Ketubot 36

עריות ממש שניות מדברי סופרים כיון דמדאורייתא חזיא ליה אמאי אין להן קנס אלא עריות חייבי מיתות בית דין שניות חייבי כריתות אבל חייבי לאוין יש להן קנס ומני שמעון התימני היא

actual forbidden relatives prohibited by Torah law, and secondary relatives means, as it does in most cases, relatives prohibited by rabbinic law, that cannot be, for since those secondary relatives are suitable for him to marry and are not prohibited by Torah law, why do they not receive a fine if they are raped or seduced? Rather, the meaning of these terms in this context is different: Forbidden relatives are those for which one is liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty; secondary relatives are those for which one is liable to receive karet, which are relatively less severe than those for which one is executed. However, those liable for violating regular prohibitions receive payment of a fine if they are raped or seduced. And according to whose opinion is the baraita taught? It is the opinion of Shimon HaTimni, who exempts from paying a fine only one who rapes a woman with whom betrothal is ineffective.

איכא דאמרי עריות חייבי מיתות בד וחייבי כריתות שניות חייבי לאוין מני רבי שמעון בן מנסיא היא

Some say that we can explain that forbidden relatives refers to all relatives with whom relations are forbidden by severe prohibitions, both those for which one is liable to death by the court and those for which he is liable to karet, and secondary relatives refers to those relatives with whom one who engages in relations is liable for violating regular prohibitions. According to this approach, whose opinion does this follow? It is that of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, who maintains that even a woman raped by a man forbidden to her by a regular prohibition is not entitled to the fine, despite the fact that betrothal is effective in that case.

הממאנת אין לה לא קנס ולא פיתוי הא קטנה בעלמא אית לה מני רבנן היא דאמרי קטנה יש לה קנס אימא סיפא איילונית אין לה לא קנס ולא פיתוי אתא לרבי מאיר דאמר קטנה אין לה קנס והא מקטנותה יצתה לבגר רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי מאיר

§ The baraita stated: A girl who refuses to remain married to her husband receives neither payment of a fine for rape nor payment of a fine for seduction, because she was married and therefore lost her presumptive status as a virgin. The Gemara infers: But an ordinary minor girl has a fine for rape. If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the baraita taught? It is the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A minor girl has a fine for rape. The Gemara asks: Say the latter clause of the baraita: A sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit] has neither a fine for rape nor a fine for seduction, as she will not develop the signs of puberty and her legal status is that of a minor until she is twenty, at which point she assumes the status of a grown woman. In that halakha, the baraita comes to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: A minor girl does not have a fine for rape, and the same is true for this ailonit, who emerged from her status as a minor at the age of twenty to the status of a grown woman, skipping the stage of a young woman. The first clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

וכי תימא כולה רבי מאיר היא ובממאנת סבר לה כרבי יהודה ומי סבר לה והתניא עד מתי הבת ממאנת עד שתביא שתי שערות דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר עד שירבה שחור על הלבן

And if you say that the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and with regard to a girl who refuses to remain married Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that not only a minor girl but a young woman may also end her marriage through refusal, and the baraita is referring to a young woman and not to a minor; but does he maintain that opinion? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that he disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda in this matter? It was taught: Until when can a girl refuse to remain married? Until she develops two pubic hairs, signs of puberty rendering her a young woman; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: She can refuse until the area covered by the black pubic hairs is greater than the white skin of the genital area. That occurs approximately six months later, at which point she becomes a grown woman.

אלא רבי יהודה היא ובקטנה סבר לה כרבי מאיר ומי סבר לה והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו דברי רבי מאיר ואם איתא זו דברי רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה מיבעי ליה האי תנא סבר לה כרבי מאיר בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

Rather, the Gemara suggests: The baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and with regard to a minor girl, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that a minor girl does not receive payment of a fine for rape, and therefore, an ailonit is not entitled to payment. The Gemara asks: But does he maintain that opinion? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said with regard to the mishna below (40b), which states: Any case where there is the right of a father to effect the sale of his daughter as a Hebrew maidservant, i.e., when she is a minor, there is no fine if she is raped, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir? And if it is so that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that opinion, Rav should have said: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, this tanna of the baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to one halakha, that there is no fine for the rape of a minor, and disagrees with him with regard to one halakha, that a young woman may conclude her marriage through refusal.

רפרם אמר מאי ממאנת הראויה למאן וליתני קטנה קשיא

Rafram said: This entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and what is the meaning of the statement: With regard to a girl who refuses, there is neither a fine for rape nor a fine for seduction? It is referring to one who is fit to refuse, i.e., as long as she is a minor she is not entitled to the fine. The Gemara asks: And if that is the case, let the tanna simply teach the halakha with regard to a minor. Why teach a simple halakha in so convoluted a manner? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.

איילונית אין לה לא קנס ולא פיתוי ורמינהי החרשת והשוטה והאיילונית יש להן קנס ויש להן טענת בתולים והא מאי רומיא הא רבי מאיר הא רבנן ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה

§ The baraita stated: An ailonit has neither a fine for rape nor a fine for seduction. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and an ailonit have a fine for rape and they have a claim concerning virginity. If one of these women married with the presumptive status of a virgin and received a corresponding marriage contract, her husband can cause her to lose her marriage contract by claiming that she was not a virgin. The Gemara rejects this argument: And what is the contradiction in this? It can be explained simply: This baraita, in which it was taught that the ailonit receives no fine, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; that baraita, in which it was taught that the ailonit receives a fine, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara is puzzled: And as the resolution is so obvious, he who raised the contradiction, why did he raise it? The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in this matter is known.

משום דאית ליה למירמא אחריתי עילויה החרשת והשוטה והבוגרת ומוכת עץ אין להן טענת בתולים הסומא ואיילונית יש להן טענת בתולים סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר סומא אין לה טענת בתולים

The Gemara answers: He cited this baraita due to the fact that he has another baraita from which to raise as a contradiction to it: A deaf-mute, and an imbecile, and a grown woman, and a woman whose hymen was torn not in the course of sexual relations, do not have a claim concerning virginity, as they do not have the presumptive status of a virgin. However, a blind woman and an ailonit have a claim concerning virginity. Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A blind woman does not have a claim concerning virginity. The baraitot contradict each other with regard to the claim concerning virginity of a deaf-mute and an imbecile.

אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא רבן גמליאל והא רבי יהושע אימר דשמעת ליה לרבן גמליאל היכא דקא טענה איהי היכא דלא קא טענה איהי מי שמעת ליה אין כיון דאמר רבן גמליאל מהימנא כגון זו פתח פיך לאלם הוא

Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, as this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who holds that a woman who, in response to a claim concerning her virginity, is believed if she says that she was raped after her betrothal and therefore does not lose her marriage contract. And that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that a woman is not believed if she makes that claim, and therefore she loses her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: Say that you heard that Rabban Gamliel accepts her contention in a case where she claims that she was raped after the betrothal; however, in a case where she did not claim that that was the case, did you hear that he accepts her contention? The Gemara answers: Yes, since Rabban Gamliel said she is believed when she states that she was raped after betrothal, the deaf-mute and the imbecile are also believed even though they are unable to make the claim, as in a cases like that, it is a case of: “Open your mouth for the mute” (Proverbs 31:8). When a person lacks the capacity to proffer the claim on his own, the court makes the claim on her behalf.

והבוגרת אין לה טענת בתולים והאמר רב בוגרת נותנין לה לילה הראשון

§ The baraita stated: A grown woman does not have a claim concerning virginity because of changes as her body matures, her hymen is no longer completely intact. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav say: The Sages give a grown woman who had relations on her wedding night, the entire first night, during which she may have relations with her husband several times? Any blood seen during that night is attributed to the blood of her hymen, which is ritually pure, and not menstrual blood. Apparently, even a grown woman has her hymen intact.

אי דקא טעין טענת דמים הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן דקטעין טענת פתח פתוח

The Gemara answers: If he proffers a claim that there was no blood after consummating the marriage, indeed he can cause her to lose her marriage contract with that claim. However, with what are we dealing here in the baraita? We are dealing with one who proffers a claim that he encountered an open entrance, i.e., there was no hymen. As the hymen of an adult woman is no longer completely intact, the claim is of no consequence.

סומכוס אומר משום רבי מאיר סומא אין לה טענת בתולים מאי טעמא דסומכוס אמר רבי זירא מפני שנחבטת על גבי קרקע כולהו נמי חבוטי מיחבטי כולהו רואות ומראות לאמן זו אינה רואה ואינה מראה לאמה

The baraita continues: Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A blind woman does not have a claim concerning virginity. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the statement of Sumakhos? Rabbi Zeira said: Due to the fact that a blind woman is struck by falling onto the ground, causing her hymen to break. The Gemara asks: All girls tend to be struck by falling onto the ground as well; what is unique about blind girls? The Gemara answers: When all of the other girls fall, they see the blood flow and show it to their mother. The mother would then examine them and discover that her hymen was broken. This blind girl does not see the flow of blood and therefore does not show it too her mother. Due to that possibility, the man who married the blind woman must have considered the likelihood that her hymen is not intact, and therefore he cannot make a claim concerning virginity.

והיוצאת משום שם רע אין לה לא קנס ולא פיתוי היוצאת משום שם רע בת סקילה היא אמר רב ששת הכי קאמר מי שיצא עליה שם רע בילדותה אין לה לא קנס ולא פיתוי

§ The previous baraita concluded: And one who leaves her husband due to a bad reputation has neither a fine for rape nor a fine for seduction. The initial understanding is that the baraita is referring to a young betrothed woman who leaves her husband because she committed adultery. The Gemara asks: One who leaves her husband due to a bad reputation is subject to stoning as an adulteress; clearly she is not entitled to the fine. Rav Sheshet said: This is what the baraita is saying: One about whom a bad reputation emerged in her youth that she engaged in sexual relations has neither a fine for rape nor a fine for seduction, as the assumption is that she is no longer a virgin.

אמר רב פפא שמע מינה האי שטרא ריעא לא מגבינן ביה היכי דמי אילימא דנפק קלא עליה דשטרא דזייפא הוא דכוותה הכא דנפק עלה קלא דזנאי והא אמר רבא יצא לה שם מזנה בעיר אין חוששין לה

Rav Pappa said: Conclude from it with regard to this tainted document whose authenticity was compromised that we do not collect a debt with it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If you say that a rumor emerged about it that it is a forged document, and in the corresponding case here, the case of a bad reputation, that a rumor emerged about her that she engaged in promiscuous sexual relations; but didn’t Rava say: If a rumor emerged about a woman in a town as one who engaged in promiscuous sexual relations, one need not be concerned about it? The assumption is that it is insubstantial, as a reputation based on rumor is disregarded.

אלא דאתו בי תרי ואמרי לדידהו תבעתנהי באיסורא דכוותה הכא דאתו בי תרי ואמרי לדידהו אמר להו זייפו לי בשלמא התם שכיחי פרוצין אלא הכא אם הוא הוחזק כל ישראל מי הוחזקו הכא נמי כיון דקא מהדר אזיופא אימר זיופי זייף וכתב

Rather, it is that two witnesses came and said: She propositioned us to engage in forbidden relations, and in the corresponding case here with regard to a document, it is a case where two people came and said that he said to us: Forge a document for me. The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the case of the rumor of promiscuity, immoral men are common, and even if they refused her, presumably she found someone willing to engage in relations with her. However, here, with regard to forgery, even if he assumed presumptive status as one seeking a forgery, do all the Jewish people assume presumptive status as forgers? Why is the assumption that the document was forged? The Gemara answers: Here too, since he is actively seeking a forgery, say that he forged the document and wrote it. Even if others are not suspected of cooperating with him, there is suspicion with regard to the document. Therefore, the case of the tainted document and the woman with a bad reputation are comparable.

מתני׳ ואלו שאין להן קנס הבא על הגיורת ועל השבויה ועל השפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו יתירות על בנות שלש שנים ויום אחד רבי יהודה אומר שבויה שנפדית הרי היא בקדושתה אף על פי שגדולה

MISHNA: And these are the cases of young women who do not have a fine paid to their fathers when they are raped or seduced: One who has intercourse with a convert or with a captive woman or with a gentile maidservant, who were redeemed, converted, or emancipated when they were more than three years and one day old, as presumably they are no longer virgins. Rabbi Yehuda says: A captive woman who was redeemed remains in her state of sanctity even though she is an adult, as it cannot be stated that she certainly engaged in intercourse.

הבא על בתו על בת בתו על בת בנו על בת אשתו על בת בנה על בת בתה אין להן קנס מפני שמתחייב בנפשו שמיתתן בידי בית דין וכל המתחייב בנפשו אין משלם ממון שנאמר ואם לא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש

The mishna resumes its list of the cases of young women who are not entitled to a fine when raped or seduced by the following men: In the case of one who engages in intercourse with his daughter, with his daughter’s daughter, with his son’s daughter, with his wife’s daughter, with her son’s daughter, or with her daughter’s daughter; they do not receive payment of a fine. That is due to the fact that he is liable to receive the death penalty, and that their death penalty is administered by the court, and anyone who is liable to receive the death penalty does not pay money, as it is stated: “And yet no harm follow, he shall be punished” (Exodus 21:22). This verse indicates that if a woman dies and the one who struck her is liable to receive the death penalty, he is exempt from payment.

גמ׳ אמר רבי יוחנן רבי יהודה ורבי דוסא אמרו דבר אחד רבי יהודה הא דאמרן רבי דוסא דתניא שבויה אוכלת בתרומה דברי רבי דוסא אמר רבי דוסא וכי מה עשה לה ערבי הלז וכי מפני שמיעך לה בין דדיה פסלה מן הכהונה

GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa said one and the same thing with regard to a captive woman. The statement of Rabbi Yehuda is that which we said in the mishna. The statement of Rabbi Dosa is as it is taught in a baraita: A captive daughter or wife of a priest, who was redeemed, partakes of teruma; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. In explanation, Rabbi Dosa said: And what did this Arab who took her captive do to her? And due to the fact that he lasciviously squeezed between her breasts, did he render her unfit to marry into the priesthood? Although he may have taken liberties with her, there is no concern that he had relations with her.

אמר רבה דלמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהודה הכא אלא שלא יהא חוטא נשכר אבל התם כרבנן סבירא ליה אי נמי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי דוסא התם אלא בתרומה דרבנן אבל קנס דאורייתא כרבנן סבירא ליה

Rabba said: Perhaps that is not so, and their opinions differ. Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion only here with regard to payment of a fine, so that the sinner will not profit through exemption from the fine because this girl was taken captive in her youth. However, there, with regard to teruma, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and she is unfit to marry a priest. Alternatively, there is another distinction between their opinions. Perhaps Rabbi Dosa stated his opinion only there, with regard to teruma whose legal status today is by rabbinic law, and therefore he rules leniently. However, with regard to payment of a fine, which is mandated by Torah law, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the rapist is exempt from payment based on the principle: The burden of proof is incumbent upon the claimant, and she cannot prove that her captors did not engage in intercourse with her and that she is a virgin.

אמר ליה אביי וטעמיה דרבי יהודה הכא שלא יהא חוטא נשכר הוא והא תניא רבי יהודה אומר שבויה שנשבית הרי היא בקדושתה אפי׳ בת עשר שנים כתובתה מאתים והתם מאי שלא יהא חוטא נשכר איכא התם נמי דלמא מימנעי ולא נסבי לה

Abaye said to Rabba: And is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda here, in the case of a fine, to ensure that the sinner will not profit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A captive woman who was taken captive remains in her state of sanctity with the presumptive status of a virgin? Even if she was in captivity when she was ten years old, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. And there, in that case, what relevance is there for the rationale: To ensure that the sinner will not profit? That baraita refers to a marriage contract and no transgression is involved. The Gemara answers: There too, Rabbi Yehuda issues the same ruling for a different reason. She receives the marriage contract of a virgin because if she didn’t, perhaps men would refrain and not marry her, due to their suspicion that her captors violated her.

וסבר רבי יהודה בקדושתה קיימה והתניא הפודה את השבויה ישאנה מעיד בה לא ישאנה רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך לא ישאנה הא גופה קשיא אמרת הפודה את השבויה ישאנה והדר תנא מעיד בה לא ישאנה משום דמעיד בה לא ישאנה

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that a captive woman remains in her state of sanctity? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who redeems a captive may marry her, even if he is a priest, but if he testifies that she did not engage in sexual relations while in captivity, he may not marry her? Rabbi Yehuda says: Both in this case, where he redeemed her, and in that case, where he testified, he may not marry her, lest she was violated and rendered unfit to marry a priest. The Gemara comments: This baraita itself is difficult. On the one hand you said: One who redeems a captive may marry her, and then it was taught: If he testifies that she did not engage in sexual relations while in captivity, he may not marry her. Is that to say that due to the fact that he also testifies that she was not violated he may not marry her?

הא לא קשיא הכי קאמר הפודה את השבויה ומעיד בה ישאנה מעיד בה כדי לא ישאנה

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this is what the baraita is saying: One who redeems a captive woman and testifies that she was not violated may marry her. However, if he only testifies that she was not violated he may not marry her.

מכל מקום קשיא לרבי יהודה אמר רב פפא אימא רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך ישאנה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אומר לעולם כדקתני רבי יהודה לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי בין כך ובין כך ישאנה אלא לדידכו בין כך ובין כך לא ישאנה מבעי ליה

With regard to the apparent contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara says: In any case, this baraita is difficult according to Rabbi Yehuda, as contrary to his earlier statement, he states that a captive woman does not retain the presumptive status of a virgin. Rav Pappa said: Emend the text and say that Rabbi Yehuda says: Both in this case and in that case he may marry her. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: Actually, do not emend the baraita and learn it as it was taught. In the baraita, Rabbi Yehuda spoke to them according to the statement of the Rabbis. According to my opinion, that the presumptive status of a redeemed captive woman is that of a virgin, both in this case and in that case he may marry her. However, according to your opinion that there is concern lest she was violated, the halakha should be that both in this case and in that case he may not marry her.

ורבנן הפודה את השבויה ומעיד בה ישאנה לא שדי איניש זוזי בכדי מעיד בה כדי לא ישאנה שמא עיניו נתן בה

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain their ruling? They explain: One who redeems a captive woman and testifies that she was not violated may marry her, as a person does not throw away money for nothing. If he paid the ransom to redeem her, he must be certain that she is a virgin. One who only testifies that she was not violated may not marry her, lest he had his eye on her to marry her and is prepared to lie to facilitate that marriage.

רמי ליה רב פפא בר שמואל לרב יוסף

Rav Pappa bar Shmuel raised a contradiction before Rav Yosef: