Eicha (3:30)
יִתֵּ֧ן לְמַכֵּ֛הוּ לֶ֖חִי יִשְׂבַּ֥ע בְּחֶרְפָּֽה׃ {ס}
Let him offer his cheek to the smiter;
Let him be surfeited with mockery.
Ben Yehoyada on Sanhedrin 91a:2
אָמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה כֵּן, רוֹפֵא אֻמָּן תִּקָּרֵא, וְשָׂכָר הַרְבֵּה תִּטֹּל. נראה לי בס"ד על דרך מה שאמר הכתוב יִתֵּן לְמַכֵּהוּ לֶחִי יִשְׂבַּע בְּחֶרְפָּה (איכה ג, ל) וכתבו המפרשים ז"ל הכונה שלפעמים ימצא פוגע עכו"ם בישראל וסוטרו על לחייו, הנה כל זה נעשה לטובת ישראל והיינו שהיה באותו ישראל חלק רע הראוי לאותו עכו"ם והיה באותו עכו"ם חלק טוב שהוא ראוי לאותו ישראל ובאותה הכאה שסוטרו על לחייו יוצא אותו חלק הרע מישראל ונכנס בעכו"ם ויוצא חלק הטוב מן עכו"ם ונכנס באותו ישראל. וזהו שנאמר יִתֵּן הישראל לְמַכֵּהוּ זה העכו"ם לֶחִי לסוטרו אז אותו העכו"ם יִשְׂבַּע בְּחֶרְפָּה שיקבל חלק הרע מישראל ויוצא ממנו חלק טוב ונמצא הוא שבע בחרפה הוא הרע וכנזכר בגורי האר"י ז"ל.
וכן כאן אותו המין אמר דברים להלעיג ואך גְבִיהָה השיא דברי המין לענין אחר שהוא דבר טוב והגון ונכון והוא אחר שאמר לו 'בָּעִיטְנָא בָּךְ וּפַשִׁיטְנָא לְעַקְמוּתָךְ' אמר לו גביהה אם זאת הבעיטה תועיל שתפשיט בה עקמימותי שהם הסיגים של הנפש על דרך שאמר הכתוב 'יִתֵּן לְמַכֵּהוּ לֶחִי יִשְׂבַּע בְּחֶרְפָּה' הנה בודאי 'רוֹפֵא אֻמָּן תִּקָּרֵא' כי דרך הרופאים להסיר החולי מן האדם במשך כמה ימים לאט לאט ואם יזדמן רופא שיסיר החולי בשעה אחת לזה קורין אותו 'רוֹפֵא אֻמָּן' וכן האדם מסיר חולי הנפש מתיכו לאט לאט על ידי מצות ומעשים טובים במשך ימים רבים ואתה אם תסיר על ידי הבעיטה עקמימות הנפש בשעה אחת קלה תקרא 'רוֹפֵא אֻמָּן' ולכן אף על פי שאתה בועט בי ומצער אותי 'שָׂכָר הַרְבֵּה תִּטֹּל' ממני.
https://matzav.com/rav-moshe-feinsteins-letter-to-golda-meir/
ReplyDeleteThis is very interesting for several reasons -
1. Rav Moshe here expresses his Daas Torah, although it has been claimed on this blog that he did not claim to have Daas Torah.
2. Rav Yaakov disagreed about serving to the terrorist demands based on halacha / mishnah.
Did rav Yaakov originally agree with rmf?
Did rav hunter make a statement on how lefi halacha they should deal with the terrorists yemach shmam. ?
Nope
ReplyDeleteRav Dovid told me that his father did not say his views were Daas Torah this letter doesn't say his opionion but rather the ivew of the Torah is
The letter was typed obviously not by Rav Moshe and therefore whether this is what he said ican not be determined
So you are relying on reb David to dismiss the strength of this letter? More likely, he did occasionally use the term daas Torah but preferred not to base his authority it.
ReplyDeleteIf he didn't base his authority on DaasTorah - what is your point?
ReplyDeleteyes he did say the words daas torah but he never said his views needed to be accepted because he was Daas Torah or that he was infallible
well, Dass Torah is not clearly defined, and it may have evolved or been misused over time. In fact, in its heyday, there were different "working definitions" - that means, followers of this concept would give different reasons to justify the idea.
ReplyDelete"If he didn't base his authority on DaasTorah " _ this is just rephrasing what you said earlier, "there are views and values which are found in the Torah and they are authoritative because they are Torah views".
Even infallibility - when you press the Daas Torah mob, they deny it means infallibility, but as soon as you are gone, they return to their idol of infallibility.
Sometimes they say it is equivalent of left = right and right = left, so have to listen to it even if it is nonsensical.
Then there are non gedolim who usurp the idea and arrogate to themselves that they are also giving Daas torah.
In any case, assuming paying with release of terrorists is the same as paying an excessive price, it appears rav Yaakov retracted or didn't agree.
ReplyDeleteIn the era of rav Shach, disagreeing with him was usually seen as apikorsus.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Wow, saving a life is worth billions of money and ammunition to a terrorist org and of freeing jailed terrorists, a topic in the Gamara. A good fiction book on this subject is Those in Peril Taken. Tortured. Ransomed by Wilbur Smith, Macmillan 2011. My case Aranoff v Aranoff ---this is my pension that Susan’s been getting 55% since early 1994 with no end in sight. I have standing to go back to SCOTUS. I’m there open view SCOTUS Docket for 18-7160, 18-9390, 20-6525, 20-7892, 20-8096, and 6561. I did without a lawyer using UPS (cheap and fun). I sneak in Daas Torah thougts and Tanach.
ReplyDeleteSee, Reuven can take Shimon to court charging that the ox in Shimon's yard is his, that Shimon stole it from him. Shimon can go again and again to court if the court keeps dismissing his claim. The Kabalah says that God will do reincarnation to amend for thefts between 2 Jews. God is against stealing.
R' Yaakov wrote in Emes Leyaakov that left and right were specifically mentioned as they indicate a perspective dependent on direction. Turn around and realign your perspective.
ReplyDeleteLol
ReplyDeleteThe Yerushalmi rejected this as being nonsense.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 48b
ReplyDelete“ R. Judah the Prince said: In truth it was stated, whether [he declared], with the wage for what I have done, or with the wage for what I will do for thee, she is not betrothed; yet if he adds a consideration of his own, she is betrothed [This proves that in R. Nathan's opinion she is not betrothed even then]. The first Tanna and R. Nathan differ in respect to wages [Whether they are a liability from beginning to end or only at the end, but if the work is already done and in her possession, it is certainly a debt, on all views]. R. Nathan and R. Judah the Prince differ in respect to [betrothal by] debt and a perutah: one holds that then her mind is set upon the debt, whereas the other holds that it is set upon the perutah.”
Beautiful. Everyone knows she is married with a perutah. She borrowed money from the man and would love for the man to cancel the debt. How to get him to cancel the loan he made to her? Just say, without meaning, a lie, I agree to marriage with you for the cancel of the debt. Divorce. Susan wanted that I continue professor Lehman College beyond my September 1988-June 1991. Kiddushin requires the wife’s full agreement. Divorce requires him handing her a get. Yes I sent yesterday a new motion to AD2 with $45 check, notice of motion, affidavit of service. This time I delete fraud, just say “This is rare case of ERISA violation that Susan stole my TIAA pension starting in 1994. TIAA paid me in 1993 $750 monthly.”
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 50a
ReplyDelete“[If his oblation be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall offer it with a tale without blemish:] he shall offer it [at the door etc.] [Lev. I, 3: the second he shall offer it is superfluous]: This teaches that he is compelled [to fulfil his vow]. I might think, against his will-hence it is taught: with his free will [E.V. that he may be accepted]. How is this possible? He is compelled, until he declares, I am willing. Yet why, seeing that in his heart he is unwilling! Hence it must surely be because we rule; A mental affirmation is not recognised! But perhaps it is different there, for we ourselves are witnesses that he is pleased to gain atonement. But [it follows] from the second clause: and you find it likewise in the case of women's divorce and slaves manumission: he [the husband or master] is compelled, until he declares,I am willing [This refers to those who are compelled to free their wives or slaves]. Yet why: seeing that in his heart he is unwilling! Hence it must surely be because we say: A mental declaration is not recognised! But perhaps it is different there, because it is a religious duty to obey the words of the Sages! But, said R. Joseph, [it is deduced] from the following: If one betroths a woman and [then] declares, I thought her to be a priest's daughter, whereas she is the daughter of a Levite, or a Levite's daughter and she is the daughter of a priest; is poor, whereas she is wealthy, or is wealthy whereas she is poor she is betrothed, because she has not deceived him.”
Beautiful. He vows to bring a burnt-offering then reneges. The Sages will compel him to bring a burnt-offering, seemingly against his free will!
This relates to Rabbi Rackman willing to annul marriages based on deception, whatever (KA you’re the expert).
Interesting, R. Joseph, here, takes the side of the woman who wants the marriage to stand against the man who wants the marriage annulled.
There’s wide agreement on compelling, using force, man to divorce his wife, based on the wife’s say so, whatever. Mendel Epstein used cattle prods.
I like rabbi Rackman's writing, and he developed a philosophy of halacha. It is like your posts _ you bring a Gemara then tell us what it is doing, what mechanisms, what purpose the law has.
ReplyDeleteThere's a Dialectic of halacha (name of a chapter in his book).
He once wrote that he's not Modern or centrist, but maximalist.
Obviously I cannot teach, declare or pasken halacha. I can only read and listen to an assortment of experts.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 50b:“What is our decision on the matter R. Papa said: In that place where one [first] betroths and then sends gifts, we pay regard thereto [If the gifts are first sent, we fear that they were meant for kiddushin]; but in that place where gifts are [first] sent and then one betroths, we have no fear. [Where] one [first] betroths and then sends gifts. But that is obvious! It is necessary [to state it] only where the majority [first] betroth and then send gifts; but the minority first send gifts and then betroth: I might argue, Let us pay regard to the minority; hence we are informed [otherwise].[So the text in cur. edd. This however involves a difficulty: I might argue, let us fear the minority implies that we are to impose a stringent ruling on that account, whereas here, by regarding the minority, we are lenient. Ri, quoted in Tosaf. s.v. dðv gives another reading: where gifts are first sent and then betrothal is performed — then it is obvious that she is not betrothed. It is necessary to state it only where the majority first send gifts and then betroth, yet a minority do the reverse. I might argue, let us fear the minority, so she is betrothed. Hence we are informed otherwise.]”
ReplyDeleteBeautiful. My explanation of the Gamara is that places like Bnei Brak and Israel among Charedim he marries her first before sending her gifts and afterwards sends her gifts. Whereas in places like NYS and FL among non-Jewish and secular, he sends her $1,000,000 and sets her up in a penthouse apartment first and then later, maybe, gives her a ring, whatever, and marries her.
The case the Gamara is discussing: “MISHNAH. IF HE BETROTHS TWO WOMEN WITH THE VALUE OF A PERUTAH, OR ONE WOMAN WITH LESS THAN A PERUTAH'S WORTH, EVEN IF HE SUBSEQUENTLY SENDS GIFTS, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED, BECAUSE THEY WERE SENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST KIDDUSHIN.”
He marries her with less than a perutah. Big problem for the Sages. Should the Sages annul the wedding?
The Sages ask if we can add to the less than perutah gifts he sends her before or after the marriage ceremony? In Bnei Brak and Israel among Charedim---no, he must marry her with a perutah etc. In NYS and FL among non-Jewish and secular Sages would recognize the marriage, maybe, fearing that the money he sends her can be added to the perutah because this is how they marry among secular in NYS and FL. Beautiful.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 53a
ReplyDelete“By shared is meant snatched [other priests shares]. As the second clause states: It happened that one [Kohen] snatched his own and his neighbour's portion, and he was called Ben Hamzan [A violent person. Ben (lit., son) expressing an attributive idea. V. Gesenius-Kautzsch Hebrew Grammar, 128t.] [robber] until the day of his death. Said Rabbah son of R. Shila: What verse [have we]? [That hamzan connotes a man of violence, a robber] Rescue me, O my Lord, out of the hand of the wicked, Out of the hand of the unrighteous and violent [homez] [Ps. LXXI, 4]. Rabbah said, [We learn it] from the following: learn to do well, seek judgment, set right the man of violence [Isa. I, 17].”
Beautiful. Relates of a Kohen who stole the portion designated for another Kohen. The Gamara brings two passages on theft:
Psalms 71:4 “My God, rescue me from the hand of the wicked רשע, From the grasp of the unjust מעול and the lawless וחומץ.”
Isaiah 1:17 “Learn to do good היטב; Devote yourselves דרשו, relieve the oppressed אשרו חמוץ, Uphold the rights of the orphan שפטו יתום; Defend the cause of the widow ריבו אלמנה.”
A kohen that unlawfully took the portion of a fellow Kohen, the King David calls him wicked, unjust and lawless. Isaiah calls on us to defend the rights of the orphan and the widow who have no defenders and protectors. Beautiful.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 55b
ReplyDelete“Now, R. Johanan was astonished thereat [At R. Oshaia's explanation, supra a, top]: Is then a man bidden, Arise and sin, that you may achieve merit! [Surely not!] [For even if deliberate conversion is effective in respect of intrinsic sanctity, it is nevertheless forbidden; Men. 101a] But, said R. Johanan, we wait until it is blemished [When it loses its intrinsic sanctity i.e., it may no longer be sacrificed, and as such must be redeemed, whereby it becomes hullin.]; Then two animals are brought, and a stipulation made [V. p. 277, n. 1].”
Beautiful. My theory. If one sees a sheep or a goat seemingly lost within, say, 1 kilometer, around the Holy Temple, leave it be, because no sacrifice and no value with this lost sheep or lamp if it be without blemish.
God promises us His blessings if we follow His laws. According to R. Johanan a blemished sheep or goat found lost can be deconsecrated and then have value to the finder. Moral: don’t go looking for lost sheep or goats near Jerusalem. No good will come of it.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi 55b-56a
ReplyDelete“Our Rabbis taught: An animal may not be bought with second-tithe money [Without Jerusalem. Either because it may become emaciated through the journey (one explanation by Rashi), or for fear that its owner may be tempted to keep it at home for breeding (Tosaf.)]; And if one does buy: if unwittingly, the money must be returned to its place [ The owner. The vendor is compelled to return the money, which must have been given in error. For the purchaser would surely rather carry money than drive an animal to Jerusalem,]; If deliberately, it must be brought up and consumed in the Place [ Sc. Jerusalem]. R. Judah said: That holds good if he intentionally bought it in the first place for a peace-offering [Like all animals purchased with second-tithe money.]; But if it was his intention to turn the second-tithe money into hullin [I.e., he bought the animal intending to eat it outside Jerusalem (Rashi). Tosaf.: He stipulated that the animal should remain hullin, while the vendor should expend the money in Jerusalem.], whether unwittingly or deliberately [Whether he knew the money was of second-tithe or not], the money must be returned to its place. But did we not learn: R. JUDAH SAID: IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS BETROTHED [HER] [ V. Mishnah 52b. This shews that since there is no error, the Rabbis did not nullify the transaction as a penalty (Rashi). Tosaf.: This shews that we do not fear that the woman may expend the money outside Jerusalem, as otherwise his act would be nullified: why then do we fear it in the case of the vendor?]”
Beautiful. My theory R. JUDAH SAID: IF DELIBERATELY, HE HAS BETROTHED [HER] Intentional violating the Torah laws of מעשר שני: Deuteronomy 14:25 “You may convert them to money ונתתה בכסף. Wrap up the money וצרת הכסף in thy hand בידך, and take it והלכת to the place המקום that the Lord your God shall choose.”
Rabbi Judah does not annul the marriage because a good woman wants the marriage and knows exactly what’s going on, a violation of Deut. 14:25. Such a marriage Rabbi Judah will not annul. Rabbi Judah will annul marriages where violation was without her knowing exactly what’s going on. This is very different from R. Rackman etc annulling marriages on her claiming the man is a snake etc. Follow KA?
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi we finished Chapter Two 58a:
ReplyDelete“IF HE SELLS THEM AND BETROTHS HER WITH THE PROCEEDS, SHE IS BETROTHED. How do we know it? Since the Divine Law revealed in reference to idolatry, [and thou shalt not bring an abomination into thine house,] lest thou be a cursed thing like it [Deut. VII, 26], [which means,] whatever you produce out of it is as itself [i.e., if an idol is sold, the money too is accursed, viz., forbidden], It follows that all other objects forbidden in the Torah are permitted [Sc. the money received for them if sold].”
(Deuteronomy 7:26) “You must not bring ולא תביא an abomination תועבה into your house אל ביתך, or you will be proscribed והיית חרם like it כמהו; you must reject it as abominable and abhorrent שקץ תשקצנו ותעב תתעבנו, for it is proscribed כי חרם הוא.”
Beautiful. My theory. As Rabbi Judah rules she is betrothed with proceeds the מעשר שני money and as MISHNAH. IF ONE BETROTHS [A WOMAN] WITH TERUMOTH,19 TITHES, [PRIESTLY] GIFTS, THE WATER OF PURIFICATION AND THE ASHES OF PURIFICATION,20 SHE IS BETROTHED, EVEN IF AN ISRAELITE.21.
These rulings she is betrothed: she is a good woman, she wants him to marry her. Not so bad he failed to follow God’s commandments properly. She can correct that to be able to get God’s blessings in many cases.
No she will not participate in any way with him doing a grievous sin impossible to correct: You must not bring ולא תביא an abomination תועבה into your house אל ביתך. Follow KA?
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin Chapter Three 59b:
ReplyDelete“R. Johanan refuted Resh Lakish: If he (the owner) annuls (sending the agent), if he (the owner) does so before he [his agent] has made a separation, his (the owner) separation is invalid (surely not!)? Said Raba: Here the circumstances are, e.g., that the owner anticipated [his agent] by separating terumah for his stacks, so that it is action. ”
My theory MISHNAH. IF HE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, GO FORTH AND BETROTH ME SUCH A WOMAN, AND HE GOES AND BETROTHS HER TO HIMSELF, SHE IS BETROTHED TO THE SECOND. LIKEWISE, IF HE SAYS TO A WOMAN, BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME AFTER THIRTY DAYS, AND ANOTHER COMES AND BETROTHS HER WITHIN THE THIRTY DAYS, SHE IS BETROTHED TO THE SECOND:
She’s a feminist, resents that he, theoretically can divorce her over her objections. He wants her to be his wife forever. To entice her he tells her BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME AFTER THIRTY DAYS. He gives her the option to annul/void the engagement (kiddushin) for 30 days. Wow, she agrees to marry a second man during the 30 days. Obviously the marriage with THE SECOND stands. She annulled the engagement with the first man.
Beautiful. Raba says the man at first did want the agent to separate terumah. Then the man separated terumah himself. He annulled appointing the agent. Yes that happens. Separating is easy, appointing an agent is easy. Getting a feministic beautiful sexy lady to be wife forever: difficult for the first man. Looks like he offers her a 30 trial marriage to entice her. This is how I read the Gamara.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 61b:
ReplyDelete“ It was taught: R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: For example, to what may this matter be compared? To a man who divided his estate among his sons, and directed, That son shall inherit that field, that son shall inherit that field, while that son shall pay two hundred zuz and inherit that field [which is worth more than his due share]. But if he does not give it, he shall inherit the rest of my estate together with his brothers.’ Now, what causes him to receive an inheritance together with his other brethren in the rest of the estate? His doubling [of the stipulation] effects it for him [For but for the second claim, it might be maintained that if he does not give the two hundred zuz he can claim a share only in the third field, but receives nothing from the other two fields assigned to his two brothers. Similarly, in the verses under discussion, but for the second claim, it would be assumed that the Gaddites and Reubenites in the case of their non-fulfilment of the condition would share with the rest of the tribes the district of Gilead, while forfeiting all claim to the land of Canaan.].”
I like this example of a man lovingly making a will for his 3 sons, A, B and C. A field one. B gets field two. C gets field three on condition he pays 200 zuz. Yes that condition is serious. If C doesn’t pay 200 zuz he won’t get field three, but will divide with A and B fields one and two. The man lovingly wants to marry her, an ardent feminist, who resents that men can marry many wives. The condition that man puts on the marriage is not serious when stated in positive only and not repeated in negative. The man is absolutely serious when the condition is stated in both positive and negative: R. HANINA B. GAMALIEL MAINTAINED: THE MATTER HAD TO BE STATED. FOR OTHERWISE IT IMPLIES THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE NO INHERITANCE EVEN IN CANAAN.17
Beautiful. Moses was angry Reuven and Gad said what they said at first. Moses was absolutely serious with them. In Kiddushin a condition with only positive is not serious. Why does a man do a not-serious condition? My theory to placate a feminist lady he wants to marry to be a good wife. Do you like my theory, KA?
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 63a:
ReplyDelete“Thou shalt not deliver unto his master a servant [which is escaped from his master] [Deut. XXIII, 16]: Rabbi said: The Writ refers to one who buys a slave on condition that he emancipates him [Or, for the purpose of emancipating him. If his master goes back on his word and the slave escapes, the Court must not deliver him up again.]. How so? Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: E.g., if he wrote for him, When I buy you, you belong to yourself from now[Thus he transmits to the slave something which, as far as he is concerned, is as yet non-existent, viz., his rights over him. (Such fall within the category of things which have not yet come into the world.) Since Rabbi applies the verse to such a case, he evidently holds such transmission valid.]”
Deuteronomy 23:16-17 “Thou shalt not deliver לא תסגיר unto his master a bondman עבד that is rescued ינצל from his master to thee. He shall dwell with thee, in your midst, in whatever the place he shall choose within one of thy gates, where he pleases בטוב לו: You must not ill treat him לא תונו.”
Governor Hochel in her recent ceremony installing the new head judge of the NYS Court of Appeals, mentioned how wonderful the court freed, in a NYS case about 200 years ago a runaway slave from the South who wanted to live in NYS My theory the Gamara is talking of a Jewish man who bought a Canaanite slave for the purpose of freeing him. The Torah warns us: that Canaanite man is free, can live where he wants and we must not taunt him. The problem in the Gamara here is that the rescuing of the runaway Canaanite slave involves formal manumission which is done in the future. IF HE SAYS TO A WOMAN, BEHOLD, BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME AFTER I BECOME A PROSELYTE, OR AFTER THOU BECOMEST A PROSELYTE, AFTER I AM LIBERATED, OR AFTER THOU ART LIBERATED, AFTER THY HUSBAND DIES. OR, AFTER THY SISTER DIES.10 OR AFTER THY YABAM PERFORMS HALIZAH FOR THEE; SHE IS NOT BETROTHED.
My theory. God is against intermarriage with Canaanites, God warns us not to make covenants with Canaanites for fear of intermarriage etc. Sages clearly won’t recognize BEHOLD, BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME AFTER I BECOME A PROSELYTE, The Torah repeatedly warns not to mistreat converts. Converts are Jews in every way. We love converts. We hate slavery. Beautiful.
“Turn the other cheek” Interesting! Today’s daf hayomi Kiddushin 63b-64a
ReplyDelete“It was taught as R. Hisda: [If a man declares,] This my son is thirteen years and a day, [Or] this my daughter is twelve years and a day [At these ages they are adults], .He is believed in respect of vows, haramim [V. Glos], sanctifications, and arakin [V. Glos. As they are of age, their vows, etc., are valid, and the father is believed on the question of age]; But not in respect of flagellation and [other] punishments.
My theory. Eye for an eye is money only never physical. Flagellation and [other] punishments such as stoning are extreme rarities. Rabbi Akiva etc could always find a way to stay the execution. Hey, the adulterer man was half a man etc.
The rules of evidence are strict on testimony in mattes of flagellation and [other] punishments but not otherwise. The Gamara seemingly allows the man to lie if his object is to convince her to marry him.
The Gamara has strict rules of evidence on matters of besmirching someone, such as a parent saying the offspring is a mamzer etc. This my son is thirteen years and a day, He’s believed to be called to the Torah. He’s not believed in an adultery trial. Beautiful.