Ketubot 39

ומי מעברא והתני רב ביבי קמיה דרב נחמן שלש נשים משמשות במוך אלו הן קטנה ומעוברת ומניקה קטנה שמא תתעבר ותמות מעוברת שמא תעשה עוברה סנדל מניקה שמא תגמול את בנה

Rava’s 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’t Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Naḥman: 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.

ואיזוהי קטנה מבת אחת עשרה שנה ויום אחד עד שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד פחות מיכן ויתר על כן משמשת כדרכה והולכת דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אחת זו ואחת זו משמשת כדרכה והולכת ומן השמים ירחמו משום שנאמר שומר פתאים ה׳

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: “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:6). Apparently, a minor is unable to conceive.

וכי תימא דאיעברא כשהיא נערה ואולידה כשהיא נערה ובשיתא ירחי מי קא ילדה והאמר שמואל אין בין נערות לבגרות אלא ששה חדשים וכי תימא בציר הוא דליכא הא טפי איכא הא אלא קאמר

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’t 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.

אלא הכי קמיבעיא ליה יש בגר בקבר ופקע אב או דלמא אין בגר בקבר ולא פקע אב מר בר רב אשי בעי לה הכי מיתה עושה בגרות או אין עושה בגרות תיקו

Rather, Rava’s 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.

בעי מיניה רבא מאביי בא עליה ונתארסה מהו אמר ליה מי כתיב ונתן לאבי הנערה אשר לא ארוסה ולטעמיך הא דתניא בא עליה ונשאת לעצמה מי כתיב ונתן לאבי הנערה אשר לא נשואה

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: “If a man finds a young woman…who was not betrothed” (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.

הכי השתא התם הואיל ובגרות מוציאה מרשות אב ונישואין מוציאין מרשות אב מה בגרות בא עליה ובגרה לעצמה אף נישואין בא עליה ונשאת לעצמה אלא אירוסין מי קא מפקי מרשותא דאב לגמרי הא תנן נערה המאורסה אביה ובעלה מפירין לה נדריה

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: “And he shall give to the father of the young woman” (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’t 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’s authority, and therefore, the halakha with regard to betrothal cannot be derived from the halakha with regard to grown-woman status. Therefore, Rava’s question is not difficult.

מתני׳ המפתה נותן שלשה דברים והאונס ארבעה המפתה נותן בושת ופגם וקנס מוסיף עליו אונס שנותן את הצער מה בין אונס למפתה האונס נותן את הצער והמפתה אינו נותן את הצער האונס נותן מיד והמפתה לכשיוציא האונס שותה בעציצו והמפתה אם רצה להוציא מוציא

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.

כיצד שותה בעציצו אפילו היא חיגרת אפילוהיא סומא ואפילו היא מוכת שחין נמצא בה דבר ערוה או שאינה ראויה לבא בישראל אינו רשאי לקיימה שנאמר ולו תהיה לאשה אשה הראויה לו

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: “And to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred that she must be a woman who is legally suitable for him.

גמ׳ צער דמאי אמר אבוה דשמואל צער שחבטה על גבי קרקע מתקיף לה רבי זירא אלא מעתה חבטה על גבי שיראין הכי נמי דפטור וכי תימא הכי נמי והתניא רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון אונס אינו משלם את הצער מפני

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’s 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’t 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

שסופה להצטער תחת בעלה אמרו לו אינו דומה נבעלת באונס לנבעלת ברצון אלא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה צער של פיסוק הרגלים וכן הוא אומר ותפשקי את רגליך לכל עובר

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 Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It refers to the pain of spreading her legs during intercourse. And likewise, the verse says: “And you opened your legs to every passerby” (Ezekiel 16:25).

אי הכי מפותה נמי אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה משל דמפותה למה הדבר דומה לאדם שאמר לחבירו קרע שיראין שלי והפטר שלי דאבוה נינהו אלא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה פקחות שבהן אומרות מפותה אין לה צער

The Gemara asks: If so, a seduced woman should also be obligated to make that payment as well. Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman 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.

והא קא חזינן דאית לה אמר אביי אמרה לי אם כמיא חמימי על רישיה דקרחא רבא אמר אמרה לי בת רב חסדא כי ריבדא דכוסילתא רב פפא אמר אמרה לי בת אבא סוראה כי נהמא אקושא בחינכי

The Gemara asks: But don’t 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 Ḥisda’s daughter, told me that it is like the stab of a bloodletting knife. Rav Pappa said: My wife, Abba Sura’s 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.

האונס נותן מיד המפתה לכשיוציא וכו׳ לכשיוציא אשתו היא אמר אביי אימא לכשלא יכנוס תניא נמי הכי אף על פי שאמרו המפתה נותן לכשלא יכנוס בושת ופגם נותן מיד ואחד האונס ואחד המפתה בין היא ובין אביה יכולין לעכב

§ 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.

בשלמא מפותה כתיב אם מאן ימאן אביה אין לי אלא אביה היא עצמה מנין תלמוד לומר ימאן מכל מקום

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a woman who was seduced, it is written: “If her father refuses [maen yemaen] to give her to him” (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.

אלא אונס בשלמא איהי כתיב ולו תהיה מדעתה אלא אביה מנלן

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: “And to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29), and the term “shall be” indicates with her consent. However, from where do we derive that her father can prevent the marriage?

אמר אביי שלא יהא חוטא נשכר רבא אמר קל וחומר ומה מפתה שלא עבר אלא על דעת אביה בלבד בין היא ובין אביה יכולין לעכב אונס שעבר על דעת אביה ועל דעת עצמה לא כל שכן

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’s 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’s 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’s will and her own will, all the more so is it not so that both she and her father can prevent the marriage?

רבא לא אמר כאביי כיון דקא משלם קנס לאו חוטא נשכר הוא אביי לא אמר כרבא מפתה דאיהו מצי מעכב אביה נמי מצי מעכב אונס דאיהו לא מצי מעכב אביה נמי לא מצי מעכב

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.

תניא אידך אף על פי שאמרו אונס נותן מיד כשיוציא הוא אין לה עליו כלום כשיוציא מי מצי מפיק לה אימא כשתצא היא אין לה עליו כלום מת יצא כסף קנסה בכתובתה רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר יש לה כתובה מנה

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.

במאי קמיפלגי רבנן סברי טעמא מאי תקינו רבנן כתובה כדי שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה והא לא מצי מפיק לה ורבי יוסי ברבי יהודה סבר הא נמי מצער לה עד דאמרה היא לא בעינא לך

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.

אונס שותה בעציצו אמר ליה רבא מפרזקיא לרב אשי מכדי מיגמר גמרי מהדדי

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,