Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MOTZI SHEM RA - LASHES AND MONEY

(a) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): R. Yehudah said that he is always stricken - monetarily.

1. Question: Does the Tana really call paying money 'being stricken'?
2. Answer: Yes! A Mishnah teaches, one who says, I pledge half my Erech (fixed value) to Hekdesh, pays half his value; R. Yosi Bar Yehudah says, he is stricken and pays his full value.
3. Question: Why is he lashed?
4. Answer (Rav Papa): He is stricken, that he must pay his full value.

i. This is a decree, on account of one who pledges the value of half of himself.
ii. Since he cannot live without half of himself, he must pay his full value.

(b) (Beraisa): "He will be punished" - monetarily; "They will afflict him" - with lashes.

1. We understand that the punishment is monetary, as the verse continues, "100 silver pieces".
2. Question: How do we know that affliction is lashes?
3. Answer (R. Avahu): We learn "They will afflict" from "They will afflict", and "They will afflict" from "Ben (son)", and "Ben" from "Ben" - "If he is Ben (fitting for) lashes".

(c) Question: Where does the Torah warn not to be Motzi Shem Ra?
(d) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): "Do not go as a talebearer".
(e) Answer #2 (R. Nasan): "Guard yourself from every evil matter".

1. R. Elazar did not learn as R. Nasan - he uses that verse as R. Pinchas Ben Yair.

i. (R. Pinchas Ben Yair): "Guard yourself from every evil matter" - a man should not have thoughts by day and come to impurity at night.

2. R. Nasan did not learn as R. Elazar - he uses "Do not go Rachil (as a talebearer)" to teach that Beis Din should not be Rach (soft) to one litigant and harsh to the other.

(a) (Beraisa): Witnesses testified for him without his request - he is not lashed and does not pay; she and the Adim Zomemim that lied about her are stoned.

1. Objection: It makes no sense that she and the Adim Zomemim are stoned!
2. Correction: She or the Adim Zomemim are stoned.

(b) We infer, had he requested the witnesses to testify for him, he would be punished, even if he did not hire them - this is unlike R. Yehudah.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): He is not culpable unless he hired witnesses.

(c) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
(d) Answer (R. Avahu): It says "Putting" by Motzi Shem Ra, just as by usury.

1. Just as there, it refers to money, here also.

(e) Questions (R. Yirmiyah): What is the law if he hired them for land? For less than a Prutah? Both witnesses for 1 Prutah?
(f) Questions (Rav Ashi): What is the law if he divorces and remarries her, and is Motzi Shem Ra on the first marriage? If a Yavam is Motzi Shem Ra on the marriage of his brother?

1. We can settle the last question.
2. (Beraisa - R. Yonah): "I gave my daughter to this man" - to this man, not to a Yavam.

(a) Question: What is the dispute of R. Elazar Ben Yakov and Chachamim?
(b) Answer (Beraisa): Motzi Shem Ra is when a man says, I found that your daughter is not a virgin. If witnesses say that she had adultery, her Kesuvah is 100.

1. Objection: If she had adultery, why does she have a Kesuvah - she is stoned!
2. Correction: If witnesses say that she had adultery, she is stoned; if they say that she had relations before engagement, her Kesuvah is 100.

(c) If his accusation was false, he is lashed and pays 100 Sela'im, whether or not he had relations with her;
(d) R. Elazar Ben Yakov says, this was only said (lashes and a fine) if he had relations with her.
(e) We understand, according to R. Elazar Ben Yakov, "*Uva* (lit., he came - this word connotes relations) to her", "I drew close to her".

1. Question: How do Chachamim explain these verses?
2. Answer: He came - with accusations; I drew close - with words.

(f) We understand, according to R. Elazar Ben Yakov, "I did not find your daughter to be a virgin".

1. Question: How do Chachamim explain this?
2. Answer: I did not find witnesses that disprove the witnesses who say she had adultery.

(g) We understand, according to R. Elazar Ben Yakov, "They will spread the sheet (on which they had relations, to check for virginal blood).

1. Question: How do Chachamim explain this?
2. Answer (R. Avahu): They will clarify (the accusations) he put on her.

i. (Beraisa): "They will spread the sheet" - the witnesses for each side come, and they make the matter as clear as a new sheet;
ii. R. Elazar Ben Yakov says, the verse is understood simply, a sheet.

(h) (R. Yitzchak Bar Rav Yakov): Even though the Torah never distinguishes between normal and abnormal relations regarding lashes or punishments, it does distinguish by Motzi Shem Ra - the husband is only punished if he had relations (even) abnormally, and claims that she had relations with the adulterer normally.
(i) Question: As whom does R. Yitzchak hold?

1. If as Chachamim - even if he didn't have relations with her!
2. If as R. Elazar Ben Yakov - he also must have normal relations with her!

(j) Correction (Rav Kahana): He is only punished if he had normal relations, and claims that she had normal relations with the adulterer.

(a) (Mishnah): A father has rights to engage his daughter (and keep the money) through money, a document, or relations;
(b) He receives objects she finds and her earnings;
(c) He may annul her vows, and receive a document of divorced from her husband (during engagement);
(d) He does *not* eat the produce of her property in her lifetime;
(e) If she gets married, her husband has a privilege above what a father has - he eats the produce of her property in her lifetime;
(f) The husband is obligated to feed, redeem and bury her; R. Yehudah says, even the poorest Yisrael must get 2 flutists and a woman to arouse the wailing.
(g) (Gemara) Question: How do we know that he receives the engagement money?
(h) Answer (Rav Yehudah): "She will leave free, there is no money" - this master (of a slave who goes free when she becomes a Na'arah) does not receive money, but another master receives money - her father.
(i) Question: Say that she receives the money!
(j) Answer: The father engages her - "I gave my daughter to this man" - is it reasonable that she keeps the money?!
(k) Question: Perhaps this only applies to a minor, that cannot engage herself - but a Na'arah, that is able to engage herself - let her engage herself and keep the money!
(l) Answer #1: "Being a Na'arah in her father's house" - all profits of a Na'arah go to her father.

1. Objection: Rav Huna learned that her earnings go to her father from "When a man will sell his daughter as a slave" - just as a slave's earnings go to her master, a girl's earnings go to her father.

i. Why couldn't he learn from "A Na'arah in her father's house"?
ii. We must say, that verse only talks about annulling vows.

2. Suggestion: Let us learn that the father gets her engagement money, just as he can annul her vows!
3. Rejection: We do not learn monetary laws from non-monetary laws.
4. Suggestion: The father receives the fine for one who rapes or entices her - let us learn from this!
5. Rejection: We do not learn monetary laws from fines.
6. Suggestion: The father receives the payments for embarrassment and blemish let us learn from this!
7. Rejection: Those are different, since they affect him.

(m) Answer #2: When a slave leaves her master, no money goes to the master she leaves - the implication is that in a similar case (engagement), money goes to the master she leaves - her father.
(n) Objection: These are not comparable! A slave entirely leaves her master - but an engaged girl doesn't leave her father until Chupah!
(o) Answer: She does leave his jurisdiction regarding vows.

1. (Mishnah): An engaged Na'arah, her father and husband jointly annul her vows.

(p) (Mishnah): The father can engage her via a document or relations.

1. We learn this from "She will be (engaged) to another man" - all methods of engagement are equated.

(q) (Mishnah): He merits objects she finds.