Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 3, 2015 | 讬状讘 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 29

Study Guide Ketubot 29


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 谞注专讜转 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 拽谞住 讛讘讗 注诇 讛诪诪讝专转 讜注诇 讛谞转讬谞讛 讜注诇 讛讻讜转讬转 讛讘讗 注诇 讛讙讬讜专转 讜注诇 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜注诇 讛砖驻讞讛 砖谞驻讚讜 讜砖谞转讙讬讬专讜 讜砖谞砖转讞专专讜 驻讞讜转讜转 诪讘谞讜转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

MISHNA: These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them: One who engages in intercourse with a mamzeret, or with a Gibeonite woman [netina], who are given [netunim] to the service of the people and the altar (see Joshua 9:27), or with a Samaritan woman [kutit]. In addition, the same applies to one who engages in intercourse with a female convert, or with a captive woman, or with a maidservant, provided that the captives were ransomed, or that the converts converted, or that the maidservants were liberated when they were less than three years and one day old, as only in that case do they maintain the presumptive status of a virgin.

讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讛谞讚讛 讬砖 诇讛诐 拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谉 讘讛讻专转 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Similarly, one who engages in intercourse with his sister, i.e., he rapes her, or with his father鈥檚 sister, or with his mother鈥檚 sister, or with his wife鈥檚 sister, or with his brother鈥檚 wife, or with his father鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife after they divorced, or with a menstruating woman, there is a fine paid. Although there is karet for engaging in relations with any of the women enumerated in this list, one is liable to pay the fine because there is no court-imposed capital punishment. In cases where there is a court-imposed death penalty, the rapist would be exempt from paying the fine.

讙诪壮 讛谞讬 谞注专讜转 驻住讜诇讜转 讗讬转 诇讛讜 拽谞住 讻砖讬专讜转 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诇讜 谞注专讜转 驻住讜诇讜转 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 拽谞住 讛讘讗 注诇 讛诪诪讝专转 讜注诇 讛谞转讬谞讛 讜注诇 讛讻讜转讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders: Is it these young women with flawed lineage listed in the mishna, for whom there is a fine paid if they are raped, while for young women with unflawed lineage, no, there is no fine? The Gemara explains that this is what the tanna is saying: These are the young women with flawed lineage for whom there is a fine paid if they are raped. This is not a comprehensive list; rather, the tanna enumerates those young women for whom a fine is paid despite their flawed lineage: One who has relations with a mamzeret, or with a Gibeonite woman, or with a Samaritan woman.

谞注专讛 讗讬谉 拽讟谞讛 诇讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗

The mishna teaches the halakha with regard to a young woman, from which the Gemara infers: With regard to a young woman, yes, one is liable to pay the fine if he rapes her, but with regard to a minor, no, one is not liable to pay the fine. Who is the tanna who maintains that one is liable for raping a young woman but not a minor?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讬砖 诇讛 诪讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 讜诪砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讻专 讗讬谉 拽谞住 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The tanna is Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a minor from the age of one day old until she grows two pubic hairs, there is the possibility of sale for her, as her father may sell her as a Hebrew maidservant, but there is no fine paid for her if she is raped. And once she grows two pubic hairs, from that point until she matures into a grown woman there is a fine for her, as during that period she is a young woman, with regard to whom the Torah law of a rapist and a seducer applies, but there is no possibility of sale for her. Once she grows two hairs she is no longer under her father鈥檚 control and can no longer be sold. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would state a principle: Any place where there is a sale, there is no fine; and any place where there is a fine, there is no sale.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专 诇讗 讗讬诪讗

And the Rabbis say: With regard to a minor from the age of three years and one day old until she matures into a grown woman, there is a fine for her. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that a fine, yes, there is, but a sale, no, there is not? Do the Rabbis maintain that the father has no right to sell his minor daughter? The Gemara emends the text: Say:

讗祝 拽谞住 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讻专

There is a fine even in a place where there is sale. That is, not only can a minor girl from the age of three be sold until she matures, but she also receives payment of the fine.

讜讛谞讬 讘谞讬 拽谞住讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诪讗讬 讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讗砖讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 谞注专讛 谞注专讛 讛谞注专讛 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转

搂 The Gemara questions the basic halakha that one who rapes young women of flawed lineage is liable to pay the fine: And are these young women entitled to the fine? But why? I read here with regard to a rapist: 鈥淎nd to him she shall be as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which the Sages derived that only a wife who is suitable for him is eligible to receive payment of a fine from a rapist. Reish Lakish said that one verse states: 鈥淚f a man finds a young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:28), and another states: 鈥淎nd he shall give to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). This is tantamount to three mentions: Young woman, young woman, the young woman, as the superfluous definite article is interpreted as a third mention of the term. One mention is required to teach the matter itself, that one who rapes a young woman is liable to pay a fine; and one is to include payment of a fine to those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions; and one is to include payment of a fine to those young women for whose rape one is liable to receive karet.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讜转 讛讘转讜诇讜转 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转

Rav Pappa said: This is derived from the halakha of the seducer, as the verses state: 鈥淎nd if a man seduce a virgin鈥e shall weigh money like the dowry of the virgins鈥 (Exodus 22:15鈥16). This is tantamount to three mentions: Virgin, virgins, the virgins. One mention is required to teach the matter itself; and one is to include those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions; and one is to include those young women for whom one who rapes them is liable to receive karet.

讜专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜诪转讛 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 诇讗讘讬 谞注专讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讘讬 诪转讛

The Gemara asks: And Rav Pappa, what is the reason that he did not cite the source as Reish Lakish did? The Gemara answers: That derivation from the three instances of the term young woman is required by him to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said, as Abaye said: If one engaged in forced intercourse with a young woman and she died before he stood trial, he is exempt from paying the fine, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall give to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). From the fact that the verse does not simply say: To her father, it is inferred: To the father of the young woman and not to the father of a dead woman. He is liable only if the young woman is still alive.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 驻驻讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻住祝 讬砖拽讜诇 讻诪讜讛专 讛讘转讜诇讜转 砖讬讛讗 讝讛 讻诪讜讛专 讛讘转讜诇讜转 讜诪讜讛专 讛讘转讜诇讜转 讻讝讛 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘 驻驻讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

The Gemara asks: And Reish Lakish, what is the reason that he did not cite the source as Rav Pappa did? The Gemara answers: That derivation from the three instances of the term virgin is required by him to derive a verbal analogy, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to a seducer: 鈥淗e shall weigh [yishkol] money like the dowry of the virgins鈥 (Exodus 22:16), from which it is derived that this fine of a seducer should be a sum of fifty sela like the dowry of the virgins specified in the case of a rapist; and the dowry of the virgins must be paid in sela like this fine of the seducer. Therefore, Reish Lakish holds that no additional matters may be derived from the term virgins. The Gemara asks: And for Reish Lakish too, isn鈥檛 it required by him to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said? And similarly, for Rav Pappa, isn鈥檛 it required by him to derive a verbal analogy?

讗诇讗 砖讬转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 谞注专讛 谞注专讛 讛谞注专讛 讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讜转 讛讘转讜诇讜转 转专讬 诇讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讞讚 诇讻讚讗讘讬讬 讜讞讚 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讗讬讬转专讜 诇讬讛 转专讬 讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转

Rather, there are six verses written, and both Reish Lakish and Rav Pappa derive matters from all of them. In the two passages discussing the rapist and the seducer, it is written: Young woman, young woman, the young woman; virgin, virgins, the virgins. Two mentions are required to teach the matters themselves, the basic halakhot of a rapist and a seducer; one mention is needed to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said; and one mention is necessary to derive a verbal analogy with regard to the dowry of virgins. Two mentions of the term remain for him; one is to include those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions, and one is to include those young women for whom one who rapes them is liable to receive karet. Reish Lakish and Rav Pappa do not disagree; the derivation of each complements that of the other.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讬讬诪讛

搂 The Gemara comments: And the mishna comes to exclude the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淎nd to him she shall be [tihye] as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). Shimon HaTimni says: This is referring to a woman for whom there is betrothal [havaya]. If one betroths a woman with whom relations are punishable by karet, the betrothal does not take effect. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: This is referring to a woman who is suitable for him to sustain, whom he need not divorce due to her flawed lineage.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 讬砖 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讬讬诪讛 讛讗 讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讬讬诪讛

The Gemara begins its analysis of the baraita with the question: What is the practical difference between the statements of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Zeira said: The difference between their opinions is with regard to a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman, or any other woman who is forbidden but for whom betrothal takes effect. According to the one who said that the criterion is whether there is betrothal, for this woman there is also betrothal. If a Jewish man betroths a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman, although it is prohibited to do so, the betrothal takes effect. However, according to the one who said that the criterion is whether the woman is suitable for him to sustain, this woman is not suitable for him to sustain, since due to the prohibition he is obligated to divorce her.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讻专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛讻诇 注讜砖讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪诪讝专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讞讬诇讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 诪诪讝专讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, who said: Betrothal does not take effect for women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions, what is the difference between them? According to his opinion, betrothal of a mamzeret does not take effect either. The Gemara answers: The difference between their statements is the case of a widow raped by a High Priest, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Simai, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: Rabbi Akiva deems children from all illicit relations mamzerim, except for a child born from a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah said: 鈥淎 widow and a divorc茅e he shall not take鈥nd he shall not profane [ye岣llel] his seed among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:14鈥15), from which it is derived: If he has a child with a widow he creates 岣llulin, i.e., the male offspring of those relations is a 岣lal, disqualified from the priesthood, and the female offspring is a 岣lala, unfit to marry a priest, but he does not create mamzerim. Apparently, in that case, the betrothal does take effect.

讜诇专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讚讗诪专 讘讜讗讜 讜谞爪讜讞 注诇 注拽讬讘讗 讘谉 讬讜住祝 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讬讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yeshevav, who said: Come, let us scream at Akiva ben Yosef, who is proliferating mamzerim, as he would say: With regard to anyone who does not have the possibility of permitted relations in the Jewish people, including a widow with a High Priest, the offspring is a mamzer, what is the difference between their opinions, between the one who said that a fine is paid to women with whom the betrothal takes effect and the one who said that a fine is paid to women suitable for one to sustain? Rabbi Yeshevav maintains that betrothal does not take effect even in the case of a widow to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 28-34 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will finish the second chapter of Masechet Ketuvot that discusses who鈥檚 testimony is believed in court. The...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 29: If a Kohen Gadol Rapes a Widow, Can They Marry?

Chapter 3! A situation of rape... Which was treated differently back in the day. In this mishnah, the penalty that...

Ketubot 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 29

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 谞注专讜转 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 拽谞住 讛讘讗 注诇 讛诪诪讝专转 讜注诇 讛谞转讬谞讛 讜注诇 讛讻讜转讬转 讛讘讗 注诇 讛讙讬讜专转 讜注诇 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜注诇 讛砖驻讞讛 砖谞驻讚讜 讜砖谞转讙讬讬专讜 讜砖谞砖转讞专专讜 驻讞讜转讜转 诪讘谞讜转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

MISHNA: These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them: One who engages in intercourse with a mamzeret, or with a Gibeonite woman [netina], who are given [netunim] to the service of the people and the altar (see Joshua 9:27), or with a Samaritan woman [kutit]. In addition, the same applies to one who engages in intercourse with a female convert, or with a captive woman, or with a maidservant, provided that the captives were ransomed, or that the converts converted, or that the maidservants were liberated when they were less than three years and one day old, as only in that case do they maintain the presumptive status of a virgin.

讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜注诇 讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讛谞讚讛 讬砖 诇讛诐 拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛谉 讘讛讻专转 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Similarly, one who engages in intercourse with his sister, i.e., he rapes her, or with his father鈥檚 sister, or with his mother鈥檚 sister, or with his wife鈥檚 sister, or with his brother鈥檚 wife, or with his father鈥檚 brother鈥檚 wife after they divorced, or with a menstruating woman, there is a fine paid. Although there is karet for engaging in relations with any of the women enumerated in this list, one is liable to pay the fine because there is no court-imposed capital punishment. In cases where there is a court-imposed death penalty, the rapist would be exempt from paying the fine.

讙诪壮 讛谞讬 谞注专讜转 驻住讜诇讜转 讗讬转 诇讛讜 拽谞住 讻砖讬专讜转 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诇讜 谞注专讜转 驻住讜诇讜转 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 拽谞住 讛讘讗 注诇 讛诪诪讝专转 讜注诇 讛谞转讬谞讛 讜注诇 讛讻讜转讬转

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders: Is it these young women with flawed lineage listed in the mishna, for whom there is a fine paid if they are raped, while for young women with unflawed lineage, no, there is no fine? The Gemara explains that this is what the tanna is saying: These are the young women with flawed lineage for whom there is a fine paid if they are raped. This is not a comprehensive list; rather, the tanna enumerates those young women for whom a fine is paid despite their flawed lineage: One who has relations with a mamzeret, or with a Gibeonite woman, or with a Samaritan woman.

谞注专讛 讗讬谉 拽讟谞讛 诇讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗

The mishna teaches the halakha with regard to a young woman, from which the Gemara infers: With regard to a young woman, yes, one is liable to pay the fine if he rapes her, but with regard to a minor, no, one is not liable to pay the fine. Who is the tanna who maintains that one is liable for raping a young woman but not a minor?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讬砖 诇讛 诪讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 讜诪砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讜注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讻专 讗讬谉 拽谞住 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The tanna is Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a minor from the age of one day old until she grows two pubic hairs, there is the possibility of sale for her, as her father may sell her as a Hebrew maidservant, but there is no fine paid for her if she is raped. And once she grows two pubic hairs, from that point until she matures into a grown woman there is a fine for her, as during that period she is a young woman, with regard to whom the Torah law of a rapist and a seducer applies, but there is no possibility of sale for her. Once she grows two hairs she is no longer under her father鈥檚 control and can no longer be sold. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would state a principle: Any place where there is a sale, there is no fine; and any place where there is a fine, there is no sale.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专 诇讗 讗讬诪讗

And the Rabbis say: With regard to a minor from the age of three years and one day old until she matures into a grown woman, there is a fine for her. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that a fine, yes, there is, but a sale, no, there is not? Do the Rabbis maintain that the father has no right to sell his minor daughter? The Gemara emends the text: Say:

讗祝 拽谞住 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讻专

There is a fine even in a place where there is sale. That is, not only can a minor girl from the age of three be sold until she matures, but she also receives payment of the fine.

讜讛谞讬 讘谞讬 拽谞住讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诪讗讬 讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讗砖讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 谞注专讛 谞注专讛 讛谞注专讛 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转

搂 The Gemara questions the basic halakha that one who rapes young women of flawed lineage is liable to pay the fine: And are these young women entitled to the fine? But why? I read here with regard to a rapist: 鈥淎nd to him she shall be as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which the Sages derived that only a wife who is suitable for him is eligible to receive payment of a fine from a rapist. Reish Lakish said that one verse states: 鈥淚f a man finds a young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:28), and another states: 鈥淎nd he shall give to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). This is tantamount to three mentions: Young woman, young woman, the young woman, as the superfluous definite article is interpreted as a third mention of the term. One mention is required to teach the matter itself, that one who rapes a young woman is liable to pay a fine; and one is to include payment of a fine to those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions; and one is to include payment of a fine to those young women for whose rape one is liable to receive karet.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讜转 讛讘转讜诇讜转 讞讚 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转

Rav Pappa said: This is derived from the halakha of the seducer, as the verses state: 鈥淎nd if a man seduce a virgin鈥e shall weigh money like the dowry of the virgins鈥 (Exodus 22:15鈥16). This is tantamount to three mentions: Virgin, virgins, the virgins. One mention is required to teach the matter itself; and one is to include those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions; and one is to include those young women for whom one who rapes them is liable to receive karet.

讜专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜诪转讛 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 诇讗讘讬 谞注专讛 讜诇讗 诇讗讘讬 诪转讛

The Gemara asks: And Rav Pappa, what is the reason that he did not cite the source as Reish Lakish did? The Gemara answers: That derivation from the three instances of the term young woman is required by him to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said, as Abaye said: If one engaged in forced intercourse with a young woman and she died before he stood trial, he is exempt from paying the fine, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall give to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). From the fact that the verse does not simply say: To her father, it is inferred: To the father of the young woman and not to the father of a dead woman. He is liable only if the young woman is still alive.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 驻驻讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻住祝 讬砖拽讜诇 讻诪讜讛专 讛讘转讜诇讜转 砖讬讛讗 讝讛 讻诪讜讛专 讛讘转讜诇讜转 讜诪讜讛专 讛讘转讜诇讜转 讻讝讛 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘 驻驻讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

The Gemara asks: And Reish Lakish, what is the reason that he did not cite the source as Rav Pappa did? The Gemara answers: That derivation from the three instances of the term virgin is required by him to derive a verbal analogy, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to a seducer: 鈥淗e shall weigh [yishkol] money like the dowry of the virgins鈥 (Exodus 22:16), from which it is derived that this fine of a seducer should be a sum of fifty sela like the dowry of the virgins specified in the case of a rapist; and the dowry of the virgins must be paid in sela like this fine of the seducer. Therefore, Reish Lakish holds that no additional matters may be derived from the term virgins. The Gemara asks: And for Reish Lakish too, isn鈥檛 it required by him to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said? And similarly, for Rav Pappa, isn鈥檛 it required by him to derive a verbal analogy?

讗诇讗 砖讬转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 谞注专讛 谞注专讛 讛谞注专讛 讘转讜诇讛 讘转讜诇讜转 讛讘转讜诇讜转 转专讬 诇讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讞讚 诇讻讚讗讘讬讬 讜讞讚 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讗讬讬转专讜 诇讬讛 转专讬 讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜讞讚 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转

Rather, there are six verses written, and both Reish Lakish and Rav Pappa derive matters from all of them. In the two passages discussing the rapist and the seducer, it is written: Young woman, young woman, the young woman; virgin, virgins, the virgins. Two mentions are required to teach the matters themselves, the basic halakhot of a rapist and a seducer; one mention is needed to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said; and one mention is necessary to derive a verbal analogy with regard to the dowry of virgins. Two mentions of the term remain for him; one is to include those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions, and one is to include those young women for whom one who rapes them is liable to receive karet. Reish Lakish and Rav Pappa do not disagree; the derivation of each complements that of the other.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讬讬诪讛

搂 The Gemara comments: And the mishna comes to exclude the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淎nd to him she shall be [tihye] as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). Shimon HaTimni says: This is referring to a woman for whom there is betrothal [havaya]. If one betroths a woman with whom relations are punishable by karet, the betrothal does not take effect. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: This is referring to a woman who is suitable for him to sustain, whom he need not divorce due to her flawed lineage.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪诪讝专转 讜谞转讬谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 讬砖 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讬讬诪讛 讛讗 讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讬讬诪讛

The Gemara begins its analysis of the baraita with the question: What is the practical difference between the statements of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Zeira said: The difference between their opinions is with regard to a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman, or any other woman who is forbidden but for whom betrothal takes effect. According to the one who said that the criterion is whether there is betrothal, for this woman there is also betrothal. If a Jewish man betroths a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman, although it is prohibited to do so, the betrothal takes effect. However, according to the one who said that the criterion is whether the woman is suitable for him to sustain, this woman is not suitable for him to sustain, since due to the prohibition he is obligated to divorce her.

讜诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讻专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛讻诇 注讜砖讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪诪讝专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讗 讬拽讞 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讞讬诇讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 诪诪讝专讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, who said: Betrothal does not take effect for women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions, what is the difference between them? According to his opinion, betrothal of a mamzeret does not take effect either. The Gemara answers: The difference between their statements is the case of a widow raped by a High Priest, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Simai, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: Rabbi Akiva deems children from all illicit relations mamzerim, except for a child born from a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah said: 鈥淎 widow and a divorc茅e he shall not take鈥nd he shall not profane [ye岣llel] his seed among his people鈥 (Leviticus 21:14鈥15), from which it is derived: If he has a child with a widow he creates 岣llulin, i.e., the male offspring of those relations is a 岣lal, disqualified from the priesthood, and the female offspring is a 岣lala, unfit to marry a priest, but he does not create mamzerim. Apparently, in that case, the betrothal does take effect.

讜诇专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讚讗诪专 讘讜讗讜 讜谞爪讜讞 注诇 注拽讬讘讗 讘谉 讬讜住祝 砖讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讬讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yeshevav, who said: Come, let us scream at Akiva ben Yosef, who is proliferating mamzerim, as he would say: With regard to anyone who does not have the possibility of permitted relations in the Jewish people, including a widow with a High Priest, the offspring is a mamzer, what is the difference between their opinions, between the one who said that a fine is paid to women with whom the betrothal takes effect and the one who said that a fine is paid to women suitable for one to sustain? Rabbi Yeshevav maintains that betrothal does not take effect even in the case of a widow to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to

Scroll To Top