Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah cites Rebbi Elazar, who obligates someone who rapes a Yesomah who was divorced after having been betrothed, to pay K'nas. Rebbi Elazar's statement is superfluous the way it stands - because there is no reason for him to be Patur (and therefore no Chidush in saying that he is Chayav).

(b) What he really means to say is - that the K'nas of a girl who was divorced after having been betrothed, like that of a Yesomah, goes to her (and not to her father).

(c) In fact, says Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Elazar follows the opinion of his Rebbe - Rebbi Akiva, who taught this in the Mishnah on 38a.

(d) In the equivalent case with regard to a seducer - the Tana rules that he is Patur (because her seduction is considered as if she had foregone her claim).

(a) Rav, who is quoted as saying that the Halachah is like Rebbi Elazar, also described him as 'Tuvina da'Chakimi' - meaning the most praiseworthy of the Chachamim (because Yonasan translates "Ashrei" as "Tuva'i").

(b) The Amora (Rebbi Yochanan's disciple, known as 'the Master of Eretz Yisrael'), is Rebbi Elazar ben P'das. The full name of the Tana currently under discussion - is Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua.

(a) Boshes is not fixed, but depends on the status of both the person who is being shamed and who is doing the shaming. Beis-Din form the scale with regard to ...

1. ... the person who was doing the shaming - by assessing the shaming of an ordinary person higher than both that of a person of low status and of a person of high standing.
2. ... the person being shamed - the more important he is, the greater the shame.

(b) They would view the girl who was being shamed - as if she was a slave-girl being sold on the market (the difference between her initial value and her current value - this will be explained further later in the Sugya).

(c) K'nas is equal in all cases. The principle that governs this statement - is - that whenever the Torah specifies a standard payment, that payment cuts right across the board.

4)

(a) Rebbi Zeira explains that the fifty Shekalim K'nas cannot incorporate Boshes and P'gam, because it is not feasible for the Torah not to make a distinction between a princess who was raped and a girl of low status. Abaye queries Rebbi Zeira's proof from the Din of an ox that killed an Eved - where the owner has to pay thirty Shekalim irrespective of whether the Eved is a diamond-cutter or a tailor (and there is no Boshes or P'gam there). Consequently, it could well be that when it comes to cases of K'nas, the Torah makes no distinction between people of different classes.

(b) So we scrap the contention that status should make any difference. Rebbi Zeira's proof (that Boshes and P'gam must be an independent obligation - and not part of the K'nas) is from a case of two people, one of whom raped a girl naturally and the other, unnaturally - but in the reverse order (the latter one, first - otherwise she would no longer be considered a Besulah). Now if Boshes and P'gam were included in K'nas, argues Rebbi Zeira, how could the Torah not differentiate between a complete Besulah and one whose Besulim has been defected?

(c) Abaye counters this proof too - by pointing out that in the case of an ox that gores an Eved too, the owner has to pay thirty Shekalim, irrespective of whether the Eved is healthy or sick.

(d) So Abaye himself proves the point from the Pasuk "Tachas Asher Inah" - implying that the fifty Shekalim is payment for the affliction of the Bi'ah, but that there are payments that he is obligated to make.

(a) Rava learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Nasan ha'Ish ha'Shochev Imah la'Avi ha'Na'arah Chamishim Kesef" - implying that the fifty Shekalim is payment for the Bi'ah only, but that there are other payments that must be made.

(b) We try to prove that the Boshes and the P'gam go to the father, from the Pasuk (written in connection with Nedarim) "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - by Darshening 'Kol Sh'vach Ne'urim le'Avihah' (all benefits that come to a Na'arah go to her father).

(c) Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yimkor Ish es *Bito le'Amah*" - that the proceeds for the sale of a man's daughter belongs to the father, just like the work of a servant-girl belong to her master.

(d) Rav Huna's D'rashah disproves the D'rashah that we just made from the Pasuk "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - because if *that* D'rashah was genuine, then why would Rav Huna need a special Pasuk for the proceeds of the sale of a man's daughter? Why not learn that too, from "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah"?

(a) We cannot learn that Boshes and P'gam belong to the girl's father from ...

1. ... "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - because that Pasuk is written in connection with Nedarim, and we cannot learn Mamon from Isur.
2. ... K'nas, which as we see, also goes to the father - because neither can we learn Mamon from K'nas (which is a Chidush).

(b) So in fact - we learn that Boshes and P'gam belong to the father (and not to the girl herself) from a S'vara, from the fact that the father has the right to shame her and to cause her to become defected, by giving her to an ugly man or to a leper.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that we reckon P'gam by detracting the girl's sale-value after the rape from her value before it. This cannot be referring to her value as a slave - because the fact that she was raped would not affect her value as a slave by one iota.

(b) We initially object to the suggestion that it is referring to her value as a 'wife' for the owner's slave - because why would a master care about making his slave satisfied?

(c) We conclude - that it is indeed referring to her value as a 'wife' for the owner's slave, a slave whom he wishes to repay for giving him a lot of Naches.

(a) The author of our Mishnah, which states that a girl who can be sold is not subject to K'nas and vice-versa - is Rebbi Meir, who holds that a Ketanah is not subject to K'nas.

(b) The Chachamim say - that a Ketanah is subject to K'nas.

(c) She can neither be sold nor is she subject to K'nas - the moment she becomes a Bogeres.

(a) According to Rav Chisda, Rebbi Meir learns his opinion from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sihyeh le'Ishah" - implying a girl who is able to make herself his wife (which a Ketanah is not).

(b) The Rabbanan, says Resh Lakish, learn their opinion from the word Na'arah itself - because it is written without a 'Hey'.

(a) When Rav Papa B'rei de'Rav Chanan told this to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, he claimed to have heard Resh Lakish's statement in connection with the Pasuk on Motzi Shem Ra "ve'Nasnu la'Avi ha'Na'arah ... ". Resh Lakish actually said there - that, since the Torah wrote "Na'arah" with a 'Hey', it is referring specifically to a Na'arah (and not to a Ketanah).

(b) We cannot extrapolate from Resh Lakish's statement that, had the Torah not written Na'arah with a 'Hey', we would have extended the Din of Motzi Shem Ra to a Ketanah - because the Torah writes there that, if the husband's accusation is verified, the girl must be stoned (and a Ketanah is not punishable).

(c) What we do extrapolate from it however - is that in places where the Torah writes "Na'arah" without a 'Hey', it comes to include a Ketanah (which Resh Lakish in the first Lashon learned from "Na'arah" of K'nas).