Ketubot 56 – How much really is the Ketubah payment?

Even though we said that the Ketubah payment is 200 zuz (or about $25,000), yet if the husband wants to increase it a thousand times, he can do so.

If she only received a ring and thus became bound to him, but they have not yet celebrated the marriage with the chuppah and have not started living together, she still already collects the total amount, with the added-on sum, in the event he divorces her or dies. However, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says that in the event of this early dissolution of the marriage, she only gets the 200 zuz. The added amount was promised on the condition of her becoming a full-fledged wife.

What is the logic of the two opinions? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is very clear: a man does not want to give everything away before he has actually enjoyed the benefits of his bride becoming his wife. So we understand his intent. However, the other opinion also guesses his intent differently: why did he add that amount to the 200 zuz? – So that the bride will be suitably disposed toward him and agree to be his wife. This has already been achieved, and therefore he owes the total amount.

Even though Rav Nachman cursed any judge who rules like Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, in practice, the law indeed follows him, and a bride who is divorced before chuppah has a claim to only the standard amount of 200 zuz.

Art: The Bride by Albert Roelofs

Ketubot 35 – A loophole for the death penalty

If one commits an act for which he is liable to pay and also to be executed or given lashes, then he is only given the harsher punishment and does not have to pay. Even if the death penalty or lashes cannot be given due to a technicality, there is a loophole that saves him from payment – this is the opinion of Resh Lakish.

Take, for example, a case of violating his sister. The only way to be punished is to have witnesses tell him shortly before what punishment he will get (lashes). He has to accept it on himself and proceed. Now, if it all happens as described above, he does not have to pay the penalty for violating a virgin. Resh Lakish takes it further: if he was not warned, the lashes are impossible. Still, he does not have to pay since, had they warned him, he would not have to pay.

Rabbi Yochanan, on the other hand, does not accept this loophole. If, after all, they did not warn him so that the stricter punishment cannot be meted out, he has to pay.

Both use the case of “two men fighting and accidentally hitting a pregnant woman, with no fatality” as their source. “No fatality” leads to him paying, but we understand that if there is a fatality, he does not pay, even though he was not warned. What fatality do we mean? – The death of the woman, of course – says Resh Lakish. However, Rabbi Yochanan says that the fatality refers to the man and means that he is sentenced to death. It comes out that if he is not sentenced to death, then he pays, even though there was no warning.

The Talmud then rejects this explanation of the disagreement and provides a different one.

Art: Minna Wasmann, the sister of the artist by Friedrich Wasmann

Ketubot 34 – Liable on two counts – which gives?

Previously we learned about an act that carries two punishments, such as violating one's sister, where he is liable to a penalty for violating a virgin, and lashes for doing it to his sister. We also saw a case of scheming false witnesses, who can get lashes for false testimony but are also liable to money payment if what they wanted to cause to their fellow with their false testimony would be him paying money.

To understand this deeper, let's consider another case: someone steals a sheep or an ox and then slaughters and sells the animal on Shabbat. Typically, one who steals and slaughters pays a special five-fold penalty for the ox and four-fold for the sheep (because, presumably, he carried the sheep on his shoulders, and this humiliation atones for a small part of his penalty).

However, for slaughtering on Shabbat, he deserves stoning. We would expect that he gets the toughest of the punishments and does not have to pay. And yet, Rabbi Meir requires him to pay four- or five-fold. Our solution: he does not slaughter the animal himself; instead, he instructs someone to do it. He is indeed liable for stealing the animal, slaughtering it, and selling the meat, because just as selling is done with the help of another, so can slaughter be done through an agent – but he himself did not violate Shabbat, so he is not stoned. (There is also an explanation for the opinion of the Sages, who do not punish him at all).

Art: The Payment of Dues by Georges de La Tour

Ketubot 33 – Which is worse, torture or death?

Continuing with the subject of money penalty vs. lashes, imagine that two witnesses testify about their fellow that he owes money to someone, and later it transpires that they were scheming false witnesses. On the one hand, they should repay the money which the subject of their testimony would otherwise have lost since the Torah said, “do to them what they schemed to do to their fellow.” On the other hand, they transgressed a very serious prohibition of being false witnesses and perhaps should be given lashes, like for any prohibition on the Torah. Which should apply?

Said Abaye: “We cannot give them lashes because we cannot warn them, and if we do warn them, they will refuse to testify!” Later Abaye disproved himself and said: “They did not warn the man about whom they testified falsely, so they themselves also should not require a warning.” But the fact remains that they pay and are not lashed.

Comparing death with torture, Rav said, “Even though Chananya, Mishael, and Azaryah were ready to give up their lives but not bow down to an idol, had they whipped them, they would bow.” We thus see that when choosing a punishment, the court must consider whiplashes stricter than death. However, Rav Samma, the son of Rav Ashi, said to his father, “That is not the same! The court gives a fixed number of lashes, but the torture continues!” Others read this statement of Rav completely the opposite, as a question: “Even if they tortured them, would they bow down to an idol? -- Surely not!” Under this reading, idol worshiping would be permitted when faced with torture, but Chananya and his friends went beyond the letter of the law.

Art: An old woman counting money for a gentleman by Jan Josef Horemans

Ketubot 32 – Corporal punishment or monetary payment?

If one violates his virgin sister, he pays the 50-shekel payment mentioned earlier. However, when we studied corporal punishment in detail, we said he gets lashes for the same thing!?

In explaining this, Ulla suggested that corporal punishment applies because he violated his sister, who is somewhat grown up, past 12 ½ (no penalty,) and is mentally deranged (no humiliation payment). And yet, she suffers pain! – We conclude that he seduces her (no pain).

Be that as it may, we see that it is crucial for Ulla to defend his principle that if one faces two punishments, lashes and a money payment, he should be given the less severe money penalty. But usually, we give him the more stringent one, on the theory that the punishment is for the correction of his soul. So, where does Ulla get his principle from?

The Talmud tries to derive this from logic (because such a proof would be preferred) but ends up using the comparison based on similar words. The word “tachat” in the sense of “as a compensation for” is used talking about the girl and in the “eye for an eye” – where we know very well that the Torah meant a monetary payment, and not taking his actual eye out.

Art: Sister of the Artist By Christen Kobke

Ketubot 31 – Stealing on Shabbat

Previously we mentioned that if one violates a girl for relations with whom he is liable with his soul, then only this punishment applies. He does not have to pay the penalty of fifty shekalim. However, the prototypical example of this is found on Shabbat, when one steals a purse from a house and then carries it into the street. Since for carrying the load into the street on Shabbat, he is liable to death by the Court, he does not have to pay the penalty for stealing and only has to return the stolen goods. This will apply even if he is not executed, such as if there were no witnesses or no proper warning.

And yet, what are the precise circumstances of his stealing? If he lifts the purse while in the house, he acquires it right then and there, becomes liable to return double, and Shabbat violation – which comes only later, when he crosses the doorstep – would not relieve him of the penalty. The Talmud tries to construct various ways of his walking where this would be true but finds faults with them. The final conclusion is that this applies when he is dragging the purse on the floor since he only acquires it when he crosses the doorstep – and then the Shabbat violation happens simultaneously with stealing.

Art: Still Life With Book And Purse By Gerrit Dou

Ketubot 30 – The logic of punishment

Earlier, we saw that a rapist who violates a girl must pay the penalty and, if she so desires, must marry her without the possibility of divorce unless she grants it. We also said that he still bears the penalty if he cannot marry her because of another prohibition.

However, some say that the Torah only meant for two things to go together, and if he cannot marry her (such as in the case of a girl who is a mamzer), he does not pay the penalty either. He would still pay the regular assault damages. And yet, if he violates a girl who is a niddah, they agree that even though he deserves the punishment of being cut off from the people, he still pays the penalty.

Why should the last be true? We have a rule that when one causes damages but simultaneously puts his soul in danger, he is only given the harsher penalty but is free from repayment!? – That law only applies to actual execution by the court, but not to that by the hand of Heaven.

The last explanation still does not work according to Rabbi Nechunia ben HaKanah, who makes all kinds of danger, whether by the hand of man (court) or Heaven (cut off), the same so that he would not pay the penalty for violation. – True, according to Rabbi Nechunia, he does not pay the penalty for violating a niddah because he puts his soul in danger.

Incidentally, all mishaps that happen to a person are considered by the hand of Heaven, except for illnesses that come from too cold or too hot weather because the person's negligence causes him to become sick.

Art: The sick neighbor By Jozef Israels

Ketubot 29 – Rapist

If one violates a young virgin girl and is caught while doing this, he has to pay a fine of 50 silver shekels (equal to an average dowry, or approximately $25,000). He is also liable to regular damages for assault: pain, humiliation, and depreciation. Furthermore, if she and her father desire, he must marry her and may never divorce her against her will.

This law applies primarily to a young girl who just became a bat mitzvah (12 years) and thus an adult but has not become a more grown-up (12 ½ years). The penalty still applies if he rapes a girl who is a mamzer and whom he is prohibited from marrying. It also applies to all who were converted or ransomed before they were three years of age.

Similarly, if one violates girls prohibited to him on pain of karet (being cut off from the people) – such as his sister, brother's wife divorced before chuppah, or a niddah – the penalty is the same.

Art: Young Girl Reading By Hendricus Jacobus Burger

Ketubot 28 – Childhood memories

An adult can testify in court about his childhood memories, and even though he would not be believed at the time when he saw these events, he is believed now. For example, one can say, “I recognize the handwriting of my father, or teacher or brother, which I saw when I was young,” and he would be believed in court.

Why do we need all three cases? – You might say that he knows his father's handwriting because he is always around his father, but not so for the teacher. Or you might say that he respected his teacher, which is why the teacher's handwriting made a more significant impression on him – and so on – that is why we need to be told that all three testimonies are accepted.

But why, in general, do we believe him? Isn't this a money matter, and we have a rule that all money matters can be established only by the testimony of two adult witnesses; this one was a minor when he saw the signatures? – In truth, confirming signatures is an idea of the Sages. Really we need people who remember the signing event, and people are testifying about that, signatures being just the beginning of the testimony. The Sages thus were able to add leniency to their own law.

In a similar vein, one can testify about a woman that he saw her wedding, and she was coming with a veil and her hair down, as was customary of virgins. Thus, she is entitled to a larger Ketubah payment. Again, why do we believe this kind of a witness in money matters? – Most women marry as virgins, so his testimony reveals to the public that the court's decision is correct.

Art: The Young Bride By Alcide Theophile Robaudi

Ketubot 27 – A siege

If a city was besieged and captured by an army, all women living there who are wives of Kohanim are presumed to have been violated and must leave their husbands. However, if there is a hiding place in the city, then each woman can be presumed to have been hiding there, and thus all women are permitted to remain with their husbands. Also, if she has any one witness, this suffices.

This rule does not seem to agree with another law about soldiers: if a marauding troop came to a city, then in the time of peace, open barrels are prohibited, but closed ones are still permitted – since it is presumed that the soldiers drank from the open ones and made libations. However, at the time of war, all barrels are permitted – because the soldiers do not have time to turn away to wine. We see then that the soldiers are busy with war! – True, they won't have the time for wine, but they will have the time for women.

All of the above is true for the enemy army, but a friendly army will not antagonize the citizens. What about a single marauder of even a friendly army, who may separate from the group and enter a city? – We are talking about a situation where the groups of soldiers see each other, so he can't sneak in unnoticed. And yet, the guards may doze off? – We are talking about a case where the city is surrounded by chains, dogs, spikes, and geese to stop and scare off marauders. Others, however, do not require all these precautions against marauders.

Art: Marauders Attacking Villagers on the Edge of a Wood by Sebastien Vrancx

Ketubot 26 – A woman in prison

If a woman was imprisoned by the idolaters because of money matters – that is, she owed them money – then she is permitted to her husband (the Kohen) after her release. Since by molesting her, they would be found guilty and may forfeit their rights to the money, they would be careful and refrain.

However, if she is imprisoned for a capital crime, she will be forbidden to her husband (the Kohen) if she is released – because the idolaters have nothing to risk and may molest her. A Kohen may not be married to a woman who has illicit relations with an idolater, even against her will. A different way to explain these rulings is in regards to even a husband who is not a Kohen. Here, the suspicion is that she submitted to one of her captors willingly – which would prohibit her for her current husband.

There was a Jewish girl in Ashkelon who pledged herself to idolaters as security for a debt; the loan was not paid, and she temporarily became the property of the idolaters. She was married to a Kohen, and her family distanced her from him and other brothers in case he died. Her servants who testified to the event also testified that she was never secluded and was not violated. The family did not want to believe the servants, but the Sages said, "Either you believe them that she was pledged and also that she is pure, or don't believe them even that she was pledged!" This is another example of the rule, "the mouth that forbids also has the power to permit."

Art: The Artist's Servants by William Hogarth