Ketubot 42: More on Fines, Payments, Monetary Obligations

Yesterday's daf ended with a Mishna regarding the money owed to a woman.  Her father or his heirs (her brothers) have rights to that money if the decision to award it was made before her father's death.  Our Gemara begins by questioning the need for this Mishna after we have already learned about punishments for seduction and for rape.

The remainder of amud (a) considers what should be done if a father accuses a man of seducing or raping his daughter.  In the first discussions, the accused denies the accusation. The father of the woman victimize then administers an oath.  Responding with "amen", the accused confirms that he did indeed commit this crime.  He then pays the fine for rape or seduction plus one fifth, and he brings a guilt-offering for swearing falsely.

In the second discussion, the father accuses a man of the rape or seduction of his daughter, of going to court and being found guilty of the crime, and of not paying the penalty.  In this case, again an oath is administered.  With his response of "amen", the accused must pay the penalty.  But in this case, is the penalty a monetary penalty or a fine?  Fines are not valid in cases of rape or seduction, but other monetary penalties are appropriate.  The rabbis compare this situation to that of other instances of damaging property through theft, the violent acts of one's animal, and oppressing one's neighbour.

Amud (b) questions whether or not the accused actually stood trial in the original baraita.  This factor might help the rabbis determine the monetary penalty in each specific case.  Rabba and Rabbi Yosef argued for twenty-two years about to whom the money for a daughter's rape or seduction might be owed.  

Eventually both scholars were able to find a way to agree to a resolution.  They found an interpretation that incorporated both of their opinions.  In figuring this out, the rabbis had to examine the word "give" in the directive to "give the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver" (Deuteronomy 22:29).  The time of the giving was the time that the money was to be paid to the father. After the father's death would be after the time of 'giving' and so the money would be paid to the victim.  Again, fines are different from other monetary payments.

The rules regarding fines, payments, monetary obligations... they are confusing to being but as we use cases to bump up against them these rules become even more perplexing.   Having said that, I am confident that the logic is quite clear and concise.  I'm simply missing some of the larger pieces.