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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 10, 2015 | 讬状讟 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 36

注专讬讜转 诪诪砖 砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 拽谞住 讗诇讗 注专讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖谞讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽谞住 讜诪谞讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 讛讬讗

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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 注专讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讚 讜讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 砖谞讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讛讬讗

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.

讛诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讛讗 拽讟谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽讟谞讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讗转讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 拽讟谞讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 讜讛讗 诪拽讟谞讜转讛 讬爪转讛 诇讘讙专 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

搂 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讘诪诪讗谞转 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 注讚 诪转讬 讛讘转 诪诪讗谞转 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬专讘讛 砖讞讜专 注诇 讛诇讘谉

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讘拽讟谞讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

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鈥檛 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.

专驻专诐 讗诪专 诪讗讬 诪诪讗谞转 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讜诇讬转谞讬 拽讟谞讛 拽砖讬讗

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.

讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讞专砖转 讜讛砖讜讟讛 讜讛讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽谞住 讜讬砖 诇讛谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讜讛讗 诪讗讬 专讜诪讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛

搂 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.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇诪讬专诪讗 讗讞专讬转讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛讞专砖转 讜讛砖讜讟讛 讜讛讘讜讙专转 讜诪讜讻转 注抓 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讛住讜诪讗 讜讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讬砖 诇讛谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讟注谞讛 讗讬讛讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 讟注谞讛 讗讬讛讬 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讻讙讜谉 讝讜 驻转讞 驻讬讱 诇讗诇诐 讛讜讗

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: 鈥淥pen your mouth for the mute鈥 (Proverbs 31:8). When a person lacks the capacity to proffer the claim on his own, the court makes the claim on her behalf.

讜讛讘讜讙专转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讘讜讙专转 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉

搂 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鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 讚诪讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 驻转讞 驻转讜讞

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.

住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讞讘讟转 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讘讜讟讬 诪讬讞讘讟讬 讻讜诇讛讜 专讜讗讜转 讜诪专讗讜转 诇讗诪谉 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 专讜讗讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪专讗讛 诇讗诪讛

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.

讜讛讬讜爪讗转 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讛讬讜爪讗转 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讘转 住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讬 砖讬爪讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 专注 讘讬诇讚讜转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 专讬注讗 诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚谞驻拽 拽诇讗 注诇讬讛 讚砖讟专讗 讚讝讬讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讚讻讜讜转讛 讛讻讗 讚谞驻拽 注诇讛 拽诇讗 讚讝谞讗讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讬爪讗 诇讛 砖诐 诪讝谞讛 讘注讬专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讚讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讚讬讚讛讜 转讘注转谞讛讬 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讚讻讜讜转讛 讛讻讗 讚讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬讬驻讜 诇讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 砖讻讬讞讬 驻专讜爪讬谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讗诐 讛讜讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 讛讜讞讝拽讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪讛讚专 讗讝讬讜驻讗 讗讬诪专 讝讬讜驻讬 讝讬讬祝 讜讻转讘

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 拽谞住 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 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 讘谞讜转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘讜讬讛 砖谞驻讚讬转 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讚讜诇讛

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.

讛讘讗 注诇 讘转讜 注诇 讘转 讘转讜 注诇 讘转 讘谞讜 注诇 讘转 讗砖转讜 注诇 讘转 讘谞讛 注诇 讘转 讘转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 拽谞住 诪驻谞讬 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 砖诪讬转转谉 讘讬讚讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 讛诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 诪诪讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讗住讜谉 注谞讜砖 讬注谞砖

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鈥檚 daughter, with his son鈥檚 daughter, with his wife鈥檚 daughter, with her son鈥檚 daughter, or with her daughter鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd yet no harm follow, he shall be punished鈥 (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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讘讜讬讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讻讬 诪讛 注砖讛 诇讛 注专讘讬 讛诇讝 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讬注讱 诇讛 讘讬谉 讚讚讬讛 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 拽谞住 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘讜讬讛 砖谞砖讘讬转 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 讗驻讬壮 讘转 注砖专 砖谞讬诐 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讛转诐 诪讗讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讗讬讻讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 诪讬诪谞注讬 讜诇讗 谞住讘讬 诇讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檛, perhaps men would refrain and not marry her, due to their suspicion that her captors violated her.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 拽讬讬诪讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讬砖讗谞讛 诪注讬讚 讘讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讬砖讗谞讛 讜讛讚专 转谞讗 诪注讬讚 讘讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬讚 讘讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that a captive woman remains in her state of sanctity? But isn鈥檛 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?

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜诪注讬讚 讘讛 讬砖讗谞讛 诪注讬讚 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛

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.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖讗谞讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖讗谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜诪注讬讚 讘讛 讬砖讗谞讛 诇讗 砖讚讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讝讜讝讬 讘讻讚讬 诪注讬讚 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 砖诪讗 注讬谞讬讜 谞转谉 讘讛

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.

专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讜住祝

Rav Pappa bar Shmuel raised a contradiction before Rav Yosef:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 36

注专讬讜转 诪诪砖 砖谞讬讜转 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 拽谞住 讗诇讗 注专讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖谞讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽谞住 讜诪谞讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转讬诪谞讬 讛讬讗

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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 注专讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讚 讜讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 砖谞讬讜转 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讛讬讗

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.

讛诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讛讗 拽讟谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽讟谞讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讗转讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 拽讟谞讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 讜讛讗 诪拽讟谞讜转讛 讬爪转讛 诇讘讙专 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

搂 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讘诪诪讗谞转 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 注讚 诪转讬 讛讘转 诪诪讗谞转 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬专讘讛 砖讞讜专 注诇 讛诇讘谉

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讘拽讟谞讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

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鈥檛 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.

专驻专诐 讗诪专 诪讗讬 诪诪讗谞转 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讜诇讬转谞讬 拽讟谞讛 拽砖讬讗

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.

讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛讞专砖转 讜讛砖讜讟讛 讜讛讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讬砖 诇讛谉 拽谞住 讜讬砖 诇讛谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讜讛讗 诪讗讬 专讜诪讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛

搂 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.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇诪讬专诪讗 讗讞专讬转讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 讛讞专砖转 讜讛砖讜讟讛 讜讛讘讜讙专转 讜诪讜讻转 注抓 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讛住讜诪讗 讜讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讬砖 诇讛谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讟注谞讛 讗讬讛讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 讟注谞讛 讗讬讛讬 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讻讙讜谉 讝讜 驻转讞 驻讬讱 诇讗诇诐 讛讜讗

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: 鈥淥pen your mouth for the mute鈥 (Proverbs 31:8). When a person lacks the capacity to proffer the claim on his own, the court makes the claim on her behalf.

讜讛讘讜讙专转 讗讬谉 诇讛 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讘讜讙专转 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 诇讬诇讛 讛专讗砖讜谉

搂 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鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 讚诪讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 驻转讞 驻转讜讞

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.

住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讞讘讟转 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讘讜讟讬 诪讬讞讘讟讬 讻讜诇讛讜 专讜讗讜转 讜诪专讗讜转 诇讗诪谉 讝讜 讗讬谞讛 专讜讗讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪专讗讛 诇讗诪讛

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.

讜讛讬讜爪讗转 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讛讬讜爪讗转 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讘转 住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讬 砖讬爪讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 专注 讘讬诇讚讜转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 专讬注讗 诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚谞驻拽 拽诇讗 注诇讬讛 讚砖讟专讗 讚讝讬讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讚讻讜讜转讛 讛讻讗 讚谞驻拽 注诇讛 拽诇讗 讚讝谞讗讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讬爪讗 诇讛 砖诐 诪讝谞讛 讘注讬专 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讚讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讚讬讚讛讜 转讘注转谞讛讬 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讚讻讜讜转讛 讛讻讗 讚讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬讬驻讜 诇讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 砖讻讬讞讬 驻专讜爪讬谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讗诐 讛讜讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 讛讜讞讝拽讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪讛讚专 讗讝讬讜驻讗 讗讬诪专 讝讬讜驻讬 讝讬讬祝 讜讻转讘

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 拽谞住 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 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 讘谞讜转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘讜讬讛 砖谞驻讚讬转 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讙讚讜诇讛

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.

讛讘讗 注诇 讘转讜 注诇 讘转 讘转讜 注诇 讘转 讘谞讜 注诇 讘转 讗砖转讜 注诇 讘转 讘谞讛 注诇 讘转 讘转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 拽谞住 诪驻谞讬 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 砖诪讬转转谉 讘讬讚讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讻诇 讛诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 诪诪讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讗住讜谉 注谞讜砖 讬注谞砖

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鈥檚 daughter, with his son鈥檚 daughter, with his wife鈥檚 daughter, with her son鈥檚 daughter, or with her daughter鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd yet no harm follow, he shall be punished鈥 (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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚转谞讬讗 砖讘讜讬讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讜讻讬 诪讛 注砖讛 诇讛 注专讘讬 讛诇讝 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讬注讱 诇讛 讘讬谉 讚讚讬讛 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 拽谞住 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖讘讜讬讛 砖谞砖讘讬转 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 讗驻讬壮 讘转 注砖专 砖谞讬诐 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讛转诐 诪讗讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讗讬讻讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 诪讬诪谞注讬 讜诇讗 谞住讘讬 诇讛

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鈥檛 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鈥檛, perhaps men would refrain and not marry her, due to their suspicion that her captors violated her.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 拽讬讬诪讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讬砖讗谞讛 诪注讬讚 讘讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讬砖讗谞讛 讜讛讚专 转谞讗 诪注讬讚 讘讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬讚 讘讛 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that a captive woman remains in her state of sanctity? But isn鈥檛 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?

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜诪注讬讚 讘讛 讬砖讗谞讛 诪注讬讚 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛

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.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖讗谞讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讬砖讗谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛

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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜诪注讬讚 讘讛 讬砖讗谞讛 诇讗 砖讚讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讝讜讝讬 讘讻讚讬 诪注讬讚 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讗 讬砖讗谞讛 砖诪讗 注讬谞讬讜 谞转谉 讘讛

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.

专诪讬 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讜住祝

Rav Pappa bar Shmuel raised a contradiction before Rav Yosef:

Scroll To Top