Nechama-Ketubot

AND IF A MAN ‘Y’FATEH’ — “speaks to her emotions [until she submits to him]. And so did Onkelos render it arei y’shadeil, the term shidul in Aramaic being like pitui [persuasion, seduction], in the Sacred Language. ‘MAHOR YIMHARENAH’ (HE SHALL SURELY PAY A DOWRY FOR HER) TO BE HIS WIFE — he shall assign her a marriage portion as is the manner of a man to his wife by writing her a kethubah (marriage contract), and he shall marry her.” Thus far is Rashi’s language.
But this is not correct, for the term pitui [does not mean “speaking to her feelings,” as Rashi put it], but winning over another person’s will by falsehood. A similar usage of the term is found in these verses: ‘yifteh l’vavchem’ (your heart will be deceived); ‘vayift’ (and he seduced) my heart secretly; if my heart ‘niftah’ (have been enticed) unto a woman. This is why people whose minds are not adroit in discriminating matters, and whose hearts can be easily bent by a few words at the beginning of a discussion, are called p’ta’im (simple-minded ones), just as it is said, ‘peti’ (the simple-minded) believeth every word, and he who seduces a virgin in order to have sexual relations with her, bends her will to his desire by words of falsehood, and is therefore called m’fateh (seducer).
Onkelos, however, divided the term pitui into two meanings. Thus here he translated it: y’shadeil, which is an expression for cunning and effort that a person exercises towards another in order to do with him as he pleases, regardless of whether this effort is by means of words or deeds. Thus Onkelos translated: ‘vayei’aveik’ a man with him — v’ishtadeil (and a man ‘wrestled craftily’ with him). And Yonathan ben Uziel translated: ‘v’shovavticho’ (and I will turn thee about), and put hooks into thy jaws — ‘v’ishtadlinoch.’ And in the Targum of the Scroll of Ruth we find: Where hast thou gleaned to-day? ‘v’anah asit’ (and where wroughtest thou)? — ‘u’lan ishtadalt l’me’bad’ (and where have you ‘endeavored’ to work)? — And she said: The man’s name with whom ‘asithi’ (I wrought) to-day is Boaz, is translated in the Targum: ‘d’ishtadalith imei’ (with whom I ‘endeavored’). For all effort involving skill, with which a person attempts to achieve something, is called hishtadluth (endeavoring). Thus the Rabbis have said in the Mishnah: “And where there are no men, hishtadeil (strive) to be a man.” And in the Gemara we find: “A man should always yishtadeil (strive) to go out to welcome kings of Israel.” And in Scripture it is written: and he [i.e., the king] ‘mishtadar’ (labored) to rescue him, — employing every skill [to save Daniel].
In my opinion, associated with this term [hishtadluth — striving] is the expression, rebellion ‘v’eshtadur’ (and sedition) have been made therein, meaning, rebellion and “much striving.” For even in the Sacred Language these letters [the lamed and the reish of y’shadeil, y’shadeir] interchange. Thus we find: mazaloth (constellations) and mazaroth; niml’tzu (sweet), and nimr’tzu (forcible); ‘mifl’sei’ (the balancing of) the clouds, and ‘mifr’sei’ (the spreadings of) the clouds. Similarly in Aramaic: va’alu (and behold), and va’aru. Sharshereth (chain) is termed by the Sages shalsheleth. There are Mishnaic texts where it is written, “hishtadeir [instead of hishtadeil — both terms meaning ‘strive’] to be a man.” It is for this reason that Onkelos renders ki y’fateh — arei y’shadeil (he will endeavor); he will attempt by devious means to invest the virgin with a sense of trust in him, by many ruses, until she submits to him. And since seduction may be achieved in many ways — sometimes with words, sometimes with money, sometimes by falsehood to mislead her, and sometimes even by truth, as when he really wishes to marry her — therefore Onkelos did not use a precise term for it, but rendered it as an expression of “endeavor.” However, in the verse, lest your heart be ‘yifteh,’ he used the other meaning and translated it: ‘dilma yit’ei,’ for there it means, “perhaps you will be misled.”
And that which the Rabbi [Rashi] explained: “‘Mahor yimharenah’ (he shall surely pay a dowry for her) to be his wife — he shall assign her a marriage portion as is the manner of a man to his wife, by writing her a kethubah (marriage contract)” — this is not correct, for if the seducer marries her, he pays no penalty, and if he divorces her after the marriage, there is no monetary obligation upon him by law of the Torah, since a kethubah is a matter of Rabbinic ordinance. Rather, mohar means gifts — the gifts which a man sends to his betrothed, jewels of silver and jewels of gold and clothes for the wedding ceremony and marriage, these being called sivlonoth in the language of the Rabbis. Thus they said: “Mohari go back [upon the death of the wife].” And Onkelos rendered the verse, And Shechem said… Multiply upon me greatly ‘mohar’ and gift — “multiply upon me greatly moharin [in the plural] and gifts,” and Shechem would not have vowed to write Dinah many kethuboth. Instead, mohar means gifts, as I have explained. It is possible that the word is derived from the expression ‘m’heirah chushah’ (hasten, stay not), because the mohar is the first thing which hastens the wedding, as the groom hurries and sends these presents ahead of him in eager haste and then he comes to his father-in-law’s house to make the wedding or the feast, just as the Sages have spoken of “parties of sivlonoth” (when presents are presented to the betrothed). The meaning of ‘mahor yimharenah’ to be his wife is then, that the seducer should send her presents and necessities for the wedding in order to become his wife. There is thus a hint here that both the seducer and the seduced can prevent the marriage, since Scripture uses such language rather than saying expressly that he should take her to him as his wife; for there is no commandment upon him to marry her unless he so desires, and if he does not want her to begin with, he is to pay fifty shekels of silver. After that Scripture states that if the father refuses to give her unto him, he shall pay him money according to the ‘mohar’ which men give to virgins whom they marry. The reason for this fine is that the seducer has spoiled her reputation in the eyes of young men, thus the father will have to give her many presents and they will not give her any dowry, therefore it is right that the seducer should pay it. Our Rabbis have said that the amount of this mohar was determined by Scripture in the case of the violator to be fifty shekels of silver, the law of the violator and of the seducer being alike in this respect. Scripture, however, did differentiate between them in that in the case of the violator it says, and she shall be his wife… he may not put her away all his days, the reason [for this distinction between the violator, who must marry the maiden whom he has raped, and is forbidden to divorce her ever, and the seducer, who does not have to marry the seduced girl, but may instead pay the penalty mentioned in the Torah], is that usually it is handsome young men who seduce virgins, and the beautiful daughters of prominent families, [in the hope of marrying them]. But since it is not proper that he should gain from his sin, [i.e., that the girl should have to marry the seducer], therefore He explained that he cannot marry her against their will [hers and that of her father], but instead must pay them. Also, because she too sinned in this matter, He did not impose it on him to have to marry her against his will, but instead it is enough if he pays the penalty [of the fifty shekels of silver], and if he marries her with her consent and that of her father, she has the same status in relation to him as all women, having no claim to a kethubah from him by law of the Torah [but only by Rabbinic ordinance]. Similarly, it is usually the sons of prominent families who rape the daughters of those less-known families who have no power against them. Therefore He said in the case of the violator, and she shall be his wife — against his will. And in the opinion of our Rabbis, there too [in the case of the violator] the maiden and her father can withhold consent, as it would not be correct that he should marry her against her will, and thus do her two evils. Sometimes she may be of a more honorable family than he, and it is inconceivable that she should be further disgraced by his sinful act. The fair law is thus that the decision as to the marriage of the raped maiden be left to her discretion and that of her father, and not to the violator; instead, [if she desires it] he must marry her against his will, in order that violent men should not take liberties with the daughters of Israel.
Now this law of seduction only applies to a na’arah, as does the law of violation [which applies only to a girl between the ages of twelve years and a day, and twelve and a half], for there Scripture expressly stated, if a man find a ‘n’arah’ that is a virgin, but here He did not mention na’arah. The reason for this is that the term na’arah mentioned there [in the case of a violator], is used in order to exclude the bogereth [a woman who has passed the stage of maidenhood], who is considered an adult woman, whereas a girl who is a minor [between the ages of three years and a day and twelve years and a day], is also included under the terms of the law of violation. But here [in the case of seduction], it was not necessary to exclude a bogereth, for it is self-understood that one who seduces a bogereth pays nothing, as he did it with her mature consent. Besides, a father has no rights at all in his daughter after the days of her maidenhood, as it is written, ‘bin’ureihah’ (in her maidenhood) in her father’s house, and here He said, If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, thus indicating that he [the father] can give her to him as a wife, seeing that he has the authority to take her betrothal-money, and this applies only when she is a minor or a na’arah, just as the Rabbis interpreted: “All benefits which accrue during maidenhood belong to her father.” But in the case of a violation it was necessary to write na’arah, in order to exclude a bogereth from that law, because we might have thought that if she were a bogereth he should pay the fifty shekels of silver to her, [instead of to her father; it was therefore necessary to state] that it is a Scriptural decree [that if she is a bogereth he is free from that penalty], the reason being that since she is in full control of herself, she should guard herself against such a mishap.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained mohar as being an expression of “binding” [that he should bind her to him as a wife], similar in usage to the verse, Let the idols of them be multiplied ‘acheir maharu’ (who bind themselves to another god). But this is not correct; instead, the meaning of mohar is as I have explained it on the basis of the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory. And in my opinion acheir maharu means, “those who are ‘hasty’ in thought, [from the root maheir — fast] and follow another god precipitately, without consideration and without knowledge.” In the writings of the grammarians [acheir maharu is explained as meaning]: “those who give mohar (gifts) to another god,” meaning that they bring him sacrifice and offering.