Ketubot 46: Punishments for Defamers of Betrothed Women; Fathers vs. Husbands Rights

Our Sages stay focused on what is done to a man who accuses his wife of having intercourse with another man after she has been betrothed to her.   He is called a motzi shem ra, one who puts out a bad name - a defamer.

Verbal analogies serve as proof texts for the rabbis.  Might flogging actually refer to monetary payment? The rabbis pull a verse from Leviticus that suggests one might offer half his valuation; this could mean that flogging can be replaced with a fine.  In Deuteronomy 22:18-19, we learn that he will be both chastised and fined.  The rabbis look at the word "chastise" and decide that it could refer to flogging.  They look at the word "fined" and decide that it refers to a monetary payment.

But how do the rabbis know that chastisement is done through flogging and not another action?  Rabbi Abahu argues that the rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18, 25:2), ben, is the same son who deserves, bin, to be flogged.  Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Natan quote two different verses to prove that talebearing is prohibited and thus should be warned about via the punishment of flogging.  In its playfulness, the Gemara goes on to find proof texts that demonstrate why Rabbi Elazar did not chose Rabbi Pinchas's proof and why Rabbi Pinchas did not choose Rabbi Elazar's proof.

We know that the defamer pays the fine and is flogged if he hires witnesses to testify falsely in these cases.  The Gemara discusses whether the defamer pays the fine and is flogged if he merely convinces witnesses to testify falsely.  The rabbis consider a number of proof texts to justify their positions - they consider the word "placing" in two verses and two very different contexts: regarding a defamer and regarding charging interest.  This verbal analogy suggests to the rabbis that the defamer should be fined, regardless of the witnesses' status.

The rabbis then consider what should be done if a defamer charges his wife based on the time between his first marriage to her rather than following their divorce and second betrothal/remarriage. The rabbis discuss how a man might know that his wife has been adulterous if he does not actually have intercourse with her (the rabbis must assume that she would bleed and thus prove - or disprove - her status as a virgin).  In an amazing show of skill with language, the rabbis attempt to find loopholes.  For example, they wonder if "go in unto her", normally translated as meaning having intercourse, could actually refer to conversation.  

Rabbi Yitzĥak bar Rav Ya’akov bar Giyyorei says in the name of Rav Yochanan that there is no reference in all of the Torah that distinguishes between typical and atypical (ie. anal) intercourse when it comes to punishment for forbidden relations.  However, other rabbis teach that the intercourse between husband and wife - and between the wife and her forbidden sexual partner - must be typical intercourse for punishments to be assigned.

A new Mishna teaches us about a father's legal rights over his daughter while she is betrothed.  He has authority over her entrance into betrothal through money, the ketubah, or intercourse.  He owns whatever she finds, her earnings, and the right to nullify her vows.  He acts on her behalf if she divorces after betrothal but before marriage. He inherits her property (inherited from her mother's family) if she dies, but he cannot use the produce of that property while she is alive.

Once she marries, her husband benefits more from her belongings than her father.  He is permitted to consume the produce of her inherited fields (again, from her mother's family) during her lifetime.  He must provide for her sustenance, her redemption, and her burial.  And on that note, Rabbi Yehuda teaches that even the poorest Jew must provide at least two flutes and a lamenting woman for a burial.

The rabbis consider whether or not a father is truly entitled to his daughters earnings.  Earnings are compared with other matters, like money paid for humiliation and degradation, nullification of vows, and fines.  Is her humiliation and degradation equal to that of her father?  Is her humiliation and degradation inflicting the same upon her family as a matter of course?  And how is her husband different from her father?  The rabbis note that a young woman who has not actually married her husband (ie. she is betrothed to him) is only under his authority partially.  She continues to be under the authority of her father, as well.  Thus the nullification of her vows is achieved only when her husband and her father speak the appropriate words together.  

It seems to be extremely important to the rabbis to understand exactly who has rights over a young woman.  Unlike an older woman, who has the right to control at least some of her actions, a young woman is very similar to a maidservant even if she is not sold into that position.