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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 12, 2015 | 讻状讗 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 38

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讛专讙讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 砖讙讙转讜 诇讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讛专讙讜 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 讚谞讬转谞讛 砖讙讙转讜 诇讻驻专讛 讗讬诪讗 谞讬砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜谞讬驻讟专讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

this principle, that one cannot pay in lieu of execution, applies only when one intentionally killed him in an upward motion, for which no atonement is designated in the Torah for its unwitting performance. However, with regard to one who intentionally killed him in a downward motion, for which atonement, i.e., exile, is designated in the Torah for its unwitting performance, say: Let us take money from him and exempt him. Therefore, the phrase 鈥渁ny 岣remteaches us that even in that case there is no payment in lieu of execution.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讗 诪讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛

Rava said to him: That principle is derived from that which the Sage of the school of 岣zkiyya taught, as the Sage of the school of 岣zkiyya taught: The verse juxtaposes the cases of one who smites a person, and one who smites an animal (Leviticus 24:21).

诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 诇诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 诇讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪诪讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讞讬讬讘讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 诇诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 诇讚专讱 注诇讬讛 诇讞讬讬讘讜 诪诪讜谉 讗诇讗 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪诪讜谉

Just as in the case of one who smites an animal, you did not distinguish between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally; between one who acted with intent and one who acted with no intent; between one who smites in the course of a downward motion and one who smites in the course of an upward motion; and in all those cases it is not to exempt him from paying money but rather to obligate him to pay money; so too in the case of one who smites a person: Do not distinguish between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally; between one who acted with intent and one who acted with no intent; between one who smites in the course of a downward motion and one who smites in the course of an upward motion; and in all those cases it is not to obligate him to pay money but rather to exempt him from paying money. Apparently, one who kills another in any manner is exempt from payment, and therefore no additional verse is required to derive that principle.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 讜讛专讙讜 讘讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 讜讛专讙讜 讘讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬诪讗 谞讬砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 注讬谉 转讞转 注讬谉 讜诇讗 注讬谉 讜谞驻砖 转讞转 注讬谉

Rather, Rami bar 岣ma said that the phrase 鈥渁ny 岣rem鈥 (Leviticus 27:29) is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this halakha, that one who is liable to be executed is exempt from payment, applies only in a case where one blinded another鈥檚 eye and killed him with that same blow. However, in a case where one blinded another鈥檚 eye and killed him by means of a different blow, say: Let us take money from him to pay the damage inflicted to the eye. Therefore, the verse teaches that this is not the case. Rava said to him: This case of one who blinded another鈥檚 eye and killed him is also derived from that which another tanna of the school of 岣zkiyya taught, as the Sage of the school of 岣zkiyya taught that the verse states: 鈥淎n eye for an eye鈥 (Exodus 21:24), from which it may be inferred, but not an eye and a life for an eye. When he gives his life for killing another while blinding him, he need not pay the worth of the eye as well.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐 讛讗讬 讻诇 讞专诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗

Rather, after the Gemara rejected the above explanations, Rav Ashi said: The phrase 鈥渁ny 岣rem鈥 is nonetheless necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Since it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to the payment of a fine, which is not payment for any damage caused but is a Torah decree, in that case, even though he is killed he pays the fine. Therefore, the verse teaches us that one who is executed is exempt from payment of the fine. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabba, who said that this is indeed the halakha: Since it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to the payment of a fine, even though he is killed he pays the fine, what does he do with this phrase: 鈥淎ny 岣rem鈥? The Gemara answers: Rabba holds with regard to this matter in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who disagrees with Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya and explains that the phrase 鈥淎ny 岣rem鈥 teaches that the vow one takes to donate the valuation of one being taken to his execution is not binding.

诪转谞讬壮 谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜拽谞住讛 诇注爪诪讛

MISHNA: With regard to a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, and then raped, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: She does not receive payment of a fine for her rape. Rabbi Akiva says: She receives payment of a fine for her rape and her fine is paid to herself, not her father, as since she was betrothed and divorced she is no longer subject to her father鈥檚 authority.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 讛讗 讗讜专住讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 诇讗讘讬讛 讛讗 讗讜专住讛 诇注爪诪讛

GEMARA: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? It is as the verse states: 鈥淚f a man finds a young woman who is a virgin who was not betrothed鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:28), from which it may be inferred: If she was betrothed she does not have a fine for rape. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva explain this verse? The Gemara answers that the verse states: If it is a young woman who was not betrothed, the fine is paid to her father, from which it may be inferred: If she was betrothed, the fine is paid to the betrothed woman herself.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 谞注专讛 讜诇讗 讘讜讙专转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇注爪诪讛 讘转讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇注爪诪讛 讗诇讗 诇讙诪专讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讙诪专讬

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, that the inference from the verse is that the fine is levied on one who rapes a young woman and not on one who rapes a grown woman, so too, there is the halakha in the latter case that the fine is paid to the grown woman herself. Similarly, with regard to the inference that the fine is levied on one who rapes a virgin and not on one who rapes a non-virgin, so too, there is the halakha that in the latter case the fine is paid to the non-virgin herself. A distinction of that kind has never been encountered. Rather, with regard to a grown woman and a non-virgin, the rapist is completely exempt from paying the fine; here too, with regard to a betrothed woman, the rapist is completely exempt from paying the fine.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 驻专讟 诇谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜拽谞住讛 诇讗讘讬讛 讜讛讚讬谉 谞讜转谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讘讬讛 讝讻讗讬 讘讻住祝 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讜讗讘讬讛 讝讻讗讬 讘讻住祝 拽谞住讛 诪讛 讻住祝 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 诇讗讘讬讛 讗祝 讻住祝 拽谞住讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 诇讗讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva could have said to you that this verse: 鈥淲ho was not betrothed,鈥 is required by him to teach another halakha that is taught in a different baraita. 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:28) comes to exclude a young woman who was betrothed and divorced and establish that she does not receive payment of a fine for her rape; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: She receives payment of a fine for her rape, and her fine goes to her father, contrary to the ruling attributed to Rabbi Akiva in the mishna. And ostensibly, no verse is required to derive this halakha, as logic dictates that it is so: Since her father is entitled to the money of her betrothal if she is betrothed before she becomes a grown woman, and likewise her father is entitled to the money of her fine; just as the money of her subsequent betrothal as a young woman, even though she was betrothed and divorced, is paid to her father, so too, the money of her fine, although she was betrothed and divorced, is paid to her father.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 诪讜驻谞讛 诇讛拽讬砖 诇讜 讜诇讚讜谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 诪讛 讻讗谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖拽诇讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖拽诇讬诐

If so, and the halakha can be logically inferred, why does the verse state: 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥? This verse is free, as it is superfluous in its own context, and it is written to liken another case to it, and to derive from it a verbal analogy: It is stated here with regard to a woman who was raped: 鈥淲ho was not betrothed,鈥 and it is stated below: 鈥淎nd if a man seduce a virgin who was not betrothed鈥 (Exodus 22:15). Just as here, with regard to rape, the Torah specifies that the payment is fifty silver pieces (Deuteronomy 22:29), so too below, with regard to seduction, the payment is fifty. And just as below, with regard to seduction, the payment is in shekels, as it is written: 鈥淗e shall weigh [yishkol] money鈥 (Exodus 22:16), so too here, the payment is in shekels.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜讘转讜诇讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘注讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, what did you see that led you to utilize the phrase: 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 for a verbal analogy, and the term 鈥渧irgin鈥 to exclude a non-virgin from the fine?

讗讬诪讗 讘转讜诇讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专住讛 驻专讟 诇谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛

Say to the contrary; the term 鈥渧irgin,鈥 written with regard to both rape and seduction, is to derive a verbal analogy, and not to exclude a non-virgin, and the phrase 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 will be interpreted as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interpreted it, to exclude a young woman who was betrothed and divorced.

诪住转讘专讗 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专住讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 砖讛专讬 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 谞注专讛 讘转讜诇讛 讗讚专讘讛 讘转讜诇讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 砖讛专讬 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专住讛 诪住转讘专讗 讛讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讛

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the phrase 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 is utilized to derive a verbal analogy, and not to exclude one who was betrothed and divorced, as even after the divorce I can still read the phrase 鈥淎 young woman who is a virgin鈥 as applying to her. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, utilize the term virgin to derive a verbal analogy, as even if she is not a virgin, I can still read the phrase 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 as applying to her. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the term 鈥渧irgin鈥 excludes a non-virgin, and the phrase 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 is utilized to derive a verbal analogy, as this woman who engaged in relations, her body changed, and that woman who was betrothed and divorced, her body did not change, and therefore her status with regard to the fine should similarly not change.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚转谞讬讗 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

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derive this conclusion with regard to the amount of the payment for seduction and the type of money used in the payment for rape? The Gemara responds: He derives it from that which was taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to seduction: 鈥淗e shall weigh money like the dowry of the virgins鈥 (Exodus 22:16), from which it is derived that this fine for seduction will be like the dowry paid to the virgins elsewhere for rape, fifty silver coins, and the dowry paid to the virgins for rape will be like this fine for seduction in shekels.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

搂 The Gemara comments: It is difficult as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Akiva and another statement of Rabbi Akiva. In the mishna he ruled that the fine for the rape of a young woman who was betrothed and divorced is paid to the woman, and in the baraita he ruled that it is paid to her father. The Gemara answers: These are conflicting traditions of two tanna鈥檌m in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讗转讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜诪驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 诪驻砖讟讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讗转讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜诪驻拽讗 诪驻砖讟讬讛 诇讙诪专讬

The Gemara observes: Granted, the statement of Rabbi Akiva of the mishna is reasonable, as a verbal analogy does not come and divert the verse from its plain meaning entirely. The plain meaning of the phrase: 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 is that there is a difference between a young woman who was betrothed, who receives payment of the fine, and one who was not, whose father receives payment of the fine. However, according to Rabbi Akiva of the baraita, does a verbal analogy come and divert the verse from its plain meaning entirely, and teach that there is no difference at all between a young woman who was betrothed and one who was not?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讗专讜住讛 讗专讜住讛 讘转 住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Interpret the verse as: Who is not betrothed. It does not mean that the young woman was not betrothed in the past, rather, that she is not currently betrothed. The Gemara asks: There is no need for a verse to derive that the rapist is exempt from paying a fine if the young woman is betrothed, as the rape of a betrothed young woman is punishable by stoning, and the rapist is certainly exempt from paying the fine. The Gemara answers: As it might enter your mind to say: Since it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to the payment of a fine, even though he is killed he pays the fine. Therefore, the verse teaches us that one who is executed is exempt from payment of the fine.

讜诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabba, who said that this is indeed the halakha: Since it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to the payment of a fine, even though he is killed he pays the fine, what is there to say? What is derived from the verse that says that there is no fine if the young woman is betrothed? The Gemara answers: Rabba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva of the mishna, who interpreted the verse as it is written, meaning that it is referring to one who was betrothed and divorced.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽谞住讛 诇诪讬 诇讗讘讬讛 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注爪诪讛 诇注爪诪讛 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻讗 讘谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讘专讬讬转讗

The Sages taught: With regard to a young woman who was raped, to whom is her fine paid? It is paid to her father; and some say: It is paid to her. The Gemara asks: To her? Why? The verse explicitly states that the fine is paid to her father. Rav 岣sda said: Here we are dealing with a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, and these tanna鈥檌m in the baraita disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Akiva of the mishna and Rabbi Akiva of the baraita, with regard to whom the rapist pays the fine in that case.

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 讜诇讗 诇讗讘讬 诪转讛 诪诇转讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗

Abaye said: If one had intercourse with a young woman, and she died before he was sentenced, he is exempt from paying the fine, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred, and not to the father of a dead girl. The Gemara comments: This matter that was obvious to Abaye was raised as a dilemma to Rava.

讚讘注讬 专讘讗 讬砖 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讗讜 讗讬谉 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讬砖 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讜讚讘谞讛 讛讜讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讜讚讗讘讬讛 讛讜讬

As Rava raised a dilemma: Is there achievement of grown-woman status in the grave or is there not achievement of grown-woman status in the grave? The halakha is that if a young woman is raped and the rapist did not pay the fine until she became a grown woman, the rapist pays the fine to her and not to her father. Rava鈥檚 dilemma is in a case where a young woman dies and her rapist was convicted only after the time elapsed that were she alive she would have reached grown-woman status. Is there achievement of grown-woman status in the grave, and therefore she is entitled to the fine and it is the property of her son as his mother鈥檚 heir? Or perhaps there is no achievement of grown-woman status in the grave, and the fine is the property of her father, as she was a young woman when she died.

  • 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 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 38

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讛专讙讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 砖讙讙转讜 诇讻驻专讛 讗讘诇 讛专讙讜 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 讚谞讬转谞讛 砖讙讙转讜 诇讻驻专讛 讗讬诪讗 谞讬砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜谞讬驻讟专讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

this principle, that one cannot pay in lieu of execution, applies only when one intentionally killed him in an upward motion, for which no atonement is designated in the Torah for its unwitting performance. However, with regard to one who intentionally killed him in a downward motion, for which atonement, i.e., exile, is designated in the Torah for its unwitting performance, say: Let us take money from him and exempt him. Therefore, the phrase 鈥渁ny 岣remteaches us that even in that case there is no payment in lieu of execution.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讗 诪讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛

Rava said to him: That principle is derived from that which the Sage of the school of 岣zkiyya taught, as the Sage of the school of 岣zkiyya taught: The verse juxtaposes the cases of one who smites a person, and one who smites an animal (Leviticus 24:21).

诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讞诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 诇诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 诇讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪诪讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讞讬讬讘讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 诇诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 诇讚专讱 注诇讬讛 诇讞讬讬讘讜 诪诪讜谉 讗诇讗 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪诪讜谉

Just as in the case of one who smites an animal, you did not distinguish between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally; between one who acted with intent and one who acted with no intent; between one who smites in the course of a downward motion and one who smites in the course of an upward motion; and in all those cases it is not to exempt him from paying money but rather to obligate him to pay money; so too in the case of one who smites a person: Do not distinguish between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally; between one who acted with intent and one who acted with no intent; between one who smites in the course of a downward motion and one who smites in the course of an upward motion; and in all those cases it is not to obligate him to pay money but rather to exempt him from paying money. Apparently, one who kills another in any manner is exempt from payment, and therefore no additional verse is required to derive that principle.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 讜讛专讙讜 讘讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 讜讛专讙讜 讘讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬诪讗 谞讬砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 注讬谉 转讞转 注讬谉 讜诇讗 注讬谉 讜谞驻砖 转讞转 注讬谉

Rather, Rami bar 岣ma said that the phrase 鈥渁ny 岣rem鈥 (Leviticus 27:29) is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this halakha, that one who is liable to be executed is exempt from payment, applies only in a case where one blinded another鈥檚 eye and killed him with that same blow. However, in a case where one blinded another鈥檚 eye and killed him by means of a different blow, say: Let us take money from him to pay the damage inflicted to the eye. Therefore, the verse teaches that this is not the case. Rava said to him: This case of one who blinded another鈥檚 eye and killed him is also derived from that which another tanna of the school of 岣zkiyya taught, as the Sage of the school of 岣zkiyya taught that the verse states: 鈥淎n eye for an eye鈥 (Exodus 21:24), from which it may be inferred, but not an eye and a life for an eye. When he gives his life for killing another while blinding him, he need not pay the worth of the eye as well.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐 讛讗讬 讻诇 讞专诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗

Rather, after the Gemara rejected the above explanations, Rav Ashi said: The phrase 鈥渁ny 岣rem鈥 is nonetheless necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Since it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to the payment of a fine, which is not payment for any damage caused but is a Torah decree, in that case, even though he is killed he pays the fine. Therefore, the verse teaches us that one who is executed is exempt from payment of the fine. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabba, who said that this is indeed the halakha: Since it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to the payment of a fine, even though he is killed he pays the fine, what does he do with this phrase: 鈥淎ny 岣rem鈥? The Gemara answers: Rabba holds with regard to this matter in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who disagrees with Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya and explains that the phrase 鈥淎ny 岣rem鈥 teaches that the vow one takes to donate the valuation of one being taken to his execution is not binding.

诪转谞讬壮 谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜拽谞住讛 诇注爪诪讛

MISHNA: With regard to a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, and then raped, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: She does not receive payment of a fine for her rape. Rabbi Akiva says: She receives payment of a fine for her rape and her fine is paid to herself, not her father, as since she was betrothed and divorced she is no longer subject to her father鈥檚 authority.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 讛讗 讗讜专住讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 诇讗讘讬讛 讛讗 讗讜专住讛 诇注爪诪讛

GEMARA: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? It is as the verse states: 鈥淚f a man finds a young woman who is a virgin who was not betrothed鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:28), from which it may be inferred: If she was betrothed she does not have a fine for rape. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva explain this verse? The Gemara answers that the verse states: If it is a young woman who was not betrothed, the fine is paid to her father, from which it may be inferred: If she was betrothed, the fine is paid to the betrothed woman herself.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 谞注专讛 讜诇讗 讘讜讙专转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇注爪诪讛 讘转讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜诇讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇注爪诪讛 讗诇讗 诇讙诪专讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讙诪专讬

The Gemara asks: But if that is so, that the inference from the verse is that the fine is levied on one who rapes a young woman and not on one who rapes a grown woman, so too, there is the halakha in the latter case that the fine is paid to the grown woman herself. Similarly, with regard to the inference that the fine is levied on one who rapes a virgin and not on one who rapes a non-virgin, so too, there is the halakha that in the latter case the fine is paid to the non-virgin herself. A distinction of that kind has never been encountered. Rather, with regard to a grown woman and a non-virgin, the rapist is completely exempt from paying the fine; here too, with regard to a betrothed woman, the rapist is completely exempt from paying the fine.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 驻专讟 诇谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜拽谞住讛 诇讗讘讬讛 讜讛讚讬谉 谞讜转谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讘讬讛 讝讻讗讬 讘讻住祝 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讜讗讘讬讛 讝讻讗讬 讘讻住祝 拽谞住讛 诪讛 讻住祝 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 诇讗讘讬讛 讗祝 讻住祝 拽谞住讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 诇讗讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva could have said to you that this verse: 鈥淲ho was not betrothed,鈥 is required by him to teach another halakha that is taught in a different baraita. 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:28) comes to exclude a young woman who was betrothed and divorced and establish that she does not receive payment of a fine for her rape; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: She receives payment of a fine for her rape, and her fine goes to her father, contrary to the ruling attributed to Rabbi Akiva in the mishna. And ostensibly, no verse is required to derive this halakha, as logic dictates that it is so: Since her father is entitled to the money of her betrothal if she is betrothed before she becomes a grown woman, and likewise her father is entitled to the money of her fine; just as the money of her subsequent betrothal as a young woman, even though she was betrothed and divorced, is paid to her father, so too, the money of her fine, although she was betrothed and divorced, is paid to her father.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 诪讜驻谞讛 诇讛拽讬砖 诇讜 讜诇讚讜谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 诪讛 讻讗谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讜诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖拽诇讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖拽诇讬诐

If so, and the halakha can be logically inferred, why does the verse state: 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥? This verse is free, as it is superfluous in its own context, and it is written to liken another case to it, and to derive from it a verbal analogy: It is stated here with regard to a woman who was raped: 鈥淲ho was not betrothed,鈥 and it is stated below: 鈥淎nd if a man seduce a virgin who was not betrothed鈥 (Exodus 22:15). Just as here, with regard to rape, the Torah specifies that the payment is fifty silver pieces (Deuteronomy 22:29), so too below, with regard to seduction, the payment is fifty. And just as below, with regard to seduction, the payment is in shekels, as it is written: 鈥淗e shall weigh [yishkol] money鈥 (Exodus 22:16), so too here, the payment is in shekels.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专砖讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜讘转讜诇讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘注讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, what did you see that led you to utilize the phrase: 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 for a verbal analogy, and the term 鈥渧irgin鈥 to exclude a non-virgin from the fine?

讗讬诪讗 讘转讜诇讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专住讛 驻专讟 诇谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛

Say to the contrary; the term 鈥渧irgin,鈥 written with regard to both rape and seduction, is to derive a verbal analogy, and not to exclude a non-virgin, and the phrase 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 will be interpreted as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interpreted it, to exclude a young woman who was betrothed and divorced.

诪住转讘专讗 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专住讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 砖讛专讬 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 谞注专讛 讘转讜诇讛 讗讚专讘讛 讘转讜诇讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 砖讛专讬 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讗讜专住讛 诪住转讘专讗 讛讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讛

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the phrase 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 is utilized to derive a verbal analogy, and not to exclude one who was betrothed and divorced, as even after the divorce I can still read the phrase 鈥淎 young woman who is a virgin鈥 as applying to her. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, utilize the term virgin to derive a verbal analogy, as even if she is not a virgin, I can still read the phrase 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 as applying to her. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the term 鈥渧irgin鈥 excludes a non-virgin, and the phrase 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 is utilized to derive a verbal analogy, as this woman who engaged in relations, her body changed, and that woman who was betrothed and divorced, her body did not change, and therefore her status with regard to the fine should similarly not change.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讚转谞讬讗 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

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derive this conclusion with regard to the amount of the payment for seduction and the type of money used in the payment for rape? The Gemara responds: He derives it from that which was taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to seduction: 鈥淗e shall weigh money like the dowry of the virgins鈥 (Exodus 22:16), from which it is derived that this fine for seduction will be like the dowry paid to the virgins elsewhere for rape, fifty silver coins, and the dowry paid to the virgins for rape will be like this fine for seduction in shekels.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

搂 The Gemara comments: It is difficult as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Akiva and another statement of Rabbi Akiva. In the mishna he ruled that the fine for the rape of a young woman who was betrothed and divorced is paid to the woman, and in the baraita he ruled that it is paid to her father. The Gemara answers: These are conflicting traditions of two tanna鈥檌m in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讗转讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜诪驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 诪驻砖讟讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讗转讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜诪驻拽讗 诪驻砖讟讬讛 诇讙诪专讬

The Gemara observes: Granted, the statement of Rabbi Akiva of the mishna is reasonable, as a verbal analogy does not come and divert the verse from its plain meaning entirely. The plain meaning of the phrase: 鈥淲ho was not betrothed鈥 is that there is a difference between a young woman who was betrothed, who receives payment of the fine, and one who was not, whose father receives payment of the fine. However, according to Rabbi Akiva of the baraita, does a verbal analogy come and divert the verse from its plain meaning entirely, and teach that there is no difference at all between a young woman who was betrothed and one who was not?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 拽专讬 讘讬讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讗专讜住讛 讗专讜住讛 讘转 住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Interpret the verse as: Who is not betrothed. It does not mean that the young woman was not betrothed in the past, rather, that she is not currently betrothed. The Gemara asks: There is no need for a verse to derive that the rapist is exempt from paying a fine if the young woman is betrothed, as the rape of a betrothed young woman is punishable by stoning, and the rapist is certainly exempt from paying the fine. The Gemara answers: As it might enter your mind to say: Since it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to the payment of a fine, even though he is killed he pays the fine. Therefore, the verse teaches us that one who is executed is exempt from payment of the fine.

讜诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabba, who said that this is indeed the halakha: Since it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to the payment of a fine, even though he is killed he pays the fine, what is there to say? What is derived from the verse that says that there is no fine if the young woman is betrothed? The Gemara answers: Rabba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva of the mishna, who interpreted the verse as it is written, meaning that it is referring to one who was betrothed and divorced.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽谞住讛 诇诪讬 诇讗讘讬讛 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注爪诪讛 诇注爪诪讛 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻讗 讘谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讘专讬讬转讗

The Sages taught: With regard to a young woman who was raped, to whom is her fine paid? It is paid to her father; and some say: It is paid to her. The Gemara asks: To her? Why? The verse explicitly states that the fine is paid to her father. Rav 岣sda said: Here we are dealing with a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, and these tanna鈥檌m in the baraita disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Akiva of the mishna and Rabbi Akiva of the baraita, with regard to whom the rapist pays the fine in that case.

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 讜诇讗 诇讗讘讬 诪转讛 诪诇转讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗

Abaye said: If one had intercourse with a young woman, and she died before he was sentenced, he is exempt from paying the fine, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred, and not to the father of a dead girl. The Gemara comments: This matter that was obvious to Abaye was raised as a dilemma to Rava.

讚讘注讬 专讘讗 讬砖 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讗讜 讗讬谉 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讬砖 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讜讚讘谞讛 讛讜讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讜讚讗讘讬讛 讛讜讬

As Rava raised a dilemma: Is there achievement of grown-woman status in the grave or is there not achievement of grown-woman status in the grave? The halakha is that if a young woman is raped and the rapist did not pay the fine until she became a grown woman, the rapist pays the fine to her and not to her father. Rava鈥檚 dilemma is in a case where a young woman dies and her rapist was convicted only after the time elapsed that were she alive she would have reached grown-woman status. Is there achievement of grown-woman status in the grave, and therefore she is entitled to the fine and it is the property of her son as his mother鈥檚 heir? Or perhaps there is no achievement of grown-woman status in the grave, and the fine is the property of her father, as she was a young woman when she died.

Scroll To Top