Pisqa’ 244214H:249-250;JN2:165-167. 1. “Should a man find a virginal young lady,215Heb: na`arah betulah; cf.H: 473, Pisqa’ 244, n.6.” (Dt.22:28)— Virginal is mentioned here in a case of rape (Dt.22:28). and virginal is mentioned elsewhere in a case of seduction (Ex.22:15). Just as in the grave crime of rape, he is obliged only to [compensate the father of] a virginal young lady, isn’t it only logical that, in the lesser crime of seduction, he should be obliged only [to compensate the father of] the virginal young lady [instead of marrying her (Ex.22:15)] ?216Cf. Mechilta Ishmael, neziqin, 17. Now, let’s reverse the logic: If, in the lesser crime of seduction, the seducer is indeed obliged [to dower and marry the young lady (Ex.22:15)], whether or not [after seduction] she remains virginal, isn’t it only logical that, in the grave crime of rape, the rapist should be obliged [to compensate the father of] a virginal young lady as well as [the father of] a young lady who has not remained virginal? What, then, does the Teaching add by saying “Virginal” (Dt.22:28)? The rule applies to her rape. 2. Is it possible to say that we should not compensate the father, [whose daughter has been raped,] but only compensate the daughter? The Teaching states: “Virginal” (Dt:22:28)— excluding a woman who has already been mounted [prior to the rape].217Cf. Mechilta Ishmael, neziqin, 17. Now I might infer only that the rule applies to a woman who has already been mounted. How do I know about a woman who was struck by a stick? The Teaching states: “Virginal” (Dt.22:28)— this is to exclude from the rule one struck by a stick.218Cf. T. Ket. 3:5. 3. Here, [regarding the rape-victim,] it is stated: “Who is not betrothed” (Dt.22:28), and it is stated elsewhere, of the seduced: “Who is not betrothed” (Ex.22:15)— Just as in the grave crime of rape, the rapist is not obliged [to compensate] a betrothed woman who was expelled [from the betrothal prior to the rape], So, too, in the lesser crime of seduction— isn’t it only logical that the seducer should not be obliged [to compensate] A betrothed woman who was expelled [from the betrothal prior to the seduction]? 219According to M. Ket.3:4, a victim of seduction is compensated in three ways: for shame, disfigurement, and payment of a fine of 50 silver sheqels. The rape victim, receives these three, in addition to compensation for pain. Cf. M. Ket.3:7. Now, let’s reverse the logic: Just as in the lesser crime of seduction, we note that the seducer is obliged [to compensate] a betrothed woman who was expelled [from the betrothal prior to the rape,] isn’t it only logical that, in the grave crime of rape, he should also be obliged [to compensate]? What, then, does the Teaching add by [stressing the phrase:] “Who is not betrothed” (Dt.22:28)? The rule applies to rape [rather than to seduction]. Is it possible to say that we should not compensate the father, but only compensate the victim? The Teaching states two times: “Who is not betrothed” (Dt.22:28) and “who is not betrothed” (Ex.22:15)— Thus, neither she nor her father is due compensation.4. Here, [in the case of rape,] The term, young lady, appears (Dt.22:28), while it does not appear in the case of seduction (Ex.22:15). Just as in the severe crime of rape, the rapist is obliged [to marry the victim] only if she is a young lady, isn’t it only logical that in the lesser crime of seduction, the seducer should be obliged [to marry the victim] only if she is a young lady? Now, let’s reverse the logic: Just as in the lesser crime of seduction, we note that the seducer is obliged [to marry the victim,] whether or not she is still a young lady— isn’t it only logical that, in the grave crime of rape, the rapist should be obliged [to marry the victim] whether or not she is still a young lady? The Teaching states: “And the man who beds her shall give to the father of the young lady” (Dt.22:29)— but not to the father of an adult woman.4. Now, isn’t this a matter of logic? For, just as in the severe crime of rape— the rapist owes nothing [to the father], on account of the rape of an adult daughter— So, too, where the lesser crime of seduction is committed, isn’t it only logical that the seducer owes nothing [to the father]? Now there’s no reversing this logic! For, indeed, the term, young lady, has already been mentioned twice (Dt.22:28, Dt.22:29)
2
וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ, כָּל שְׁכִיבָה.
“And he beds her down” — Any kind of “bedding down.”
3
וְנִמְצָאוּ, בְּעֵדִים.
“And they are discovered” (Dt.22:28)— that is, by witnesses.
(דברים כב כח) כִּי יִמְצָא אִישׁ נַעֲרָה בְּתוּלָה, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בְּתוּלָה וְנֶאֱמַר בְּתוּלָה בַּמְפַתֶּה, מָה אוֹנֵס חָמוּר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל בְּתוּלָה, מְפַתֶּה הַקַּל אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל בְּתוּלָה? אוֹ חִלּוּף, אִם מְפַתֶּה הַקַּל הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב עַל בְּתוּלָה וְעַל שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּתוּלָה, אוֹנֵס חָמוּר אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב עַל הַבְּתוּלָה וְעַל שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּתוּלָה? מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בְּתוּלָה בָּאוֹנֵס? שֶׁיָּכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא נוֹתֵן לְאָבִיהָ אֲבָל יְהֵא נוֹתֵן לָהּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּתוּלָה פְּרָט לִבְעוּלָה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּעוּלָה, מֻכַּת עֵץ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּתוּלָה פְּרָט לְמֻכַּת עֵץ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה וְנֶאֱמַר בַּמְפַתֶּה ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה״, מָה אוֹנֵס חָמוּר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה, מְפַתֶּה הַקַּל אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חַיָּב עַל שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה? אוֹ חִלּוּף, מָה אִם מְפַתֶּה הַקַּל הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב עַל שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה, אוֹנֵס חָמוּר אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב עַל שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה? מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה בָּאוֹנֵס? שֶׁיָּכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא נוֹתֵן לְאָבִיהָ אֲבָל יְהֵא נוֹתֵן לָהּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא נוֹתֵן לֹא לָהּ וְלֹא לְאָבִיהָ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן נַעֲרָה וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר נַעֲרָה בַּמְפַתֶּה, מָה אוֹנֵס חָמוּר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל הַנַּעֲרָה, מְפַתֶּה הַקַּל אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל הַנַּעֲרָה? אוֹ חִלּוּף, מָה מְפַתֶּה הַקַּל הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב עַל נַעֲרָה וְעַל שֶׁאֵינָהּ נַעֲרָה, אוֹנֵס חָמוּר אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב עַל נַעֲרָה וְעַל שֶׁאֵינָהּ נַעֲרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְנָתַן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה וְלֹא לַאֲבִי הַבּוֹגֶרֶת. וַהֲלֹא דְבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר, וּמָה אוֹנֵס חָמוּר אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הַבּוֹגֶרֶת, מְפַתֶּה הַקַּל אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חַיָּב עַל הַבּוֹגֶרֶת? לְהַחֲלִיף אֶת הַדִּין אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר נַעֲרָה נַעֲרָה שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים.
Pisqa’ 244214H:249-250;JN2:165-167.
1. “Should a man find a virginal young lady,215Heb: na`arah betulah; cf.H: 473, Pisqa’ 244, n.6.” (Dt.22:28)—
Virginal is mentioned here in a case of rape (Dt.22:28).
and virginal is mentioned elsewhere in a case of seduction (Ex.22:15).
Just as in the grave crime of rape,
he is obliged only to
[compensate the father of]
a virginal young lady,
isn’t it only logical that,
in the lesser crime of seduction,
he should be obliged only
[to compensate the father of]
the virginal young lady
[instead of marrying her (Ex.22:15)] ?216Cf. Mechilta Ishmael, neziqin, 17.
Now, let’s reverse the logic:
If, in the lesser crime of seduction,
the seducer is indeed obliged
[to dower and marry the young lady (Ex.22:15)],
whether or not [after seduction] she
remains virginal,
isn’t it only logical that,
in the grave crime of rape,
the rapist should be obliged
[to compensate the father of]
a virginal young lady
as well as [the father of] a young lady
who has not remained virginal?
What, then, does the Teaching add by saying
“Virginal” (Dt.22:28)?
The rule applies to her rape.
2. Is it possible to say that
we should not compensate the father,
[whose daughter has been raped,]
but only compensate the daughter?
The Teaching states:
“Virginal” (Dt:22:28)—
excluding a woman who has already been mounted
[prior to the rape].217Cf. Mechilta Ishmael, neziqin, 17.
Now I might infer only that
the rule applies to a woman who has
already been mounted.
How do I know about a woman
who was struck by a stick?
The Teaching states:
“Virginal” (Dt.22:28)—
this is to exclude from the rule
one struck by a stick.218Cf. T. Ket. 3:5.
3. Here, [regarding the rape-victim,] it is stated:
“Who is not betrothed” (Dt.22:28),
and it is stated elsewhere, of the seduced:
“Who is not betrothed” (Ex.22:15)—
Just as in the grave crime of rape,
the rapist is not obliged [to compensate]
a betrothed woman who was expelled
[from the betrothal prior to the rape],
So, too, in the lesser crime of seduction—
isn’t it only logical that
the seducer should not be obliged [to compensate]
A betrothed woman who was expelled
[from the betrothal prior to the seduction]? 219According to M. Ket.3:4, a victim of seduction is compensated in three ways: for shame, disfigurement, and payment of a fine of 50 silver sheqels. The rape victim, receives these three, in addition to compensation for pain. Cf. M. Ket.3:7.
Now, let’s reverse the logic:
Just as in the lesser crime of seduction,
we note that the seducer is obliged [to compensate]
a betrothed woman who was expelled
[from the betrothal prior to the rape,]
isn’t it only logical that,
in the grave crime of rape,
he should also be obliged [to compensate]?
What, then, does the Teaching add by
[stressing the phrase:]
“Who is not betrothed” (Dt.22:28)?
The rule applies to rape
[rather than to seduction].
Is it possible to say that
we should not compensate the father,
but only compensate the victim?
The Teaching states two times:
“Who is not betrothed” (Dt.22:28)
and “who is not betrothed” (Ex.22:15)—
Thus, neither she nor her father is due compensation.4. Here, [in the case of rape,]
The term, young lady, appears (Dt.22:28),
while it does not appear
in the case of seduction (Ex.22:15).
Just as in the severe crime of rape,
the rapist is obliged [to marry the victim]
only if she is a young lady,
isn’t it only logical that
in the lesser crime of seduction,
the seducer should be obliged [to marry the victim]
only if she is a young lady?
Now, let’s reverse the logic:
Just as in the lesser crime of seduction,
we note that the seducer is obliged
[to marry the victim,]
whether or not she is still a young lady—
isn’t it only logical that,
in the grave crime of rape,
the rapist should be obliged
[to marry the victim]
whether or not she is still a young lady?
The Teaching states:
“And the man who beds her shall give to the father of the young lady” (Dt.22:29)—
but not to the father of an adult woman.4. Now, isn’t this a matter of logic?
For, just as in the severe crime of rape—
the rapist owes nothing [to the father],
on account of the rape of an adult daughter—
So, too, where the lesser crime
of seduction is committed,
isn’t it only logical that
the seducer owes nothing [to the father]?
Now there’s no reversing this logic!
For, indeed, the term, young lady,
has already been mentioned twice (Dt.22:28, Dt.22:29)
וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ, כָּל שְׁכִיבָה.
“And he beds her down” —
Any kind of “bedding down.”
וְנִמְצָאוּ, בְּעֵדִים.
“And they are discovered” (Dt.22:28)—
that is, by witnesses.