Rabba and Rav Yosef debate today’s topic for 22 years TB Ketubot 42

Today we bring in the fourth chapter of our massekhet. The fourth chapter actually begins at the very bottom of yesterday’s daf and continues on today’s daf TB Ketubot 42. We have learned previously that a seducer or rapist admitting to the seduction or the rape can absolve himself of the payment of the fine (קנס) which is a punitive. There is a time limit to which the seducer or rapist may take advantage of this confession. According to the sages, he may take advantage of this confession only up to the point when the woman’s court case is adjudicated (עָמְדָה בַּדִּין). If he confesses after the case is adjudicated, he is still obligated to pay the fine. According to Rabbi Shimon he has up to the time the fine is collected to confess and absolve himself of that payment.

Before we can appreciate the dilemma that Abaye raises to Rabba, we need to know some background information. If a person denies that he owes money to another person, takes an oath to that effect, and then confesses that he lied, he is obligated to do three things. 1, He must pay back the principal i.e. the money he stole by lying. 2, He must pay a fine of 25% of the total. 3, He must offer a guilt sacrifice (אשם גזלה) when there is a denial of a monetary obligation.

“In light of this mishna (from massekhet Shavuot-gg), Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: With regard to one who says to another: You raped my daughter, or: You seduced my daughter, and I made you stand in judgment for your actions, and you were found obligated to pay me money but you did not do so, and the defendant says: I did not rape, or: I did not seduce, and you did not make me stand in judgment, and I was not found obligated to pay you money, and the defendant took an oath that he was telling the truth and subsequently admitted his guilt, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, what is the halakha?

“Abaye explains the two sides of the dilemma: Since he stood trial and was found liable, is this considered a regular monetary obligation, and therefore he is liable to bring the offering for taking a false oath to deny a monetary claim? Or perhaps one can argue that although he stood trial and the court ordered him to pay, the payment is in essence a fine. Rabba said to him: Since he has already stood trial, it is considered a regular monetary payment, and he is liable to bring the offering of an oath.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Abaye challenges Rabba’s answer by citing him today’s Mishna.

“Abaye raised an objection to this last point from the mishna. Rabbi Shimon says: If the daughter did not manage to collect the payments before the father died, they belong to her. And if you say that this fine is a monetary payment to the extent that one can bequeath it to his sons after the trial, why does the money belongs to her? Since the trial has taken place, it should be the property of the brothers by inheritance from their father, as it is already considered a regular monetary obligation that is owed to the father.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rava (not to be confused with Rabba) says that this is an excellent question which Rav Yosef discussed with Rabba for 22 years without resolution, but ultimately Rav Yosef explains Rabba’s answer by saying that the case of the seducer and the rapist is unique.

“Rava said: This matter was difficult for Rabba and Rav Yosef for twenty-two years without resolution, until Rav Yosef sat at the head of the academy and resolved it in the following manner: There, in the case of a rape, it is different, as the verse states: “And the man who laid with her shall give the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver” (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred: The Torah entitled the father to this money only from the time of giving. Consequently, if the father dies before receiving the money, he does not bequeath his right to the money to his sons. Instead, the daughter is considered to take her father’s place as the plaintiff, because she was the victim, and the money is paid to her.

“And when Rabba said that the fine imposed by a court is considered a regular monetary obligation with regard to one’s ability to bequeath it to his sons, he was not referring to this particular case of a rapist or seducer, but only to other fines, which do have the status of regular monetary obligations after the court delivers its verdict.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara in TB Berakhot provides the details about Rav Yosef’s ascension to be the Head of the Academy (Rosh Yeshiva) in Pumpedita, Babylonia. When Rav Yehuda died, there were two candidates to take his place as the Rosh Yeshiva. They were Rav Yosef and Rabba. Rav Yosef, the older of the two, was renowned for the breadth and depth of his knowledge while Rabba was renowned for his sharp analytical ability. The sages in Pumpedita didn't know who to choose so they asked the sages in Israel who they suggested should lead the yeshiva. They wrote back Rav Yosef. Nevertheless, Rav Yosef refused to take this position so his younger colleague Rabba became the Rosh Yeshiva. When Rabba died, Rav Yosef took his place. It is now in our story when Rav Yosef resolved the above question.

Rashi ד"ה עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין שְׁנִין comments that God helped Rav Yosef reach this resolution which escaped the pair for 22 years in order to glorify him in his new position. Sukkat David suggests that even though the one who has breadth and depth of knowledge is preferable than one was sharp analytical ability, the students of the yeshiva preferred the latter. By using Rabba’s analytical methodology, Rav Yosef was able to cement his position as the Rosh Yeshiva in the eyes of the students.  stole