory damages, which in this case include the payment for embarrassment and the payment for having decreased her value (blemish). Since if he had admitted he would have had to pay, he did deny money, and is therefore liable for having sworn a false oath of deposit.
Introduction
Today’s section discusses the mishnah from Shevuot.
In the mishnah from Shevuot, R. Shimon said that if the person falsely denies raping or seducing and then takes an oath and then admits that he was lying, he does not bring a sacrifice because even if he did admit to having raped or seduced he would not be liable to pay the fine. A person is not liable to pay a fine if the only evidence that he committed the crime was his admission.
Abaye presents a more complicated scenario. The accusation is not just that he raped or seduced, but that he was convicted and ordered to pay money and the accused denied even having been convicted. The question really is—if a person admits to having been convicted of having to pay a fine, is he obligated to pay that fine. If so, he would have to bring the sacrifice if he denies the crime. Or is he not obligated, just as one who admits to having committed a crime that makes him liable for a fine is not obligated to pay that fine.
Rabbah answers that since he has been tried and convicted, it is a monetary obligation and he must bring a sacrifice for his false oath. What this also means is that if a person admits to having been convicted of owing a fine, he must pay that fine. The idea is that once he was convicted, he has a debt to pay the fine. So he is really admitting to owing a debt. This is different from admitting to having committed a crime for which one owes a fine in the first place, which is really a form of self-incrimination and is therefore not accepted.
Introduction
In yesterday’s section Rabbah stated that if person swore that he had not been convicted in court of a crime for which he is liable for a fine, and then he admitted that he had been convicted, he must bring the sacrifice for a false oath. This is because this is not considered admitting to a fine. It is considered admitting to being convicted of owing money for having been convicted of a crime. Today’s section continues to deal with this subject. This is a complicated section, so beware.
This baraita lists several halakhot that are fines 1) Rape or seduction; 2) Killing a slave—the payment is 30 shekels, no matter how much the slave is worth; 3) Knocking out the tooth or putting out the eye of a slave—the slave goes free. Note that in none of these cases is there a quid pro quo evaluation of the damage done. The fine or freedom for the slave is not necessarily equivalent to the damage done. If a person swore falsely that he had not done one of these crimes and then admitted to his false oath he is not liable to bring a sacrifice. This is because these are not like the cases listed in the Torah which are all compensation. For instance if one denies that one took a deposit from someone else and then admits that he did, he owes whatever the value of that deposit is. These are called “compensation” (literally money).