Yerushalmi Ketubot 4:1 ירושלמי כתובות ד׳:א׳

MISHNAH: Payments for shame, diminution of value, and fine of a seduced adolescent girl belong to her father, as are payments for suffering for the victim of an attack. If she appeared in court during her father’s lifetime, they are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’¹The claim to the payments is established with the first appearance of the claimants before the court (today one would say with the filing of court papers.) This might be different from the Babli, whose Mishnah requires that there were actual court proceedings during the father’s lifetime. Cf. also Chapter 3, Note 109. Once the claim is noted as the father’s, upon the father’s death it becomes part of the estate which is inherited by the male children. The inheritance of the brothers is subject to the claims of the daughters for sustenance and dowry. If there are only daughters, the daughters inherit.. If she did not appear in court until after the father’s death, they belong to herself²Following R. Aqiba (Mishnah 3:4)..

HALAKHAH: “A seduced adolescent girl,” etc. Who stated “adolescent”? Rebbi Meïr. But following the rabbis, even an underage girl³Cf. Halakhah 3:9; Babli 40b..

“Payments for suffering for the victim of an attack.” The rape victim. This does not follow Rebbi Simeon since Rebbi Simeon frees the rapist from paying for suffering⁴Cf. Halakhah 3:5..

So far payments that are consequences of sexual relations⁵Since biblical law allows a father to marry off his daughter and to pocket the money given for her preliminary marriage, and explicitly states that the father receives the fine imposed on the rapist, it is natural that the father should receive all benefits accruing to him from the fact that she is his underage female child. But since the text nowhere gives monetary rights deriving from male children to the father, the question is who receives payments which do not depend on the sex of the child. The Babli, Baba Qama 87a/b, states flatly that the father has no claims to sums due under laws which are independent of the sex of the injured party.. If somebody injured her, blinded one of her eyes, cut off one of her hands, broke one of her legs⁶Mishnah Baba Qama 8:1 states that the person causing an injury is liable to pay for diminution of values (permament reduction of earning power), suffering, medical costs, lost earnings (earnings lost while disabled in treatment), and shame.? To whom does he pay, to her or to her father? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to her father; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to her. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is of the opinion that her earnings belong to her even before she becomes an adult. Rebbi Joḥanan says, only after she comes of age. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila: They disagree before she comes of age, but after she is an adult everybody agrees that all belongs to her. A baraita supports either one of them. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody injures somebody else’s daughter or son, the payments for the son must be given immediately⁷As always, “son” or “daughter” means underage child. In the Babli, Baba Qama 87b, and the Tosephta, Baba Qama 9:8, the payment due the son is given in the form of a capital value which is transferred to the son on his reaching majority. Everybody agrees that the father has no claim to any sum due to his son.; those for the daughter shall be held as property value^8,In the baraitot of Babli and Tosephta: They belong to the father. This is then explained away as referring only to lost earnings since in the Babli everybody holds that all earnings of an underage daughter belong to the father.⁹In the opinion of R. David Fraenckel, the father collects the yield of the capital reserved for the daughter until she reaches adulthood and in this the baraita supports R. Johanan.. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Judah the father of Rebbi Mattaniah, said that some state it so that beginning and end support Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If somebody injures his own underage daughter, diminution of value belong to her and he is free from paying for shame and diminution of value¹⁰Since he collects payments for shame and diminution of value from the rapist, he collects all payments of this kind due to his underage daughter. If he is the guilty party, he is free since he would have to pay to himself. In Babli and Tosephta, he is never required to pay anything to his own underage children of either sex.
It is clear that in the case of the father attacking his own daughter, “diminution of value” must refer to damage done to her physical appearance, not defloration. Since sexual relations with one’s daughter are a capital crime, no payment can be demanded (cf. Note 111, Chapter 3:1 Note 30, Terumot 7:1 Note 5 ff.). If others injure her, diminution of values belong to her, the rest shall be transformed into property value¹¹In Tosephta Baba Qama 9:9 and the baraita in Babli Baba Qama 87b nothing is awarded to the father. This is then explained away as referring to children who no longer live at home. In the Yerushalmi, payments for shame and diminution of value belong to the father; of the others he collects the yield of the capital until the daughter reaches adulthood. The treatments in the two Talmudim have very few points in common even though they are based on almost identical tannaitic texts., but payments for shame and diminution of value belong to her father.

What did you see to say so¹²This refers to the Mishnah, that if the case came to court after the father’s death the fine is not part of the inheritance but belongs to the girl even if she still is supported by the brothers and her earnings go to them.? Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.¹³The following is the interpretation of R. David Fraenckel. In the case of the calumniator it is written (Deut. 22:19): “[The court] shall fine him 100 pieces of silver and give them to the girl’s father because he calumniated, a virgin of Israel”, stating first the fine and then the reason. But for the rapist it says (v. 29): “The man who had lain with her shall give 50 pieces of silver to the girl’s father.” Since the reason is stated immediately after the obligation to pay, it is inferred that the obligation to pay is independent of the availability of the father. Therefore, in the absence of a father, or if the girl is no longer in his potestas, one may disregard the mention of the father and read the verse as an obligation to pay the girl.” How is this? If there were court proceedings¹⁴This quotes the language of the Babli Mishnah, cf. Note 1. before her father died, you can say “he shall give to the girl’s father”; after the father died you can say “he shall give to her”. If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, you can say “he shall give to the girl’s father”; after she became an adult¹⁵This refers to Mishnah 2. you can say “he shall give to her.”

From where comes this¹²This refers to the Mishnah, that if the case came to court after the father’s death the fine is not part of the inheritance but belongs to the girl even if she still is supported by the brothers and her earnings go to them.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the fine¹⁶In Babylonian sources, this is a tannaitic statement: Ketubot 43a, Qiddušin 16b; Sifra Behar Parašah6(5). The verse, Lev. 25:46, speaks of Gentile slaves. The main import of the verse is that slaves can be bought or inherited following the rules of real estate. As a side remark, it is stated that income due because of daughters does not become part of the estate.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They¹⁷The father’s heirs. have no right to the fines of the daughter nor to payments for seduction or injuries. When does the fine become due? Rebbi Jonah said, from the first moment¹⁸The act of rape creates the obligation to pay the fine.; Rebbi Yose said, at the end¹⁹The judgment of the court creates the obligation to pay the fine.. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: Since you say, from the first moment, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings during her father’s lifetime, [the payments] are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’²⁰If this is an argument of R. Yose against R. Jonah, the reference must be to the Mishnah in general and in particular to the last part, not quoted here, which gives the fine to the girl if court proceedings start after the father’s death. If the fine was due from the moment of rape, it should be part of the estate.”? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.²¹Cf. Note 13. The exclusion of the fine from the estate is a biblical decree, independent of when the obligation starts.” Rebbi Jonah objected to Rebbi Yose. In your opinion, since you say, at the end, did we not state²²An enlarged version of Mishnah 2.: “If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, they are the father’s; after she became an adult they belong to herself.” Does an adult have a claim to a fine? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Because he mistreated her,” that includes if she was an adolescent and became an adult²³It is not that an adult rape victim can claim a fine but the verse gives the adult the right to sue for what was done to her as an adolescent.. Does it turn out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there²⁴Mishnah Baba Qama 7:2.: “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards [his father] died, …, he pays fourfold or fivefold²⁵The fine for stealing is double restitution; the fine for selling or slaughtering stolen livestock is fourfold or fivefold restitution. The Mishnah requires the thief to pay fourfold or fivefold to the estate (unless he is the sole heir); but if the obligation does not start with the act of larceny then the fine should depend on the relative times of selling/slaughtering and the father’s death, as explained in the next sentence.”? Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Ḥaggai²⁶This should read: R. Ḥaggai objected to R. Yose (who holds that any obligation starts only with the court’s action.): In your opinion, since you say that it depends on the court proceedings, should one not state: If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold during his father’s lifetime but did not appear in court until after his father’s death, he pays twofold²⁷There is no doubt that he stole from the estate and has to make good. But since the injured party is no longer alive, according to R. Yose he should not have to pay the extra penalty for selling or slaughtering. The Babli, Baba Qama 71b, agrees with this reasoning.? But it says fourfold or fivefold! But here²⁸The verses, in R. Simeon’s interpretation, determine the obligation to pay a fine irrespective of the recipient of the fine. Therefore, the question of the start of the obligation is secondary., everybody agrees that they belong to herself. The only problem is whether he has to pay to her or to her father.