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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 13, 2015 | 讻状讘 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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 39

Study Guide Ketubot 39


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

讜诪讬 诪注讘专讗 讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘诪讜讱 讗诇讜 讛谉 拽讟谞讛 讜诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜转诪讜转 诪注讜讘专转 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讜讘专讛 住谞讚诇 诪谞讬拽讛 砖诪讗 转讙诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讛

Rava鈥檚 dilemma is based on the assumption that a rape victim is able to conceive before she is a grown woman. The Gemara asks: And can a minor conceive? But didn鈥檛 Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Na岣an: It is permitted for three women to engage in relations with a contraceptive resorbent. These are they: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman. The baraita elaborates: A minor may do so lest she conceive and die; a pregnant woman, lest her existing fetus be crushed by another fetus and assume the shape of a sandal fish if she conceives a second time; and a nursing woman, lest she conceive, causing her milk to spoil, which will lead her to wean her son prematurely, endangering his health.

讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讞讜转 诪讬讻谉 讜讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讜诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 砖讜诪专 驻转讗讬诐 讛壮

And the baraita further states: What is a minor girl? A minor girl is a girl from eleven years and one day old until twelve years and one day old. If she was less than that age or more than that age, she proceeds and engages in relations in her usual manner; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Both this woman and that woman, i.e., in the cases of all these women, she proceeds and engages in relations in her usual manner, and from Heaven they will have mercy and prevent any mishap, due to the fact that it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord preserves the simple鈥 (Psalms 116:6). Apparently, a minor is unable to conceive.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讬注讘专讗 讻砖讛讬讗 谞注专讛 讜讗讜诇讬讚讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞注专讛 讜讘砖讬转讗 讬专讞讬 诪讬 拽讗 讬诇讚讛 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 谞注专讜转 诇讘讙专讜转 讗诇讗 砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘爪讬专 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 讟驻讬 讗讬讻讗 讛讗 讗诇讗 拽讗诪专

And if you say that she conceived when she was a young woman, twelve years old, and gave birth when she was a young woman, and died before she reached the status of a grown woman, can a woman give birth in six months after conception? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: There are only six months between becoming a young woman and becoming a grown woman? And if you say that Shmuel is saying that it is less than six months that there is not transition from young woman to grown woman status; however, more than six months there is transition, as different women develop differently, and therefore she could conceive and give birth while she is a young woman, that is not so, as Shmuel said: Only, indicating that the period is neither less nor more than six months.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讬砖 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讜驻拽注 讗讘 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讜诇讗 驻拽注 讗讘 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘注讬 诇讛 讛讻讬 诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 讘讙专讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讘讙专讜转 转讬拽讜

Rather, Rava鈥檚 dilemma is unrelated to whether or not her son inherits the fine payment. This is his dilemma: Is there achievement of grown-woman status in the grave and therefore the right of the father to receive payment of the fine lapsed; and since there is no one claiming the payment, the rapist need not pay? Or perhaps there is no achievement of grown-woman status in the grave, and the right of the father did not lapse. Mar bar Rav Ashi raised the dilemma in this manner: Does death effect grown-woman status or does it not effect grown-woman status? No resolution was found for this dilemma, and the Gemara concludes that the dilemma stands unresolved.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讘讬讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜谞转讗专住讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讗专讜住讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜谞砖讗转 诇注爪诪讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讗砖专 诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛

On a similar note, Rava inquired of Abaye: If he forcibly had intercourse with a young woman and she was later betrothed, what is the halakha? Abaye said to him: Is it written: And he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not betrothed? Actually it is written: 鈥淚f a man finds a young woman鈥ho was not betrothed鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:28), which indicates that the determining factor is whether she was betrothed before the rape and not whether she is engaged at the moment of payment. Rava asked him: And according to your reasoning, that which was taught in a baraita: If he forcibly had intercourse with a young woman and she later married, the fine is paid to her, not to her father. There too, ask: Is it written: And he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not married? Even though the verse does not address the moment of payment, if she married the fine is paid to her.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讙专讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪专砖讜转 讗讘 讜谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪专砖讜转 讗讘 诪讛 讘讙专讜转 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讘讙专讛 诇注爪诪讛 讗祝 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜谞砖讗转 诇注爪诪讛 讗诇讗 讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讬 拽讗 诪驻拽讬 诪专砖讜转讗 讚讗讘 诇讙诪专讬 讛讗 转谞谉 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 诇讛 谞讚专讬讛

Abaye retorted: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of marriage, there is reason to diverge from the plain meaning of the verse, as grown-woman status removes her from the authority of the father and marriage removes her from the authority of the father. Just as with regard to grown-woman status, if he forcibly had intercourse with her and she became a grown woman, the fine is paid to her, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall give to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29); so too, with regard to marriage, if he forcibly had intercourse with her and she later married, the fine is paid to her. However, with regard to betrothal, does it remove her from the authority of the father entirely? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 66b): With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows? Apparently, betrothal does not remove her entirely from her father鈥檚 authority, and therefore, the halakha with regard to betrothal cannot be derived from the halakha with regard to grown-woman status. Therefore, Rava鈥檚 question is not difficult.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻转讛 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讛讗讜谞住 讗专讘注讛 讛诪驻转讛 谞讜转谉 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讜拽谞住 诪讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞住 砖谞讜转谉 讗转 讛爪注专 诪讛 讘讬谉 讗讜谞住 诇诪驻转讛 讛讗讜谞住 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛爪注专 讜讛诪驻转讛 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛爪注专 讛讗讜谞住 谞讜转谉 诪讬讚 讜讛诪驻转讛 诇讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 讛讗讜谞住 砖讜转讛 讘注爪讬爪讜 讜讛诪驻转讛 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讜爪讬讗

MISHNA: The seducer gives the father of his victim three things, and the rapist gives the father four. The mishna specifies: The seducer gives the father payments for humiliation, degradation, and the fine. A rapist adds an addition to his payments, as he also gives payment for the pain. What are the differences between the halakha of a rapist and that of a seducer? The rapist gives payment for the pain, and the seducer does not give payment for the pain. The rapist gives payment immediately, and the seducer does not pay those payments immediately but only when he releases her. The rapist drinks from his vessel [atzitzo], i.e., marries the woman he raped, perforce, and the seducer, if he wishes to release her, he releases her.

讻讬爪讚 砖讜转讛 讘注爪讬爪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讞讬讙专转 讗驻讬诇讜讛讬讗 住讜诪讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪讜讻转 砖讞讬谉 谞诪爪讗 讘讛 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讘讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讗砖讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜

The mishna clarifies: How does the rapist drink from his vessel? Even if the woman he raped is lame, even if she is blind, and even if she is afflicted with boils, he is obligated to marry her and may not divorce her. However, if a matter of licentiousness is found in her, e.g., if she committed adultery, or if she is unfit to enter the Jewish people, e.g., if she is a mamzeret, he is not permitted to sustain her as his wife, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd to him she shall be as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred that she must be a woman who is legally suitable for him.

讙诪壮 爪注专 讚诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 爪注专 砖讞讘讟讛 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讘讟讛 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讬专讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜谞住 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛爪注专 诪驻谞讬

GEMARA: The mishna taught that a rapist pays for the pain that he caused. The Gemara asks: For what pain is he obligated to pay? Shmuel鈥檚 father said: It is for the pain that he caused when he slammed her onto the ground while raping her. Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: But if what you say is so, if he slammed her onto silk, so too is the halakha that he is exempt from payment for pain? And if you say indeed that it is so, but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A rapist does not pay for the pain due to the fact

砖住讜驻讛 诇讛爪讟注专 转讞转 讘注诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞讘注诇转 讘讗讜谞住 诇谞讘注诇转 讘专爪讜谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 爪注专 砖诇 驻讬住讜拽 讛专讙诇讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜转驻砖拽讬 讗转 专讙诇讬讱 诇讻诇 注讜讘专

that she will ultimately suffer the same pain during intercourse when under the authority of her husband? They said to him: One who has intercourse against her will is not comparable to one who has intercourse willingly. Apparently, the pain associated with rape is a direct result of the forced intercourse and not of some associated cause. Rather, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It refers to the pain of spreading her legs during intercourse. And likewise, the verse says: 鈥淎nd you opened your legs to every passerby鈥 (Ezekiel 16:25).

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪驻讜转讛 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪砖诇 讚诪驻讜转讛 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讚诐 砖讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 砖诇讬 讜讛驻讟专 砖诇讬 讚讗讘讜讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 驻拽讞讜转 砖讘讛谉 讗讜诪专讜转 诪驻讜转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 爪注专

The Gemara asks: If so, a seduced woman should also be obligated to make that payment as well. Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh stated a parable: To what can this matter of a seducer be compared? It can be compared to a person who said to another: Tear my silk and be exempt from payment. Since she engaged in relations of her own volition, she certainly absolved him of payment for the pain. The Gemara asks: Tear my silk? It is not her silk, and therefore she may not waive payment for damage to it; it is the silk of her father, as the fine and the other payments are paid to him. Rather, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said that the clever women among them say that a seduced woman has no pain during intercourse, as she is a willing participant.

讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讻诪讬讗 讞诪讬诪讬 注诇 专讬砖讬讛 讚拽专讞讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讬 专讬讘讚讗 讚讻讜住讬诇转讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讘转 讗讘讗 住讜专讗讛 讻讬 谞讛诪讗 讗拽讜砖讗 讘讞讬谞讻讬

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we see that even a married woman has pain when she engages in sexual relations for the first time? Abaye said: My foster mother told me that the pain is like hot water on the head of a bald man. Rava said: My wife, Rav 岣sda鈥檚 daughter, told me that it is like the stab of a bloodletting knife. Rav Pappa said: My wife, Abba Sura鈥檚 daughter, told me that it is like the feeling of hard bread on the gums. When a woman engages in intercourse willingly, the pain is negligible. Therefore, the seducer is not obligated to pay for pain.

讛讗讜谞住 谞讜转谉 诪讬讚 讛诪驻转讛 诇讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 讜讻讜壮 诇讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 讗砖转讜 讛讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讻砖诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛诪驻转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讻砖诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 谞讜转谉 诪讬讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讗讜谞住 讜讗讞讚 讛诪驻转讛 讘讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讘讬谉 讗讘讬讛 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注讻讘

搂 The mishna continues: The rapist gives payment immediately, and the seducer when he releases her, etc. The Gemara asks: When he releases her? Is she his wife? He did not yet marry her, so how can the mishna use the language of divorce? Abaye said: Say that he gives payment when he opts not to marry her. If he marries her he need not pay. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: Although they said that the seducer gives the fine when he opts not to marry her, the compensation for her humiliation and degradation he gives immediately. The baraita continues: Although both the rapist and the seducer are obligated to marry their victim, both she and her father are able to prevent the marriage.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪驻讜转讛 讻转讬讘 讗诐 诪讗谉 讬诪讗谉 讗讘讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讛 讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬诪讗谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a woman who was seduced, it is written: 鈥淚f her father refuses [maen yemaen] to give her to him鈥 (Exodus 22:16), and the Sages interpreted: I have only derived that her father can prevent the marriage; from where do we derive that she herself can do so? The verse states: Maen yemaen, a double verb indicating that the marriage can be prevented in any case, i.e., she too may do so.

讗诇讗 讗讜谞住 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讛讬 讻转讬讘 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诪讚注转讛 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讛 诪谞诇谉

However, from where is it derived that they can prevent the marriage in the case of a rapist? Granted, she herself can prevent the marriage, as it is written: 鈥淎nd to him she shall be as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), and the term 鈥渟hall be鈥 indicates with her consent. However, from where do we derive that her father can prevent the marriage?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪驻转讛 砖诇讗 注讘专 讗诇讗 注诇 讚注转 讗讘讬讛 讘诇讘讚 讘讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讘讬谉 讗讘讬讛 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注讻讘 讗讜谞住 砖注讘专 注诇 讚注转 讗讘讬讛 讜注诇 讚注转 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Abaye said: No verse is necessary as it stands to reason that the father too can prevent the marriage so that a sinner will not profit. If her father could not prevent the marriage, the rapist would acquire the right to marry the young woman despite the father鈥檚 refusal, a right not accorded to one who seeks to betroth a young woman in a conventional manner. Rava said it is derived through an a fortiori inference: Just as in the case of a seducer, who contravened only her father鈥檚 will, as she acquiesced to his proposition, nevertheless both she and her father can prevent the marriage; in the case of a rapist, who contravened both her father鈥檚 will and her own will, all the more so is it not so that both she and her father can prevent the marriage?

专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻讗讘讬讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 诇讗讜 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讛讜讗 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 诪驻转讛 讚讗讬讛讜 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘 讗讘讬讛 谞诪讬 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘 讗讜谞住 讚讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘 讗讘讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘

The Gemara elaborates: Rava did not say in accordance with the explanation of Abaye, as since the rapist pays the fine he is not a sinner who profits, as he too must pay the dowry of a virgin even if he marries her. Likewise, Abaye did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rava because in the case of a seducer, where the seducer himself can prevent the marriage, her father can also prevent the marriage. In the case of a rapist, where the rapist himself cannot prevent the marriage, her father also cannot prevent the marriage.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讜谞住 谞讜转谉 诪讬讚 讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 注诇讬讜 讻诇讜诐 讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 讻砖转爪讗 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 注诇讬讜 讻诇讜诐 诪转 讬爪讗 讻住祝 拽谞住讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛

It was taught in another baraita: Although the Sages said that the rapist gives payment immediately, when he releases her she has no claim upon him. The Gemara asks: When he releases her? Can he release her? It is prohibited by Torah law for him to do so. Rather, emend the baraita and say: When she leaves, if she seeks to divorce him and demands a bill of divorce, she has no monetary claim upon him. Similarly, if he died, the money of her fine offsets her marriage contract. The fine, which was the equivalent of the dowry of virgins, replaces her marriage contract. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even a rape victim has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, like the marriage contract of all non-virgin wives.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻转讜讘讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽诇讛 讘注讬谞讬讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪爪注专 诇讛 注讚 讚讗诪专讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 诇讱

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis maintain: What is the reason that the Sages instituted a marriage contract for the woman? They instituted it so that she will not be inconsequential in his eyes, enabling him to easily divorce her. Because divorcing her will cost money, he will not do so rashly. And this woman whom he raped, he cannot release her by Torah law, obviating the need for a marriage contract. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains: With regard to this woman too, although he cannot divorce her, he can torment her until she says: I do not want you. When she initiates the divorce, he can divorce her. Therefore, the Sages instituted that she receives the marriage contract of a non-virgin to prevent him from doing so.

讗讜谞住 砖讜转讛 讘注爪讬爪讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讻讚讬 诪讬讙诪专 讙诪专讬 诪讛讚讚讬

The mishna continues: A rapist drinks from his vessel, and the seducer is not obligated to marry the woman he seduced. Rava from Parzakya said to Rav Ashi: Since the halakhot of a rapist and a seducer are derived from each other with regard to the sum of the fine,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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 39: Trigger Warning: Rape

There are women who might use the talmudic era version of barrier birth control, including a pregnant woman, a nursing...

Ketubot 39

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 39

讜诪讬 诪注讘专讗 讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 诪砖诪砖讜转 讘诪讜讱 讗诇讜 讛谉 拽讟谞讛 讜诪注讜讘专转 讜诪谞讬拽讛 拽讟谞讛 砖诪讗 转转注讘专 讜转诪讜转 诪注讜讘专转 砖诪讗 转注砖讛 注讜讘专讛 住谞讚诇 诪谞讬拽讛 砖诪讗 转讙诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讛

Rava鈥檚 dilemma is based on the assumption that a rape victim is able to conceive before she is a grown woman. The Gemara asks: And can a minor conceive? But didn鈥檛 Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Na岣an: It is permitted for three women to engage in relations with a contraceptive resorbent. These are they: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman. The baraita elaborates: A minor may do so lest she conceive and die; a pregnant woman, lest her existing fetus be crushed by another fetus and assume the shape of a sandal fish if she conceives a second time; and a nursing woman, lest she conceive, causing her milk to spoil, which will lead her to wean her son prematurely, endangering his health.

讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讗讞转 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 驻讞讜转 诪讬讻谉 讜讬转专 注诇 讻谉 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪砖诪砖转 讻讚专讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻转 讜诪谉 讛砖诪讬诐 讬专讞诪讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 砖讜诪专 驻转讗讬诐 讛壮

And the baraita further states: What is a minor girl? A minor girl is a girl from eleven years and one day old until twelve years and one day old. If she was less than that age or more than that age, she proceeds and engages in relations in her usual manner; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Both this woman and that woman, i.e., in the cases of all these women, she proceeds and engages in relations in her usual manner, and from Heaven they will have mercy and prevent any mishap, due to the fact that it is stated: 鈥淭he Lord preserves the simple鈥 (Psalms 116:6). Apparently, a minor is unable to conceive.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讬注讘专讗 讻砖讛讬讗 谞注专讛 讜讗讜诇讬讚讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞注专讛 讜讘砖讬转讗 讬专讞讬 诪讬 拽讗 讬诇讚讛 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 谞注专讜转 诇讘讙专讜转 讗诇讗 砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘爪讬专 讛讜讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讛讗 讟驻讬 讗讬讻讗 讛讗 讗诇讗 拽讗诪专

And if you say that she conceived when she was a young woman, twelve years old, and gave birth when she was a young woman, and died before she reached the status of a grown woman, can a woman give birth in six months after conception? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say: There are only six months between becoming a young woman and becoming a grown woman? And if you say that Shmuel is saying that it is less than six months that there is not transition from young woman to grown woman status; however, more than six months there is transition, as different women develop differently, and therefore she could conceive and give birth while she is a young woman, that is not so, as Shmuel said: Only, indicating that the period is neither less nor more than six months.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讬砖 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讜驻拽注 讗讘 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讙专 讘拽讘专 讜诇讗 驻拽注 讗讘 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘注讬 诇讛 讛讻讬 诪讬转讛 注讜砖讛 讘讙专讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讘讙专讜转 转讬拽讜

Rather, Rava鈥檚 dilemma is unrelated to whether or not her son inherits the fine payment. This is his dilemma: Is there achievement of grown-woman status in the grave and therefore the right of the father to receive payment of the fine lapsed; and since there is no one claiming the payment, the rapist need not pay? Or perhaps there is no achievement of grown-woman status in the grave, and the right of the father did not lapse. Mar bar Rav Ashi raised the dilemma in this manner: Does death effect grown-woman status or does it not effect grown-woman status? No resolution was found for this dilemma, and the Gemara concludes that the dilemma stands unresolved.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讘讬讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜谞转讗专住讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讗专讜住讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜谞砖讗转 诇注爪诪讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜谞转谉 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讗砖专 诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛

On a similar note, Rava inquired of Abaye: If he forcibly had intercourse with a young woman and she was later betrothed, what is the halakha? Abaye said to him: Is it written: And he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not betrothed? Actually it is written: 鈥淚f a man finds a young woman鈥ho was not betrothed鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:28), which indicates that the determining factor is whether she was betrothed before the rape and not whether she is engaged at the moment of payment. Rava asked him: And according to your reasoning, that which was taught in a baraita: If he forcibly had intercourse with a young woman and she later married, the fine is paid to her, not to her father. There too, ask: Is it written: And he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not married? Even though the verse does not address the moment of payment, if she married the fine is paid to her.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讙专讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪专砖讜转 讗讘 讜谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪专砖讜转 讗讘 诪讛 讘讙专讜转 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讘讙专讛 诇注爪诪讛 讗祝 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜谞砖讗转 诇注爪诪讛 讗诇讗 讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪讬 拽讗 诪驻拽讬 诪专砖讜转讗 讚讗讘 诇讙诪专讬 讛讗 转谞谉 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 诇讛 谞讚专讬讛

Abaye retorted: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of marriage, there is reason to diverge from the plain meaning of the verse, as grown-woman status removes her from the authority of the father and marriage removes her from the authority of the father. Just as with regard to grown-woman status, if he forcibly had intercourse with her and she became a grown woman, the fine is paid to her, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall give to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29); so too, with regard to marriage, if he forcibly had intercourse with her and she later married, the fine is paid to her. However, with regard to betrothal, does it remove her from the authority of the father entirely? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 66b): With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows? Apparently, betrothal does not remove her entirely from her father鈥檚 authority, and therefore, the halakha with regard to betrothal cannot be derived from the halakha with regard to grown-woman status. Therefore, Rava鈥檚 question is not difficult.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻转讛 谞讜转谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讛讗讜谞住 讗专讘注讛 讛诪驻转讛 谞讜转谉 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讜拽谞住 诪讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞住 砖谞讜转谉 讗转 讛爪注专 诪讛 讘讬谉 讗讜谞住 诇诪驻转讛 讛讗讜谞住 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛爪注专 讜讛诪驻转讛 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讗转 讛爪注专 讛讗讜谞住 谞讜转谉 诪讬讚 讜讛诪驻转讛 诇讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 讛讗讜谞住 砖讜转讛 讘注爪讬爪讜 讜讛诪驻转讛 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讜爪讬讗

MISHNA: The seducer gives the father of his victim three things, and the rapist gives the father four. The mishna specifies: The seducer gives the father payments for humiliation, degradation, and the fine. A rapist adds an addition to his payments, as he also gives payment for the pain. What are the differences between the halakha of a rapist and that of a seducer? The rapist gives payment for the pain, and the seducer does not give payment for the pain. The rapist gives payment immediately, and the seducer does not pay those payments immediately but only when he releases her. The rapist drinks from his vessel [atzitzo], i.e., marries the woman he raped, perforce, and the seducer, if he wishes to release her, he releases her.

讻讬爪讚 砖讜转讛 讘注爪讬爪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 讞讬讙专转 讗驻讬诇讜讛讬讗 住讜诪讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 诪讜讻转 砖讞讬谉 谞诪爪讗 讘讛 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讗讜 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讘讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽讬讬诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讗砖讛 讛专讗讜讬讛 诇讜

The mishna clarifies: How does the rapist drink from his vessel? Even if the woman he raped is lame, even if she is blind, and even if she is afflicted with boils, he is obligated to marry her and may not divorce her. However, if a matter of licentiousness is found in her, e.g., if she committed adultery, or if she is unfit to enter the Jewish people, e.g., if she is a mamzeret, he is not permitted to sustain her as his wife, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd to him she shall be as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred that she must be a woman who is legally suitable for him.

讙诪壮 爪注专 讚诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 爪注专 砖讞讘讟讛 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讘讟讛 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讬专讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜谞住 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛爪注专 诪驻谞讬

GEMARA: The mishna taught that a rapist pays for the pain that he caused. The Gemara asks: For what pain is he obligated to pay? Shmuel鈥檚 father said: It is for the pain that he caused when he slammed her onto the ground while raping her. Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: But if what you say is so, if he slammed her onto silk, so too is the halakha that he is exempt from payment for pain? And if you say indeed that it is so, but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A rapist does not pay for the pain due to the fact

砖住讜驻讛 诇讛爪讟注专 转讞转 讘注诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞讘注诇转 讘讗讜谞住 诇谞讘注诇转 讘专爪讜谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 爪注专 砖诇 驻讬住讜拽 讛专讙诇讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜转驻砖拽讬 讗转 专讙诇讬讱 诇讻诇 注讜讘专

that she will ultimately suffer the same pain during intercourse when under the authority of her husband? They said to him: One who has intercourse against her will is not comparable to one who has intercourse willingly. Apparently, the pain associated with rape is a direct result of the forced intercourse and not of some associated cause. Rather, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It refers to the pain of spreading her legs during intercourse. And likewise, the verse says: 鈥淎nd you opened your legs to every passerby鈥 (Ezekiel 16:25).

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪驻讜转讛 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪砖诇 讚诪驻讜转讛 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讗讚诐 砖讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 砖诇讬 讜讛驻讟专 砖诇讬 讚讗讘讜讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 驻拽讞讜转 砖讘讛谉 讗讜诪专讜转 诪驻讜转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 爪注专

The Gemara asks: If so, a seduced woman should also be obligated to make that payment as well. Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh stated a parable: To what can this matter of a seducer be compared? It can be compared to a person who said to another: Tear my silk and be exempt from payment. Since she engaged in relations of her own volition, she certainly absolved him of payment for the pain. The Gemara asks: Tear my silk? It is not her silk, and therefore she may not waive payment for damage to it; it is the silk of her father, as the fine and the other payments are paid to him. Rather, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said that the clever women among them say that a seduced woman has no pain during intercourse, as she is a willing participant.

讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讻诪讬讗 讞诪讬诪讬 注诇 专讬砖讬讛 讚拽专讞讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讬 专讬讘讚讗 讚讻讜住讬诇转讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讘转 讗讘讗 住讜专讗讛 讻讬 谞讛诪讗 讗拽讜砖讗 讘讞讬谞讻讬

The Gemara asks: But don鈥檛 we see that even a married woman has pain when she engages in sexual relations for the first time? Abaye said: My foster mother told me that the pain is like hot water on the head of a bald man. Rava said: My wife, Rav 岣sda鈥檚 daughter, told me that it is like the stab of a bloodletting knife. Rav Pappa said: My wife, Abba Sura鈥檚 daughter, told me that it is like the feeling of hard bread on the gums. When a woman engages in intercourse willingly, the pain is negligible. Therefore, the seducer is not obligated to pay for pain.

讛讗讜谞住 谞讜转谉 诪讬讚 讛诪驻转讛 诇讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 讜讻讜壮 诇讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 讗砖转讜 讛讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讻砖诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛诪驻转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讻砖诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 谞讜转谉 诪讬讚 讜讗讞讚 讛讗讜谞住 讜讗讞讚 讛诪驻转讛 讘讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讘讬谉 讗讘讬讛 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注讻讘

搂 The mishna continues: The rapist gives payment immediately, and the seducer when he releases her, etc. The Gemara asks: When he releases her? Is she his wife? He did not yet marry her, so how can the mishna use the language of divorce? Abaye said: Say that he gives payment when he opts not to marry her. If he marries her he need not pay. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: Although they said that the seducer gives the fine when he opts not to marry her, the compensation for her humiliation and degradation he gives immediately. The baraita continues: Although both the rapist and the seducer are obligated to marry their victim, both she and her father are able to prevent the marriage.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪驻讜转讛 讻转讬讘 讗诐 诪讗谉 讬诪讗谉 讗讘讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讛 讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬诪讗谉 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a woman who was seduced, it is written: 鈥淚f her father refuses [maen yemaen] to give her to him鈥 (Exodus 22:16), and the Sages interpreted: I have only derived that her father can prevent the marriage; from where do we derive that she herself can do so? The verse states: Maen yemaen, a double verb indicating that the marriage can be prevented in any case, i.e., she too may do so.

讗诇讗 讗讜谞住 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讛讬 讻转讬讘 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诪讚注转讛 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讛 诪谞诇谉

However, from where is it derived that they can prevent the marriage in the case of a rapist? Granted, she herself can prevent the marriage, as it is written: 鈥淎nd to him she shall be as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), and the term 鈥渟hall be鈥 indicates with her consent. However, from where do we derive that her father can prevent the marriage?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪驻转讛 砖诇讗 注讘专 讗诇讗 注诇 讚注转 讗讘讬讛 讘诇讘讚 讘讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讘讬谉 讗讘讬讛 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注讻讘 讗讜谞住 砖注讘专 注诇 讚注转 讗讘讬讛 讜注诇 讚注转 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Abaye said: No verse is necessary as it stands to reason that the father too can prevent the marriage so that a sinner will not profit. If her father could not prevent the marriage, the rapist would acquire the right to marry the young woman despite the father鈥檚 refusal, a right not accorded to one who seeks to betroth a young woman in a conventional manner. Rava said it is derived through an a fortiori inference: Just as in the case of a seducer, who contravened only her father鈥檚 will, as she acquiesced to his proposition, nevertheless both she and her father can prevent the marriage; in the case of a rapist, who contravened both her father鈥檚 will and her own will, all the more so is it not so that both she and her father can prevent the marriage?

专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻讗讘讬讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 诇讗讜 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讛讜讗 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讗 诪驻转讛 讚讗讬讛讜 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘 讗讘讬讛 谞诪讬 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘 讗讜谞住 讚讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘 讗讘讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘

The Gemara elaborates: Rava did not say in accordance with the explanation of Abaye, as since the rapist pays the fine he is not a sinner who profits, as he too must pay the dowry of a virgin even if he marries her. Likewise, Abaye did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rava because in the case of a seducer, where the seducer himself can prevent the marriage, her father can also prevent the marriage. In the case of a rapist, where the rapist himself cannot prevent the marriage, her father also cannot prevent the marriage.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讗讜谞住 谞讜转谉 诪讬讚 讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 注诇讬讜 讻诇讜诐 讻砖讬讜爪讬讗 诪讬 诪爪讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 讻砖转爪讗 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讛 注诇讬讜 讻诇讜诐 诪转 讬爪讗 讻住祝 拽谞住讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛

It was taught in another baraita: Although the Sages said that the rapist gives payment immediately, when he releases her she has no claim upon him. The Gemara asks: When he releases her? Can he release her? It is prohibited by Torah law for him to do so. Rather, emend the baraita and say: When she leaves, if she seeks to divorce him and demands a bill of divorce, she has no monetary claim upon him. Similarly, if he died, the money of her fine offsets her marriage contract. The fine, which was the equivalent of the dowry of virgins, replaces her marriage contract. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even a rape victim has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, like the marriage contract of all non-virgin wives.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻转讜讘讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 拽诇讛 讘注讬谞讬讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讗 谞诪讬 诪爪注专 诇讛 注讚 讚讗诪专讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 诇讱

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis maintain: What is the reason that the Sages instituted a marriage contract for the woman? They instituted it so that she will not be inconsequential in his eyes, enabling him to easily divorce her. Because divorcing her will cost money, he will not do so rashly. And this woman whom he raped, he cannot release her by Torah law, obviating the need for a marriage contract. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains: With regard to this woman too, although he cannot divorce her, he can torment her until she says: I do not want you. When she initiates the divorce, he can divorce her. Therefore, the Sages instituted that she receives the marriage contract of a non-virgin to prevent him from doing so.

讗讜谞住 砖讜转讛 讘注爪讬爪讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪驻专讝拽讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讻讚讬 诪讬讙诪专 讙诪专讬 诪讛讚讚讬

The mishna continues: A rapist drinks from his vessel, and the seducer is not obligated to marry the woman he seduced. Rava from Parzakya said to Rav Ashi: Since the halakhot of a rapist and a seducer are derived from each other with regard to the sum of the fine,

Scroll To Top