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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 13, 2022 | ื˜ืดื– ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

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

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

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

Ketubot 38

ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื”ืจื’ื• ื“ืจืš ืขืœื™ื™ื” ืฉืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ืœื›ืคืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ืจื’ื• ื“ืจืš ื™ืจื™ื“ื” ื“ื ื™ืชื ื” ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ืœื›ืคืจื” ืื™ืžื ื ื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ืžืžื•ื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื ื™ืคื˜ืจื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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 โ€œany แธฅeremโ€ teaches us that even in that case there is no payment in lieu of execution.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื”ื ืžื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื ืคืงื ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ื•ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื”

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

ืžื” ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ื—ืœืงืช ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืœืžื–ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื™ืจื™ื“ื” ืœื“ืจืš ืขืœื™ื™ื” ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืœื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืฃ ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ืœื ืชื—ืœื•ืง ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืœืžื–ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื™ืจื™ื“ื” ืœื“ืจืš ืขืœื™ื” ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืœื ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ื ื• ื•ื”ืจื’ื• ื‘ื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ื ื• ื•ื”ืจื’ื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืื™ืžื ื ื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ืžืžื•ื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื”ื ื ืžื™ ืžืื™ื“ืš ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื ืคืงื ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืขื™ืŸ ืชื—ืช ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืขื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคืฉ ืชื—ืช ืขื™ืŸ

Rather, Rami bar แธคama said that the phrase โ€œany แธฅeremโ€ (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 anotherโ€™s eye and killed him with that same blow. However, in a case where one blinded anotherโ€™s 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 anotherโ€™s eye and killed him is also derived from that which another tanna of the school of แธคizkiyya taught, as the Sage of the school of แธคizkiyya taught that the verse states: โ€œAn eye for an eyeโ€ (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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื“ืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืงื ืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืžืฉืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื•ืœืจื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื“ืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืงื ืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื”ืื™ ื›ืœ ื—ืจื ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืชื ื ืงืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื

Rather, after the Gemara rejected the above explanations, Rav Ashi said: The phrase โ€œany แธฅeremโ€ 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: โ€œAny แธฅeremโ€? The Gemara answers: Rabba holds with regard to this matter in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who disagrees with Rabbi แธคananya ben Akavya and explains that the phrase โ€œAny แธฅeremโ€ teaches that the vow one takes to donate the valuation of one being taken to his execution is not binding.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืขืจื” ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงื ืก ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืงื ืก ื•ืงื ืกื” ืœืขืฆืžื”

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 fatherโ€™s authority.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ื”ื ืื•ืจืกื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงื ืก ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื”ื ืื•ืจืกื” ืœืขืฆืžื”

GEMARA: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? It is as the verse states: โ€œIf a man finds a young woman who is a virgin who was not betrothedโ€ (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.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื ืขืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœืขืฆืžื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœืขืฆืžื” ืืœื ืœื’ืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื’ืžืจื™

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.

ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืคืจื˜ ืœื ืขืจื” ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงื ืก ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืงื ืก ื•ืงื ืกื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื‘ื™ื” ื–ื›ืื™ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ื•ืื‘ื™ื” ื–ื›ืื™ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืงื ืกื” ืžื” ื›ืกืฃ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ืืฃ ื›ืกืฃ ืงื ืกื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ืœืื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva could have said to you that this verse: โ€œWho was not betrothed,โ€ is required by him to teach another halakha that is taught in a different baraita. โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ (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.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืžื•ืคื ื” ืœื”ืงื™ืฉ ืœื• ื•ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืžื” ื›ืืŸ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืืฃ ืœื”ืœืŸ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื•ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืฉืงืœื™ื ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืฉืงืœื™ื

If so, and the halakha can be logically inferred, why does the verse state: โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€? 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: โ€œWho was not betrothed,โ€ and it is stated below: โ€œAnd if a man seduce a virgin who was not betrothedโ€ (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: โ€œHe shall weigh [yishkol] moneyโ€ (Exodus 22:16), so too here, the payment is in shekels.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืœื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœื”

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, what did you see that led you to utilize the phrase: โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ for a verbal analogy, and the term โ€œvirginโ€ to exclude a non-virgin from the fine?

ืื™ืžื ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืœื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืกื” ืคืจื˜ ืœื ืขืจื” ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื”

Say to the contrary; the term โ€œvirgin,โ€ written with regard to both rape and seduction, is to derive a verbal analogy, and not to exclude a non-virgin, and the phrase โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ will be interpreted as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interpreted it, to exclude a young woman who was betrothed and divorced.

ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืกื” ืœื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื ื™ ืงื•ืจื ื‘ื” ื ืขืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืœื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื ื™ ืงื•ืจื ื‘ื” ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืกื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื”ื ืื™ืฉืชื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื”

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the phrase โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ 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 โ€œA young woman who is a virginโ€ 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 โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ as applying to her. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the term โ€œvirginโ€ excludes a non-virgin, and the phrase โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื”ืื™ ืกื‘ืจื ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ืกืฃ ื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ื›ืžื•ื”ืจ ื”ื‘ืชื•ืœื•ืช ืฉื™ื”ื ื–ื” ื›ืžื•ื”ืจ ื”ื‘ืชื•ืœื•ืช ื•ืžื•ื”ืจ ื”ื‘ืชื•ืœื•ืช ื›ื–ื”

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: โ€œHe shall weigh money like the dowry of the virginsโ€ (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.

ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืชืจื™ ืชื ืื™ ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

ยง 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 tannaโ€™im in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืœื ืืชื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืžืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืœืงืจื ืžืคืฉื˜ื™ื” ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ืืชื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืžืคืงื ืžืคืฉื˜ื™ื” ืœื’ืžืจื™

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: โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ 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?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืืฉืจ ืœื ืืจื•ืกื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื‘ืช ืกืงื™ืœื” ื”ื™ื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื“ืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืงื ืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืžืฉืœื

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื“ืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืงื ืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืžืฉืœื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงื ืกื” ืœืžื™ ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœืขืฆืžื” ืœืขืฆืžื” ืืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ื ืขืจื” ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื

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 แธคisda said: Here we are dealing with a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, and these tannaโ€™im 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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื•ืžืชื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ ื”ื ืขืจื” ื•ืœื ืœืื‘ื™ ืžืชื” ืžืœืชื ื“ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื

ยง 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: โ€œAnd the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young womanโ€ (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.

ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื’ืจ ื‘ืงื‘ืจ ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ืจ ื‘ืงื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื’ืจ ื‘ืงื‘ืจ ื•ื“ื‘ื ื” ื”ื•ื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ืจ ื‘ืงื‘ืจ ื•ื“ืื‘ื™ื” ื”ื•ื™

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

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 35-41 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue discussing the cases of rape and seduction and when the perpetrator must pay the fine...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 38: She Can’t Go Home Again

A new mishnah! A young woman who is betrothed and then divorced - in the event of rape, would she...

Ketubot 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 38

ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื”ืจื’ื• ื“ืจืš ืขืœื™ื™ื” ืฉืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ืœื›ืคืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ืจื’ื• ื“ืจืš ื™ืจื™ื“ื” ื“ื ื™ืชื ื” ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ืœื›ืคืจื” ืื™ืžื ื ื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ืžืžื•ื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื ื™ืคื˜ืจื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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 โ€œany แธฅeremโ€ teaches us that even in that case there is no payment in lieu of execution.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื”ื ืžื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื ืคืงื ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ื•ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื”

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

ืžื” ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ื—ืœืงืช ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืœืžื–ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื™ืจื™ื“ื” ืœื“ืจืš ืขืœื™ื™ื” ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืœื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืฃ ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ืœื ืชื—ืœื•ืง ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืœืžื–ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื™ืจื™ื“ื” ืœื“ืจืš ืขืœื™ื” ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืœื ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ื ื• ื•ื”ืจื’ื• ื‘ื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ื ื• ื•ื”ืจื’ื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืื™ืžื ื ื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ืžืžื•ื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื”ื ื ืžื™ ืžืื™ื“ืš ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื ืคืงื ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืขื™ืŸ ืชื—ืช ืขื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืขื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคืฉ ืชื—ืช ืขื™ืŸ

Rather, Rami bar แธคama said that the phrase โ€œany แธฅeremโ€ (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 anotherโ€™s eye and killed him with that same blow. However, in a case where one blinded anotherโ€™s 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 anotherโ€™s eye and killed him is also derived from that which another tanna of the school of แธคizkiyya taught, as the Sage of the school of แธคizkiyya taught that the verse states: โ€œAn eye for an eyeโ€ (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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื“ืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืงื ืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืžืฉืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื•ืœืจื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื“ืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืงื ืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื”ืื™ ื›ืœ ื—ืจื ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืชื ื ืงืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงื‘ื™ื

Rather, after the Gemara rejected the above explanations, Rav Ashi said: The phrase โ€œany แธฅeremโ€ 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: โ€œAny แธฅeremโ€? The Gemara answers: Rabba holds with regard to this matter in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who disagrees with Rabbi แธคananya ben Akavya and explains that the phrase โ€œAny แธฅeremโ€ teaches that the vow one takes to donate the valuation of one being taken to his execution is not binding.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืขืจื” ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงื ืก ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืงื ืก ื•ืงื ืกื” ืœืขืฆืžื”

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 fatherโ€™s authority.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ื”ื ืื•ืจืกื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงื ืก ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื”ื ืื•ืจืกื” ืœืขืฆืžื”

GEMARA: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? It is as the verse states: โ€œIf a man finds a young woman who is a virgin who was not betrothedโ€ (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.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื ืขืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœืขืฆืžื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœืขืฆืžื” ืืœื ืœื’ืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื’ืžืจื™

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.

ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืื™ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืคืจื˜ ืœื ืขืจื” ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงื ืก ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืงื ืก ื•ืงื ืกื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื ื•ืชืŸ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื‘ื™ื” ื–ื›ืื™ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ื•ืื‘ื™ื” ื–ื›ืื™ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืงื ืกื” ืžื” ื›ืกืฃ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ืืฃ ื›ืกืฃ ืงื ืกื” ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ืœืื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva could have said to you that this verse: โ€œWho was not betrothed,โ€ is required by him to teach another halakha that is taught in a different baraita. โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ (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.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืžื•ืคื ื” ืœื”ืงื™ืฉ ืœื• ื•ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืžื” ื›ืืŸ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืืฃ ืœื”ืœืŸ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื•ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืฉืงืœื™ื ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืฉืงืœื™ื

If so, and the halakha can be logically inferred, why does the verse state: โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€? 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: โ€œWho was not betrothed,โ€ and it is stated below: โ€œAnd if a man seduce a virgin who was not betrothedโ€ (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: โ€œHe shall weigh [yishkol] moneyโ€ (Exodus 22:16), so too here, the payment is in shekels.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืฉื” ืœื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœื”

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, what did you see that led you to utilize the phrase: โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ for a verbal analogy, and the term โ€œvirginโ€ to exclude a non-virgin from the fine?

ืื™ืžื ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืœื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืกื” ืคืจื˜ ืœื ืขืจื” ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื”

Say to the contrary; the term โ€œvirgin,โ€ written with regard to both rape and seduction, is to derive a verbal analogy, and not to exclude a non-virgin, and the phrase โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ will be interpreted as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interpreted it, to exclude a young woman who was betrothed and divorced.

ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืกื” ืœื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื ื™ ืงื•ืจื ื‘ื” ื ืขืจื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืœื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื ื™ ืงื•ืจื ื‘ื” ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื•ืจืกื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื”ื ืื™ืฉืชื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื” ื•ื”ื ืœื ืื™ืฉืชื ื™ ื’ื•ืคื”

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the phrase โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ 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 โ€œA young woman who is a virginโ€ 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 โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ as applying to her. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the term โ€œvirginโ€ excludes a non-virgin, and the phrase โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื”ืื™ ืกื‘ืจื ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ืกืฃ ื™ืฉืงื•ืœ ื›ืžื•ื”ืจ ื”ื‘ืชื•ืœื•ืช ืฉื™ื”ื ื–ื” ื›ืžื•ื”ืจ ื”ื‘ืชื•ืœื•ืช ื•ืžื•ื”ืจ ื”ื‘ืชื•ืœื•ืช ื›ื–ื”

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: โ€œHe shall weigh money like the dowry of the virginsโ€ (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.

ืงืฉื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืชืจื™ ืชื ืื™ ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

ยง 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 tannaโ€™im in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืœื ืืชื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืžืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืœืงืจื ืžืคืฉื˜ื™ื” ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื ืืชื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื•ืžืคืงื ืžืคืฉื˜ื™ื” ืœื’ืžืจื™

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: โ€œWho was not betrothedโ€ 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?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืืฉืจ ืœื ืืจื•ืกื” ืืจื•ืกื” ื‘ืช ืกืงื™ืœื” ื”ื™ื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื“ืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืงื ืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืžืฉืœื

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื“ืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืงื ืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืžืฉืœื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงื ืกื” ืœืžื™ ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœืขืฆืžื” ืœืขืฆืžื” ืืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ื ืขืจื” ืฉื ืชืืจืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื™ืชื

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 แธคisda said: Here we are dealing with a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, and these tannaโ€™im 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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื•ืžืชื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ ื”ื ืขืจื” ื•ืœื ืœืื‘ื™ ืžืชื” ืžืœืชื ื“ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื

ยง 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: โ€œAnd the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young womanโ€ (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.

ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื’ืจ ื‘ืงื‘ืจ ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ืจ ื‘ืงื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื’ืจ ื‘ืงื‘ืจ ื•ื“ื‘ื ื” ื”ื•ื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ืจ ื‘ืงื‘ืจ ื•ื“ืื‘ื™ื” ื”ื•ื™

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. Ravaโ€™s 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 motherโ€™s 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