4

In Ketubot 40b the Gemara says that we see that the father gets his daughters (child) embarrassment and degradation payments from the fact that he can marry off his daughter to someone horrible, causing her embarrassment and degradation. Rashi seems to explain that its because he could marry her off to this guy.

But why is he allowed to, if this causes embarrassment and degradation? Shouldn't we say that technically he can marry her off except because of embarrassment and degradation? And why not just say it's the marriage itself to him causes the embarrassment?

||improve this question
  • 1
    since in this regard it is not her embarrassment and degradation it is his (he owns this "part" of his daughter), and he can forgive it – hazoriz Jul 9 '18 at 17:42
  • @hazoriz you can forgive monetary punishment not issur. You can't hit yourself or allow somone to hit you. So the same would apply here. – Orion Jul 9 '18 at 20:47
  • to me it seems more like taking your pants off in public then a hit but you might still have a point – hazoriz Jul 9 '18 at 20:49
  • @hazoriz I'll admit that the exact definition of 'hit' is rather vague. But it seems like anything which can or is intended to cause tzar would be considered a hit. Which this does if she loses her Bissulim. Though you could argue that if she doesn't have bissulim he's allowed to marry her off this way.....Though I would think that embarresment would be like hitting in that you can't forgive it. Either way that would be a case where the father can marry off his daughter causing tzar so since he can in THAT case he we see he has monetary rights on daughters embarresment. – Orion Jul 9 '18 at 20:55
3

The Chasam Sofer answers your question.

He says, based on the mishna 78a, that if she were married off to some horrible person, she can have Beis Din force the husband to divorce her immediately. In that case there would be no degradation, since she had nothing to do with directly.

However, in the case of biah, there is degradation before Beis Din has a chance to get involved.

||improve this answer
  • 2
    How does your answer address the question why the father is allowed to embarrass his daughter? – Al Berko Jul 9 '18 at 14:23
  • 1
    @AlBerko - I answered the original question before it was edited. That question was, Why does Rashi chose Biah over other types of marriage, either way there is degradation? The new question [or the secondary question] is answered correctly by hazoriz's comment , that these rights are given to the father by the Torah. – פרי זהב Jul 9 '18 at 17:58
0

The Gemara search a proof that shame and devaluation aren't payed to the girl, regarding a sexual intercourse

ואימא לדידה

...

אלא מסתברא דאביה הוי דאי בעי מסר לה למנוול ומוכה שחין:

[From the answer, regarding the right of the father to] marry (and to lead her to intercourse, this is mandatory for the regulatory of the Kal Vachomer) his daughter to a unaesthaetic, or a pustulosis illness affected husband (there are examples of shame, Rashi explains that it's a shame for the daughter to be "physically taken" by such a husband). But the Gemara doesn't give an explanation concerning what is the pgam (devaluation).

רש"י Rashi remembers us what is the pgam.

אלא מסתברא - דבושת ופגם דאב הויא שהרי בידו לביישה בבושת בעילה ולפוגמה בפגם בעילה:

The devaluation is to be no more virgin for a further marriage. Remember, Pgam is devaluation, not embarrassment. As the pgam is a result of intercourse, the busha is a result of intercourse.

||improve this answer
  • I not asking what the Pgam is. I'm asking on that rashi, that he shouldn't be allowed to force the girl to have Biah if it should be Assur under the prohibition of hitting,and the prohibition of causing embaressment. So how can that be considered his power to embaress her. – Orion Jul 9 '18 at 15:01
  • There is no shame if there is no bia – kouty Jul 9 '18 at 15:42
  • but that rashi is saying there is Biah and that's the embaressment. – Orion Jul 9 '18 at 15:53
  • You are right. Let's assume that we have an embarrassment with kiddushin. She still staying at the father home in Pumbedisa and he perhaps stays in Sura. What is the shame? – kouty Jul 9 '18 at 16:33
-2

THis is pretty simple indeed, according to the Sages (5 parts of body damages), everything that can be quantified monetary inc. embarrassment (as in damage) and degradation (as in a slave) belongs to her father and he has the full right to do with it as it is his money.

  • Same is true when one rapes a girl - he only gets away paying her father - no criminal offense!

  • Same about a slave - the Torah does not prohibit beating one's slave, it only outlines the monetary responsibilities toward him (see here), also if someone else beats the slave - the master gets paid - there's no prohibition of hurting the slave.

  • Same is true for (sorry to bring it) raping one's wife (as she's somehow subservient to the husband) - there's no explicit prohibitions, only payments.

Of course, there are general guidelines, such as ואהבת לרעך כמוך, the general prohibition of hitting one's fellow, הונאה etc. But no specific prohibition you're looking for.

||improve this answer
  • you misunderstand me. I'm asking two things. A- even if he has monetary rights to something like embarresment it should still be assur. To illustrate if I tell yankel he can have rights to my tzar and then yankel punches me he should still have gotten an issur for causing pain/embaresment. And additionally studying why it didn't fall under the prohibition of hitting your fellow. – Orion Jul 9 '18 at 13:10
  • Please capitalize Hebrew Milim I can hardly understand your Hebrew. Yankel and Tza'ar – Al Berko Jul 9 '18 at 14:15
  • To my best knowledge, as I stated clearly in the answer, even though it is hard for you to accept - the examples I wrote are not criminal offenses as you expected it to be. Torah (Sages) does not prohibit things that can be paid off. Sorry to bring it on you. Don't downvote me for not agreeing with the Torah. – Al Berko Jul 9 '18 at 14:19
  • My last sentence addressed your last question - there are general prohibitions, so you can say, the father didn't love his daughter as his fellow or did הונאה but there's no specific prohibition against it because is is monetary, just as raping one's wife. – Al Berko Jul 9 '18 at 14:20
  • A- I didn't down vote you B- since when can things that can be paid off not considered assur? Like the Yankel case. C- I'm not liking for a specific issur, I'm wondering how rashi/the gemara can say he can do this if it's assur because of stuff like the prohibition of hitting or the prohibition of embarresing another, the first of which IS settled in court, and the latter which means that hes not allowed to do it. Are you saying that because if he ignores other prohibitions and does it it works so we still learn it out? – Orion Jul 9 '18 at 14:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .