A difficult daf. We begin by determining how different factors influence each other. The example used is a man who rapes his sister. Forced intercourse is one factor. Intercourse with a forbidden relation is another factor. Other factors include the age of the woman (if she is a girl, her father gets a fine, but a woman gets no fine), whether or not she is classified as an 'imbecile' (in which case she gets no fine for no money is lost as she can't be sold as a maidservant), whether or not she was actually raped or seduced (in which case she gets no fine for 'pain'), whether or not she was an orphan (in which case the fine, if there is a fine, goes directly to her), whether or not she experienced humiliation and degradation (which are punishable by fines), or whether or not the perpetrator was forewarned about the consequences of his crime. As well, the rabbis note that there is an argument regarding flogging/lashes in addition to monetary fines for this offence.
The Gemara explains the basic halachot around one who injures another. There are five types of indemnity: injury, pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation. And there is a complex interaction between more lenient and more stringent punishments; whether or not perpetrators can be liable for both monetary and physical punishments. The commentary describes our rabbis' opinions regarding which of these indemnities should be considered regarding the crime of rape. Depending on the situation, but often the perpetrator pays the fine, degradation,(like injury), pain, and humiliation. There is an argument by Rashi regarding whether or not a rapist must pay medical expenses. Did the medical cost or the livelihood loss result from the injury? or the rape itself? These very legal arguments regarding rape without any consultation of women are challenging to read. However, it is more satisfying to learn about rape as a crime than as a form of bethrothal/engagement.
Ulla speaks about conspiring witnesses. They are liable to pay money and to receive lashes (for violating Exodus 20:12, You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour". Further, they do not require forewarning for these punishments to be administered. The leniency in the case of conspiring witnesses is 'insignificant' but meaningful: in just speaking and not 'acting', their crime could have been worse! Ulla compares these cases' similar leniencies and stringencies. Another connection is the word tachat, 'because of' or 'for'. This word is used in Exodus 21:24, "an eye for and eye" in payment for an injury, and in Deuteronomy 22:29, where payment is made by a rapist as he takes his victim as a wife "because he tormented her" - payment for an injury.
The Gemara introduces a number of principles regarding competing liabilities. The rabbis introduce a number of different circumstances. In each circumstance, they explain which punishment takes precedence and why. Part of the complexity of this learning is due to the numerous cases, principles, and intervening factors that intersect.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment