| 51b. יש בהן אחריות נכסים לא יחזיר שבית דין נפרעין מהן,אין בהן אחריות נכסים יחזיר שאין בית דין נפרעין מהן דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לא יחזיר שבית דין נפרעין מהן,רישא ר"מ וסיפא ר' יהודה וכי תימא כולה ר' מאיר היא ושאני ליה לר"מ בין כתובה לשטרי ומי שאני ליה,והתניא חמשה גובין מן המחוררין ואלו הן פירות ושבח פירות והמקבל עליו לזון את בן אשתו ובת אשתו וגט חוב שאין בו אחריות וכתובת אשה שאין בה אחריות,מאן שמעת ליה דאמר אחריות לאו טעות סופר הוא רבי מאיר וקתני כתובת אשה,איבעית אימא ר' מאיר ואיבעית אימא ר' יהודה איבעית אימא ר' יהודה התם כתבה ליה התקבלתי הכא לא כתבה ליה התקבלתי,איבעית אימא ר' מאיר מאי חייב דקתני מן המחוררין:,לא כתב לה וכו': אמר אבוה דשמואל אשת ישראל שנאנסה אסורה לבעלה חיישינן שמא תחלתה באונס וסופה ברצון,איתיביה רב לאבוה דשמואל אם תשתבאי אפרקינך ואותבינך לי לאינתו אישתיק,קרי רב עליה דאבוה דשמואל (איוב כט, ט) שרים עצרו במלים וכף ישימו לפיהם מאי אית ליה למימר בשבויה הקילו,ולאבוה דשמואל אונס דשריא רחמנא היכי משכחת לה כגון דקאמרי עדים שצווחה מתחלה ועד סוף,ופליגא דרבא דאמר רבא כל שתחלתה באונס וסוף ברצון אפי' היא אומרת הניחו לו שאלמלא (לא) נזקק לה היא שוכרתו מותרת מ"ט יצר אלבשה,תניא כוותיה דרבא (במדבר ה, יג) והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת ויש לך אחרת שאע"פ שלא נתפשה מותרת ואיזו זו כל שתחלתה באונס וסופה ברצון,תניא אידך והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת ויש לך אחרת שאע"פ שנתפשה אסורה ואיזו זו אשת כהן,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי ישמעאל והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת ויש לה אחרת שאע"פ שלא נתפשה מותרת ואיזו זו שקידושיה קדושי טעות שאפי' בנה מורכב על כתיפה ממאנת והולכת לה,אמר רב יהודה הני נשי דגנבו גנבי שריין לגוברייהו אמרי ליה רבנן לרב יהודה והא קא ממטיאן להו נהמא מחמת יראה והא קא משלחן להו גירי מחמת יראה ודאי שבקינהו ואזלן מנפשייהו אסירן,ת"ר שבויי מלכות הרי הן כשבויין גנובי ליסטות אינן כשבויין והתניא איפכא,מלכות אמלכות לא קשיא הא במלכות אחשורוש הא במלכות בן נצר,ליסטות אליסטות לא קשיא הא בבן נצר הא בליסטים דעלמא ובן נצר התם קרי ליה מלך והכא קרי ליה לסטים אין גבי אחשורוש לסטים הוא גבי לסטים דעלמא מלך הוא:,ובכהנת אהדרינך למדינתך וכו': אמר אביי אלמנה לכ"ג חייב לפדותה שאני קורא בה ובכהנת אהדרינך למדינתך | 51b. bthey include a property guarantee he may not returnthem to the lender, as he does not know who lost them. It is possible that the debt has already been paid and the documents were returned to the borrower, and he lost them. He may not give them back to the lender even if the borrower admits that he still owes the money, bas the court collectsthe debt bfrompurchasers of the borrower’s property. There is a concern that the borrower has repaid the loan and he is saying that he did not yet repay it because he has conspired with the lender to convince the court to confiscate liened property that the borrower sold, and the lender and borrower will divide the proceeds.,If, however, the documents were of the kind that bdo not include a property guarantee he returns them, asin this case bthe court does not collect frompurchasers of the borrower’s property. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:In bboth thiscase band thatone, bhe may not returnthe promissory notes, bas the court collects frompurchasers of the borrower’s property regardless, as it is assumed that the omission of the property guarantee from a document is merely a scribal error.,If so, bthe first clauseof the mishna here bisin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Meir, and the latter clause isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda. And if you would saythat the bentiremishna bisin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Meir, and there is a difference for Rabbi Meir between a marriage contract andother bdocuments,i.e., the guarantee of a marriage contract applies even if it is omitted but the property guarantee in other contracts does not, bis therereally ba difference for himbetween the two types of documents?, bIsn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bFiveclaims bmay be collectedonly bfrom freeassets, band they are as follows: Produce, and enhancementto the bproduce. Andlikewise, in the case of bone who accepts upon himselfthe duty bto sustain his wife’s son or his wife’s daughterand then dies, they receive their support only from the estate’s free assets. bAndother claims that may be collected only from free assets are ba document of debt that does not includethe clause of property bguarantee, and the marriage contract of a wife that does not includethe clause of property bguarantee. /b,The Gemara reasons: bWhom have you heard saythat omission of the property bguaranteefrom a document bis not a scribal error? Rabbi Meir, andyet the ibaraita bteachesthat the same applies to the bmarriage contract of a wife.This proves that according to Rabbi Meir, there is no difference between a marriage contract and other documents.,The Gemara answers: bIf you wish, saythat the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Meir, and if you wish, saythat it is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda.The Gemara elaborates: bIf you wish, saythat the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda,and bthere,in the other mishna (54b), the case is where bshe wrote to him: I have receivedit, thereby waiving her right to part of the marriage contract. In contrast, bhere, she did not write to him: I have receivedit, and therefore she collects the entire sum from him even if he did not write a marriage contract.,Conversely, bif you wish, saythat the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Meir.According to this interpretation, bwhat isthe meaning of the phrase: He is bobligated, which is taughtin the latter clause of the mishna with regard to the case where the marriage contract did not specify that the husband’s property will serve as a guarantee of his obligations toward his wife? It means that the wife’s claims may be collected only bfrom thehusband’s bfreeassets, i.e., she does not have a lien on his property.,§ The mishna taught that if the husband bdid not write for herthat he would redeem her from captivity and restore her to him, he is nevertheless obligated to do so, as this is a stipulation of the court. bShmuel’s father said: The wife of an Israelite who was raped is forbidden to her husband,as bwe are concernedthat bperhaps herordeal bstarted as rape and ended willingly,i.e., during the act she may have acquiesced, and a married woman who willingly had relations with another man is forbidden to her husband., bRav raised an objection tothe opinion of bShmuel’s fatherfrom the mishna, which states that one of the stipulations of the marriage contract reads: bIf you are taken captive I will redeem you and restore you to me as a wife.This indicates that despite the possibility that she might have been raped during captivity, she remains permitted to her husband if he is not a priest, and there is no concern that she might have ultimately agreed to the act. Shmuel’s father bwas silentand did not respond., bRav recitedthe following verse babout Shmuel’s father: “The princes refrained from talking and laid a hand upon their mouths”(Job 29:9). The Gemara comments: The application of this verse to Shmuel’s father indicates that he refrained from responding despite the fact that an answer was available. But bwhat is there for him to sayin reply? The Gemara answers: He could have said that binthe case of ba captive woman they were lenient.Since it is uncertain whether she was in fact raped during her captivity, the Sages were lenient. However, it is possible that they were more stringent in the case of a woman who was definitely raped.,The Gemara further asks: bAccording to Shmuel’s father, how can you finda case of brape where the Merciful One permitsthe victim to remain married to her husband? It is always possible that she might have ultimately acquiesced. The Gemara answers: bFor example, where witnesses say that she screamedcontinuously bfrom beginning to end. /b,The Gemara comments: bAndShmuel’s father bdisagreeswith the opinion bof Rava. As Rava said:With regard to banycase bthat starts as rape and ends willingly, evenif bsheultimately bsays: Leave him,and she further states bthat if he had notforcibly initiated bintercourse with her, shewould bhave hired himfor intercourse, bshe isnevertheless bpermittedto her husband. bWhat is the reasonfor this? bTheevil binclination took hold of herduring the act, and therefore she is still considered to have engaged in intercourse against her will.,It bis taughtin a ibaraita bin accordance withthe opinion of bRava:The verse states with regard to a isota /i: “And a man lies with her… band she was not taken”(Numbers 5:13). This is referring to a woman who had intercourse but was not taken forcefully, i.e., raped, and therefore bshe is forbiddento her husband. It may be inferred from this that if she bwas takenforcefully, she is bpermittedto him. bAndthe word “she” teaches bthat you havea case of banotherwoman, bwhere even though she was not takenforcefully bshe is permitted. And whichcase bis this? This is anycase bthat starts as rape and ends willingly.Although at the conclusion of the act she was not taken forcefully, she is nevertheless permitted to her husband, as stated by Rava.,A different inference from the same verse bis taughtin banother ibaraita /i: b“And she was not taken”;in this case, the woman bis forbiddento her husband. It may be inferred that if bshe was takenforcefully, bshe is permittedto her husband. bAnd you have anothercase bwhere, even though she was takenforcefully, bshe is forbiddento her husband. bAnd whichcase bis this? This isthe case of bthe wife of a priest,who is forbidden to her husband even if she is the victim of a rape., bRav Yehuda saidanother exposition of this same verse that bShmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: “And she was not taken”;in this case bshe is forbiddento her husband. It may be inferred that if she bwas takenforcefully bshe is permittedto her husband. bAnd there isa case of banotherwoman bwhere, even though she was not takenforcefully, she nevertheless remains bpermitted. And whichcase bis this? Thisis referring btoone bwhose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal, as, even if her sonfrom this marriage bis riding on her shoulders she may refuseto remain with her husband band gooff as pleases bher.Since she was not really married to begin with, an act of intercourse with another man does not render her forbidden to the man with whom she performed a mistaken betrothal., bRav Yehuda said: Those women stolen by kidnappers are permitted to their husbands,as, even if they had intercourse with their captors it is considered rape. bThe Rabbis said to Rav Yehuda: Butwhile they are captives bthey bringtheir kidnappers bbread.This indicates that they are not acting under duress. He replied: They do so bdue to fear.The Rabbis further inquired: bBut they send them arrows.Rav Yehuda again replied: This too is bdue to fear.However, I bcertainlyagree that if the kidnappers bleave them alone, and they goback to them bof their own accord, they are forbiddento their husbands, as it is clear that they are no longer acting out of fear., bThe Sages taught:With regard to women bcaptured by the monarchyfor the purpose of having intercourse with the king, bthey areconsidered to be blike captives,i.e., they are assumed to have been raped but not to have consented to intercourse. However, bthose stolen by bandits are notconsidered to be blike captives,as there is a concern that they might have consented to their captors, thinking that they will marry them. The Gemara raises a difficulty: bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraitathat bthe reverseis the case, i.e., women taken by the monarchy are not classified as captives, whereas this status does apply to those abducted by bandits?,The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the ruling of one ibaraitawith regard to those captured by the bmonarchyand the ruling of the other ibaraitawith regard to those captured by the bmonarchyis bnot difficult: Thisfirst ibaraitais referring bto the monarchy of Ahasuerus,i.e., a powerful king, as the woman is aware that he is merely using her to satisfy his lust and will certainly not marry her, whereas bthatother ibaraitais dealing bwith the monarchy of ben Netzer,a man who established for himself a minor kingdom through robbery and small-scale conquests. It is possible for a woman to suppose that a king like ben Netzer will eventually marry her.,Similarly, the apparent contradiction between the ruling of one ibaraitawith regard to those kidnapped by bbanditsand the ruling of the other ibaraitawith regard to those kidnapped by bbanditsis bnot difficult: Thisfirst ibaraitais referring btothe banditry of bben Netzer,as she might agree to his advances, hoping to become the wife of a king. Conversely, bthatother ibaraitais dealing bwith regular bandits [ ilistim /i],as it can be assumed that the woman did not acquiesce to having intercourse, as, even if he wanted to marry her she would not agree. The Gemara asks: bAndthis bben Netzer,how can it be that bthere he is called a king and here he is called a bandit?The Gemara answers: bYes,when considered balongside Ahasuerus he ismerely ba bandit,but when considered balongside a regular bandit he isdeemed ba king. /b,§ The mishna taught: bAnd inthe case of ba priestess,i.e., the wife of a priest, even if her husband did not write: If you are taken captive bI willredeem you and breturn you to yournative bprovince,he is obligated to do so. bAbaye said:In the case of ba widowwho was married bto a High Priest,although the marriage is prohibited by Torah law, if she is taken captive he is bobligated to redeem her, as I applyto bherthe clause: bAnd inthe case of ba priestess: I will return you to yournative bprovince.Her husband can, and therefore must, fulfill this clause just as he could if he had married a woman who is permitted to him. |
