This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Ketubot 40
לְהָא מִילְּתָא נָמֵי לִיגְמְרוּ מֵהֲדָדֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה״, ״לוֹ״ — מִדַּעְתּוֹ.
for this matter too, marrying the woman against his will, let them be derived from each other. Rav Ashi replied that the verse says with regard to a seducer: “He shall pay a dowry for her to be a wife to him” (Exodus 22:15); “to him” means in accordance with his will.
כֵּיצַד שׁוֹתֶה בַּעֲצִיצוֹ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: נֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְנִדְחֵה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה!
§ The mishna continues: How does the rapist drink from his vessel? The mishna proceeds to explain that he is obligated to marry her despite the physical flaws she might have. However, if the marriage is prohibited, either due to the fact that she committed adultery or due to her flawed lineage, he is not obligated to marry her, and therefore he may not marry her. Rav Kahana said: I stated this halakha before Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, and I asked him: Let the positive mitzva: “And to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29), come and override the prohibition of marriage to a woman who is forbidden to him, according to the principle that positive mitzvot override prohibitions.
אָמַר לִי: הֵיכָא אָמְרִינַן נֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְנִידְחֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — כְּגוֹן מִילָה בְּצָרַעַת, דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לְקַיּוֹמֵיהּ לַעֲשֵׂה. אֲבָל הָכָא, אִי אָמְרָה דְּלָא בָּעֵינָא, מִי אִיתֵיהּ לַעֲשֵׂה כְּלָל?
He said to me: Where do we say the principle that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition? It is in a case where one performs circumcision of a foreskin afflicted with leprosy. Although there is a prohibition against removing leprous skin, the positive mitzva of circumcision overrides that prohibition, as it is not possible to fulfill the positive mitzva without violating the prohibition. However, here, in the case of the rapist, if she says: I do not want him as a husband, is there a positive mitzva at all? Since in that case the mitzva need not be performed, as it is negated when the woman refuses to marry him, it does not override the prohibition.
מַתְנִי׳ יְתוֹמָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹנֵס — חַיָּיב, וְהַמְפַתֶּה — פָּטוּר.
MISHNA: With regard to an orphan who was betrothed and divorced, Rabbi Elazar says: One who rapes her is obligated to pay the fine, as she is a virgin young woman, and one who seduces her is exempt from payment. Because she is an orphan, or because she was betrothed and divorced, she is independent, and by consenting to the seduction she forgoes her right to the fine.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא רַבּוֹ אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס וּקְנָסָהּ לְעַצְמָהּ. מִמַּאי — מִדְּקָתָנֵי: יְתוֹמָה, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹנֵס חַיָּיב, וְהַמְפַתֶּה פָּטוּר.
GEMARA: Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Elazar stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, as with regard to a young woman who was betrothed and divorced and then raped, Rabbi Akiva said in an earlier mishna: She is entitled to a fine for rape and her fine is paid to her. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: She is not entitled to a fine for rape. And from where do we know that Rabbi Elazar’s opinion corresponds to the opinion of his teacher? From the fact that the mishna teaches with regard to an orphan that Rabbi Elazar says: One who rapes her is obligated to pay the fine and one who seduces her is exempt from payment.
יְתוֹמָה, פְּשִׁיטָא? אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּנַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה, כִּיתוֹמָה. מָה יְתוֹמָה — לְעַצְמָהּ, אַף נַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה — לְעַצְמָהּ.
The Gemara asks: An orphan? That is obvious, as she has no father and is not subject to the authority of anyone else. Clearly the seducer is exempt from payment because she was complicit. Rather, this is what the mishna is teaching us: That the legal status of a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, even if her father is alive, is like that of an orphan: Just as with regard to an orphan, payment of the fine is to her, so too, with regard to a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, payment of the fine is to her.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא סָבָא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. קָרֵי רַב עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״טוּבְיָנָא דְחַכִּימֵי״.
Rabbi Zeira said that Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Hamnuna the Elder said that Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Rav would exclaim about Rabbi Elazar: He is the happiest of the Sages, as he held that the halakha was ruled in accordance with his opinion in many instances.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיזֶהוּ בּוֹשֶׁת? הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְבַיֵּישׁ וְהַמִּתְבַּיֵּישׁ. פְּגָם — רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא שִׁפְחָה נִמְכֶּרֶת בַּשּׁוּק, כַּמָּה הָיְתָה יָפָה, וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה. קְנָס — שָׁוֶה בְּכׇל אָדָם, וְכֹל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִצְבָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה — שָׁוֶה בְּכׇל אָדָם.
MISHNA: What is humiliation? How is the payment for humiliation during rape or seduction assessed? It is all based on the one who humiliated and the one who was humiliated. The price will vary depending on the lineage of the family of the rape victim and the nature of the attacker. How is her degradation assessed? One considers her as though she were a maidservant sold in the marketplace, and assesses how much she was worth beforehand and how much she is currently worth, after the rape or seduction. The sum of the fine is equal for all people, and the principle is: Any payment that has a fixed sum by Torah law is equal for all people, regardless of the lineage and the physical state of the attacker or the victim.
גְּמָ׳ וְאֵימָא: חֲמִשִּׁים סְלָעִים אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מִכֹּל מִילֵּי! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא יֹאמְרוּ: בָּעַל בַּת מְלָכִים חֲמִשִּׁים, בָּעַל בַּת הֶדְיוֹטוֹת חֲמִשִּׁים?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, גַּבֵּי עֶבֶד נָמֵי, יֹאמְרוּ: עֶבֶד נוֹקֵב מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת — שְׁלֹשִׁים, עֶבֶד עוֹשֶׂה
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And say that the Merciful One said that the payment is fifty sela from all these matters, i.e., the fine, degradation, humiliation, and pain. Rabbi Zeira said: That cannot be, as they will say: If one who engaged in forced intercourse with a daughter of kings pays a sum of fifty sela, does one who engaged in forced intercourse with the daughter of commoners [hedyotot] also pay fifty sela? Abaye said to him: This is not a decisive argument, as if so, with regard to a Canaanite slave killed by an ox, the Torah says that the owner of the ox pays the master of the slave thirty sela. There too, they will say: For a slave who pierces precious pearls [margaliyyot], a valuable skill, the fine is thirty sela, and for a slave who performs
מַעֲשֵׂה מַחַט — שְׁלֹשִׁים?!
the needlecraft of a tailor, a common, less valuable skill, is the fine also thirty sela? Rather, just as with regard to the slaves, the sum is not dependent on the standing of the victim, so too with regard to a woman who was raped.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִילּוּ בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, יֹאמְרוּ: בָּעַל שְׁלֵימָה — חֲמִשִּׁים, בָּעַל פְּגוּמָה — חֲמִשִּׁים? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, גַּבֵּי עֶבֶד נָמֵי, יֹאמְרוּ: עֶבֶד בָּרִיא — שְׁלֹשִׁים, עֶבֶד מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין — שְׁלֹשִׁים?!
Rather, Rabbi Zeira said a different proof: Had two men engaged in forced intercourse with her, one vaginal intercourse, and one anal intercourse, they will say: If one who engaged in forced intercourse with an untainted virgin pays fifty sela, does one who engaged in forced intercourse with her when she is tainted, i.e., after she has engaged in anal intercourse, also pay fifty sela? Apparently, the fifty sela is the fixed sum of the fine, while the rest of the payment varies on a case-by-case basis. Abaye said to him: This too is no proof, as if so, with regard to a slave as well, they will say if one whose ox gored a healthy slave pays thirty sela, does one whose ox gored a slave afflicted with boils also pay thirty sela?
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִינָּהּ״, הָנֵי תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִינָּהּ, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם. רָבָא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשּׁוֹכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף״. הֲנָאַת שְׁכִיבָה חֲמִשִּׁים, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם.
Rather, Abaye said a different proof. The verse says: “Fifty shekels of silver…because he tormented her” (Deuteronomy 22:29); these fifty sela are the fine paid because he tormented her. From which it may be inferred that there are the additional payments of humiliation and degradation beyond that sum mentioned in the verse. Rava said an alternative proof. The verse says: “And the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver” (Deuteronomy 22:29). For the pleasure of lying with her he pays fifty sela; from which it may be inferred that there are the additional payments of humiliation and degradation, beyond payment of the fine.
וְאֵימָא לְדִידַהּ? אָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״, כׇּל שֶׁבַח נְעוּרֶיהָ — לְאָבִיהָ.
The Gemara asks: And say that these additional payments are paid to her? The Gemara answers that the verse says: “Between a father and his daughter, being in her young womanhood, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17), from which it is derived that all profits of her young womanhood go to her father.
וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה הַבַּת לְאָבִיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכִי יִמְכּוֹר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה. מָה אָמָה, מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְרַבָּהּ — אַף בַּת, מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְאָבִיהָ. לְמָה לִי? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִ״בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״! אֶלָּא, הַהִיא בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the handiwork of the daughter goes to her father? It is as it is stated: “And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant” (Exodus 21:7), juxtaposing his daughter to a maidservant: Just as a maidservant, her handiwork belongs to her master, as she was sold for that purpose; so too a daughter, her handiwork goes to her father. Why do I need this complicated proof? Let him derive it directly from the verse “Being in her young womanhood, in her father’s house.” Rather, this cannot be derived from that verse because that verse is written with regard to the nullification of vows. A young woman is subject to her father’s authority with regard to her vows, which he has the right to nullify. The matter of monetary rights is not addressed in that verse.
וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִינֵּיהּ, מָמוֹנָא מֵאִיסּוּרָא לָא יָלְפִינַן. וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִקְּנָסָא, מָמוֹנָא מִקְּנָסָא לָא יָלְפִינַן. אֶלָּא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּאָבִיהָ הָוֵי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי מָסַר לַהּ לִמְנֻוּוֹל וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין.
And if you say: Let us derive monetary matters from vows, i.e., just as she is subject to her father’s authority with regard to vows the same is true with regard to monetary matters, we do not derive monetary matters from ritual matters. And if you say: Let us derive that her father receives payment from the halakha of a fine, i.e., just as the fine is paid to her father, as explicitly stated in the Torah, so too, other payments are also paid to her father, we do not derive monetary matters from fines. The payment of a fine is a novel element decreed by the Torah and cannot serve as a paradigm for standard monetary matters. Rather, the Gemara explains that it is reasonable that the payments of humiliation and degradation are paid to her father, as if he wished to do so he could give her hand in marriage to a repulsive man or one afflicted with boils, thereby humiliating her. Since her humiliation is under his control, payment for her humiliation is similarly his.
פְּגָם, רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא שִׁפְחָה נִמְכֶּרֶת. הֵיכִי שָׁיְימִינַן לַהּ? אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בְּתוּלָה לְשִׁפְחָה בְּעוּלָה לְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ.
The mishna continues: How is her degradation assessed? One considers her as though she were a maidservant sold in the marketplace, and assesses how much she would have been worth beforehand and how much she would be worth currently. The Gemara asks: How do we assess her value? Shmuel’s father said: One estimates the difference between how much a person is willing to give to purchase a virgin maidservant and how much he is willing to give to purchase a non-virgin maidservant to serve him.
מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ? אֶלָּא בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בְּעוּלָה לְשִׁפְחָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּעוּלָה, לְהַשִּׂיאָה לְעַבְדּוֹ. וּלְעַבְדּוֹ מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ? בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְרַבּוֹ קוֹרַת רוּחַ הֵימֶנּוּ.
The Gemara asks: With regard to a non-virgin maidservant to serve him; if he purchases her for service, what difference is there to him whether or not she is a virgin? Rather, the difference between a maidservant who engaged in intercourse and a maidservant who did not engage in intercourse is with regard to how much one is willing to marry her to his slave. The Gemara further asks: And with regard to marrying her to his slave, what difference is there to him whether or not she is a virgin? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to a slave from whom his master has a sense of satisfaction, and he seeks a virgin for the slave in order to reciprocate. The difference between the price that the master is willing to pay for each of the maidservants is the degradation that the offender pays the victim.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֶכֶר — אֵין קְנָס. וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְנָס — אֵין מֶכֶר. קְטַנָּה — יֵשׁ לָהּ מֶכֶר, וְאֵין לָהּ קְנָס. נַעֲרָה — יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס, וְאֵין לָהּ מֶכֶר. הַבּוֹגֶרֶת — אֵין לָהּ לֹא מֶכֶר וְלֹא קְנָס.
MISHNA: Any place where there is sale by a father of his minor daughter as a Hebrew maidservant, there is no fine if she is raped. And any place where there is a fine, when a young woman is raped; there is no sale by the father. The Gemara specifies: A minor is subject to sale by her father, and she is not entitled to a fine if she is raped. A young woman is entitled to a fine if she is raped and is not subject to sale. A grown woman is neither subject to sale nor entitled to a fine.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר. דְּתַנְיָא: קְטַנָּה מִבַּת יוֹם אֶחָד וְעַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — יֵשׁ לָהּ מֶכֶר וְאֵין לָהּ קְנָס. מִשֶּׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁתִּיבְגַּר — יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס וְאֵין לָהּ מֶכֶר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֶכֶר — אֵין קְנָס, וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְנָס — אֵין מֶכֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קְטַנָּה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְעַד שֶׁתִּיבְגַּר — יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס.
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This halakha in the mishna is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: She is entitled to a fine even where there is a sale, as it is taught in a baraita: A minor girl, from one day old until she grows two pubic hairs, is subject to sale and is not entitled to a fine. From when she grows two pubic hairs and becomes a young woman until she matures into a grown woman, she is entitled to a fine and she is not subject to sale; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would state the principle: Any place where there is a sale there is no fine, and any place where there is a fine there is no sale. And the Rabbis say: A minor girl from the age of three years and one day until she matures into a grown woman is entitled to a fine.
קְנָס אִין, מֶכֶר לָא?! אֵימָא: אַף קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלוֹ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״ — בִּמְהַוָּה עַצְמָהּ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְרַבָּנַן? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״נַעֲרָ״, אֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה בַּמַּשְׁמָע.
The Gemara questions the statement of the Rabbis in the baraita with regard to a girl more than three years of age: A fine, yes, but sale, no? Do the Rabbis maintain that a father cannot sell his minor daughter as a Hebrew maidservant? Rather, emend the text and say: She is even entitled to a fine where she is subject to sale. Rav Ḥisda said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as the verse says with regard to a rapist: “And the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty sela, and to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29). The verse is speaking with regard to one halakhically competent to marry by herself, which means she must be a young woman. The Gemara asks: And what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? Reish Lakish said that the verse says “young woman [na’ara]”; however, although the term is pronounced na’ara, it is written as na’ar, without the letter heh, and even a minor girl is indicated by that term.
שַׁמְעַהּ רַב פָּפָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנָן מִבֵּי כְלוֹחִית, אֲזַל אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתּוּן, אַהָא מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ. אֲנַן, אַהָא מַתְנֵינַן לָהּ, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע עַל הַקְּטַנָּה — פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה״, ״נַעֲרָה״ מָלֵא דִּיבֵּר הַכָּתוּב.
The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanan, from a place called Bei Keloḥit, heard this halakha and went and said it before Rav Shimi bar Ashi. Rav Shimi said to him: You teach this statement concerning that matter. We, based on our traditions, teach it concerning this matter, as Reish Lakish said: One who slanders a minor girl, falsely claiming that she was not a virgin on the wedding night, is exempt from paying the fine, as it is stated: “And they shall give them to the father of the young woman [na’ara]” (Deuteronomy 22:19). The verse spoke of na’ara, not only pronounced but written in full, indicating that this payment is in effect only with regard to a young woman, not a minor girl. However, in places where the term is written na’ar, even a minor girl would be included.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״נַעֲרָה״, הָא לָאו הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְאִם אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא נִמְצְאוּ בְתוּלִים לַנַּעֲרָה. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ וּסְקָלוּהָ״, וּקְטַנָּה לָאו בַּת עוֹנָשִׁין הִיא! אֶלָּא: כָּאן נַעֲרָה, הָא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״נַעֲרָ״ — אֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה בַּמַּשְׁמָע.
Rav Adda bar Ahava strongly objects to this: The reason is that the Merciful One writes “na’ara” with a heh. Is that to say that if that were not the case I would have said that this halakha applies even to a minor girl? How is that possible? But isn’t it written: “And if this matter was true, that the hymen of this young woman was not found intact; then they shall remove the young woman to the entrance of her father’s house and stone her” (Deuteronomy 22:20–21). And this verse clearly refers to a young woman old enough to be punished, as a minor is not subject to punishment. Rather, here, with regard to the payment of a slanderer, the verse speaks of a na’ara, written with a heh, and a minor is excluded. This is a paradigm from which it may be inferred that in any place that it is stated “na’ara” without a heh, even a minor girl is indicated.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
New York, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Ketubot 40
לְהָא מִילְּתָא נָמֵי לִיגְמְרוּ מֵהֲדָדֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה״, ״לוֹ״ — מִדַּעְתּוֹ.
for this matter too, marrying the woman against his will, let them be derived from each other. Rav Ashi replied that the verse says with regard to a seducer: “He shall pay a dowry for her to be a wife to him” (Exodus 22:15); “to him” means in accordance with his will.
כֵּיצַד שׁוֹתֶה בַּעֲצִיצוֹ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: נֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְנִדְחֵה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה!
§ The mishna continues: How does the rapist drink from his vessel? The mishna proceeds to explain that he is obligated to marry her despite the physical flaws she might have. However, if the marriage is prohibited, either due to the fact that she committed adultery or due to her flawed lineage, he is not obligated to marry her, and therefore he may not marry her. Rav Kahana said: I stated this halakha before Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, and I asked him: Let the positive mitzva: “And to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29), come and override the prohibition of marriage to a woman who is forbidden to him, according to the principle that positive mitzvot override prohibitions.
אָמַר לִי: הֵיכָא אָמְרִינַן נֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְנִידְחֵי לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה — כְּגוֹן מִילָה בְּצָרַעַת, דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לְקַיּוֹמֵיהּ לַעֲשֵׂה. אֲבָל הָכָא, אִי אָמְרָה דְּלָא בָּעֵינָא, מִי אִיתֵיהּ לַעֲשֵׂה כְּלָל?
He said to me: Where do we say the principle that a positive mitzva comes and overrides a prohibition? It is in a case where one performs circumcision of a foreskin afflicted with leprosy. Although there is a prohibition against removing leprous skin, the positive mitzva of circumcision overrides that prohibition, as it is not possible to fulfill the positive mitzva without violating the prohibition. However, here, in the case of the rapist, if she says: I do not want him as a husband, is there a positive mitzva at all? Since in that case the mitzva need not be performed, as it is negated when the woman refuses to marry him, it does not override the prohibition.
מַתְנִי׳ יְתוֹמָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹנֵס — חַיָּיב, וְהַמְפַתֶּה — פָּטוּר.
MISHNA: With regard to an orphan who was betrothed and divorced, Rabbi Elazar says: One who rapes her is obligated to pay the fine, as she is a virgin young woman, and one who seduces her is exempt from payment. Because she is an orphan, or because she was betrothed and divorced, she is independent, and by consenting to the seduction she forgoes her right to the fine.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא רַבּוֹ אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס וּקְנָסָהּ לְעַצְמָהּ. מִמַּאי — מִדְּקָתָנֵי: יְתוֹמָה, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹנֵס חַיָּיב, וְהַמְפַתֶּה פָּטוּר.
GEMARA: Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Elazar stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, as with regard to a young woman who was betrothed and divorced and then raped, Rabbi Akiva said in an earlier mishna: She is entitled to a fine for rape and her fine is paid to her. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: She is not entitled to a fine for rape. And from where do we know that Rabbi Elazar’s opinion corresponds to the opinion of his teacher? From the fact that the mishna teaches with regard to an orphan that Rabbi Elazar says: One who rapes her is obligated to pay the fine and one who seduces her is exempt from payment.
יְתוֹמָה, פְּשִׁיטָא? אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּנַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה, כִּיתוֹמָה. מָה יְתוֹמָה — לְעַצְמָהּ, אַף נַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה — לְעַצְמָהּ.
The Gemara asks: An orphan? That is obvious, as she has no father and is not subject to the authority of anyone else. Clearly the seducer is exempt from payment because she was complicit. Rather, this is what the mishna is teaching us: That the legal status of a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, even if her father is alive, is like that of an orphan: Just as with regard to an orphan, payment of the fine is to her, so too, with regard to a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, payment of the fine is to her.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא סָבָא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. קָרֵי רַב עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״טוּבְיָנָא דְחַכִּימֵי״.
Rabbi Zeira said that Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Hamnuna the Elder said that Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Rav would exclaim about Rabbi Elazar: He is the happiest of the Sages, as he held that the halakha was ruled in accordance with his opinion in many instances.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיזֶהוּ בּוֹשֶׁת? הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְבַיֵּישׁ וְהַמִּתְבַּיֵּישׁ. פְּגָם — רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא שִׁפְחָה נִמְכֶּרֶת בַּשּׁוּק, כַּמָּה הָיְתָה יָפָה, וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה. קְנָס — שָׁוֶה בְּכׇל אָדָם, וְכֹל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִצְבָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה — שָׁוֶה בְּכׇל אָדָם.
MISHNA: What is humiliation? How is the payment for humiliation during rape or seduction assessed? It is all based on the one who humiliated and the one who was humiliated. The price will vary depending on the lineage of the family of the rape victim and the nature of the attacker. How is her degradation assessed? One considers her as though she were a maidservant sold in the marketplace, and assesses how much she was worth beforehand and how much she is currently worth, after the rape or seduction. The sum of the fine is equal for all people, and the principle is: Any payment that has a fixed sum by Torah law is equal for all people, regardless of the lineage and the physical state of the attacker or the victim.
גְּמָ׳ וְאֵימָא: חֲמִשִּׁים סְלָעִים אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מִכֹּל מִילֵּי! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא יֹאמְרוּ: בָּעַל בַּת מְלָכִים חֲמִשִּׁים, בָּעַל בַּת הֶדְיוֹטוֹת חֲמִשִּׁים?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, גַּבֵּי עֶבֶד נָמֵי, יֹאמְרוּ: עֶבֶד נוֹקֵב מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת — שְׁלֹשִׁים, עֶבֶד עוֹשֶׂה
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And say that the Merciful One said that the payment is fifty sela from all these matters, i.e., the fine, degradation, humiliation, and pain. Rabbi Zeira said: That cannot be, as they will say: If one who engaged in forced intercourse with a daughter of kings pays a sum of fifty sela, does one who engaged in forced intercourse with the daughter of commoners [hedyotot] also pay fifty sela? Abaye said to him: This is not a decisive argument, as if so, with regard to a Canaanite slave killed by an ox, the Torah says that the owner of the ox pays the master of the slave thirty sela. There too, they will say: For a slave who pierces precious pearls [margaliyyot], a valuable skill, the fine is thirty sela, and for a slave who performs
מַעֲשֵׂה מַחַט — שְׁלֹשִׁים?!
the needlecraft of a tailor, a common, less valuable skill, is the fine also thirty sela? Rather, just as with regard to the slaves, the sum is not dependent on the standing of the victim, so too with regard to a woman who was raped.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִילּוּ בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, יֹאמְרוּ: בָּעַל שְׁלֵימָה — חֲמִשִּׁים, בָּעַל פְּגוּמָה — חֲמִשִּׁים? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, גַּבֵּי עֶבֶד נָמֵי, יֹאמְרוּ: עֶבֶד בָּרִיא — שְׁלֹשִׁים, עֶבֶד מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין — שְׁלֹשִׁים?!
Rather, Rabbi Zeira said a different proof: Had two men engaged in forced intercourse with her, one vaginal intercourse, and one anal intercourse, they will say: If one who engaged in forced intercourse with an untainted virgin pays fifty sela, does one who engaged in forced intercourse with her when she is tainted, i.e., after she has engaged in anal intercourse, also pay fifty sela? Apparently, the fifty sela is the fixed sum of the fine, while the rest of the payment varies on a case-by-case basis. Abaye said to him: This too is no proof, as if so, with regard to a slave as well, they will say if one whose ox gored a healthy slave pays thirty sela, does one whose ox gored a slave afflicted with boils also pay thirty sela?
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִינָּהּ״, הָנֵי תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִינָּהּ, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם. רָבָא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשּׁוֹכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף״. הֲנָאַת שְׁכִיבָה חֲמִשִּׁים, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם.
Rather, Abaye said a different proof. The verse says: “Fifty shekels of silver…because he tormented her” (Deuteronomy 22:29); these fifty sela are the fine paid because he tormented her. From which it may be inferred that there are the additional payments of humiliation and degradation beyond that sum mentioned in the verse. Rava said an alternative proof. The verse says: “And the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver” (Deuteronomy 22:29). For the pleasure of lying with her he pays fifty sela; from which it may be inferred that there are the additional payments of humiliation and degradation, beyond payment of the fine.
וְאֵימָא לְדִידַהּ? אָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״, כׇּל שֶׁבַח נְעוּרֶיהָ — לְאָבִיהָ.
The Gemara asks: And say that these additional payments are paid to her? The Gemara answers that the verse says: “Between a father and his daughter, being in her young womanhood, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17), from which it is derived that all profits of her young womanhood go to her father.
וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה הַבַּת לְאָבִיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְכִי יִמְכּוֹר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה. מָה אָמָה, מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְרַבָּהּ — אַף בַּת, מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְאָבִיהָ. לְמָה לִי? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִ״בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״! אֶלָּא, הַהִיא בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the handiwork of the daughter goes to her father? It is as it is stated: “And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant” (Exodus 21:7), juxtaposing his daughter to a maidservant: Just as a maidservant, her handiwork belongs to her master, as she was sold for that purpose; so too a daughter, her handiwork goes to her father. Why do I need this complicated proof? Let him derive it directly from the verse “Being in her young womanhood, in her father’s house.” Rather, this cannot be derived from that verse because that verse is written with regard to the nullification of vows. A young woman is subject to her father’s authority with regard to her vows, which he has the right to nullify. The matter of monetary rights is not addressed in that verse.
וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִינֵּיהּ, מָמוֹנָא מֵאִיסּוּרָא לָא יָלְפִינַן. וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִקְּנָסָא, מָמוֹנָא מִקְּנָסָא לָא יָלְפִינַן. אֶלָּא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּאָבִיהָ הָוֵי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי מָסַר לַהּ לִמְנֻוּוֹל וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין.
And if you say: Let us derive monetary matters from vows, i.e., just as she is subject to her father’s authority with regard to vows the same is true with regard to monetary matters, we do not derive monetary matters from ritual matters. And if you say: Let us derive that her father receives payment from the halakha of a fine, i.e., just as the fine is paid to her father, as explicitly stated in the Torah, so too, other payments are also paid to her father, we do not derive monetary matters from fines. The payment of a fine is a novel element decreed by the Torah and cannot serve as a paradigm for standard monetary matters. Rather, the Gemara explains that it is reasonable that the payments of humiliation and degradation are paid to her father, as if he wished to do so he could give her hand in marriage to a repulsive man or one afflicted with boils, thereby humiliating her. Since her humiliation is under his control, payment for her humiliation is similarly his.
פְּגָם, רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא שִׁפְחָה נִמְכֶּרֶת. הֵיכִי שָׁיְימִינַן לַהּ? אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בְּתוּלָה לְשִׁפְחָה בְּעוּלָה לְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ.
The mishna continues: How is her degradation assessed? One considers her as though she were a maidservant sold in the marketplace, and assesses how much she would have been worth beforehand and how much she would be worth currently. The Gemara asks: How do we assess her value? Shmuel’s father said: One estimates the difference between how much a person is willing to give to purchase a virgin maidservant and how much he is willing to give to purchase a non-virgin maidservant to serve him.
מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ? אֶלָּא בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בְּעוּלָה לְשִׁפְחָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּעוּלָה, לְהַשִּׂיאָה לְעַבְדּוֹ. וּלְעַבְדּוֹ מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ? בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְרַבּוֹ קוֹרַת רוּחַ הֵימֶנּוּ.
The Gemara asks: With regard to a non-virgin maidservant to serve him; if he purchases her for service, what difference is there to him whether or not she is a virgin? Rather, the difference between a maidservant who engaged in intercourse and a maidservant who did not engage in intercourse is with regard to how much one is willing to marry her to his slave. The Gemara further asks: And with regard to marrying her to his slave, what difference is there to him whether or not she is a virgin? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to a slave from whom his master has a sense of satisfaction, and he seeks a virgin for the slave in order to reciprocate. The difference between the price that the master is willing to pay for each of the maidservants is the degradation that the offender pays the victim.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֶכֶר — אֵין קְנָס. וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְנָס — אֵין מֶכֶר. קְטַנָּה — יֵשׁ לָהּ מֶכֶר, וְאֵין לָהּ קְנָס. נַעֲרָה — יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס, וְאֵין לָהּ מֶכֶר. הַבּוֹגֶרֶת — אֵין לָהּ לֹא מֶכֶר וְלֹא קְנָס.
MISHNA: Any place where there is sale by a father of his minor daughter as a Hebrew maidservant, there is no fine if she is raped. And any place where there is a fine, when a young woman is raped; there is no sale by the father. The Gemara specifies: A minor is subject to sale by her father, and she is not entitled to a fine if she is raped. A young woman is entitled to a fine if she is raped and is not subject to sale. A grown woman is neither subject to sale nor entitled to a fine.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר. דְּתַנְיָא: קְטַנָּה מִבַּת יוֹם אֶחָד וְעַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — יֵשׁ לָהּ מֶכֶר וְאֵין לָהּ קְנָס. מִשֶּׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁתִּיבְגַּר — יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס וְאֵין לָהּ מֶכֶר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֶכֶר — אֵין קְנָס, וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְנָס — אֵין מֶכֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קְטַנָּה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְעַד שֶׁתִּיבְגַּר — יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס.
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This halakha in the mishna is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: She is entitled to a fine even where there is a sale, as it is taught in a baraita: A minor girl, from one day old until she grows two pubic hairs, is subject to sale and is not entitled to a fine. From when she grows two pubic hairs and becomes a young woman until she matures into a grown woman, she is entitled to a fine and she is not subject to sale; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would state the principle: Any place where there is a sale there is no fine, and any place where there is a fine there is no sale. And the Rabbis say: A minor girl from the age of three years and one day until she matures into a grown woman is entitled to a fine.
קְנָס אִין, מֶכֶר לָא?! אֵימָא: אַף קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלוֹ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״ — בִּמְהַוָּה עַצְמָהּ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְרַבָּנַן? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״נַעֲרָ״, אֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה בַּמַּשְׁמָע.
The Gemara questions the statement of the Rabbis in the baraita with regard to a girl more than three years of age: A fine, yes, but sale, no? Do the Rabbis maintain that a father cannot sell his minor daughter as a Hebrew maidservant? Rather, emend the text and say: She is even entitled to a fine where she is subject to sale. Rav Ḥisda said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as the verse says with regard to a rapist: “And the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty sela, and to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29). The verse is speaking with regard to one halakhically competent to marry by herself, which means she must be a young woman. The Gemara asks: And what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? Reish Lakish said that the verse says “young woman [na’ara]”; however, although the term is pronounced na’ara, it is written as na’ar, without the letter heh, and even a minor girl is indicated by that term.
שַׁמְעַהּ רַב פָּפָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנָן מִבֵּי כְלוֹחִית, אֲזַל אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתּוּן, אַהָא מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ. אֲנַן, אַהָא מַתְנֵינַן לָהּ, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע עַל הַקְּטַנָּה — פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה״, ״נַעֲרָה״ מָלֵא דִּיבֵּר הַכָּתוּב.
The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanan, from a place called Bei Keloḥit, heard this halakha and went and said it before Rav Shimi bar Ashi. Rav Shimi said to him: You teach this statement concerning that matter. We, based on our traditions, teach it concerning this matter, as Reish Lakish said: One who slanders a minor girl, falsely claiming that she was not a virgin on the wedding night, is exempt from paying the fine, as it is stated: “And they shall give them to the father of the young woman [na’ara]” (Deuteronomy 22:19). The verse spoke of na’ara, not only pronounced but written in full, indicating that this payment is in effect only with regard to a young woman, not a minor girl. However, in places where the term is written na’ar, even a minor girl would be included.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״נַעֲרָה״, הָא לָאו הָכִי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְאִם אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא נִמְצְאוּ בְתוּלִים לַנַּעֲרָה. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ וּסְקָלוּהָ״, וּקְטַנָּה לָאו בַּת עוֹנָשִׁין הִיא! אֶלָּא: כָּאן נַעֲרָה, הָא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״נַעֲרָ״ — אֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה בַּמַּשְׁמָע.
Rav Adda bar Ahava strongly objects to this: The reason is that the Merciful One writes “na’ara” with a heh. Is that to say that if that were not the case I would have said that this halakha applies even to a minor girl? How is that possible? But isn’t it written: “And if this matter was true, that the hymen of this young woman was not found intact; then they shall remove the young woman to the entrance of her father’s house and stone her” (Deuteronomy 22:20–21). And this verse clearly refers to a young woman old enough to be punished, as a minor is not subject to punishment. Rather, here, with regard to the payment of a slanderer, the verse speaks of a na’ara, written with a heh, and a minor is excluded. This is a paradigm from which it may be inferred that in any place that it is stated “na’ara” without a heh, even a minor girl is indicated.
