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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 15, 2022 | 讬状讞 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 40

诇讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讙诪专讜 诪讛讚讚讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讛专 讬诪讛专谞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 诇讜 诪讚注转讜

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: 鈥淗e shall pay a dowry for her to be a wife to him鈥 (Exodus 22:15); 鈥渢o him鈥 means in accordance with his will.

讻讬爪讚 砖讜转讛 讘注爪讬爪讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 谞讬转讬 注砖讛 讜谞讚讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛

搂 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鈥檃, and I asked him: Let the positive mitzva: 鈥淎nd to him she shall be as a wife鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 谞讬转讬 注砖讛 讜谞讬讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讬诇讛 讘爪专注转 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇拽讬讜诪讬讛 诇注砖讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 讗诪专讛 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 诪讬 讗讬转讬讛 诇注砖讛 讻诇诇

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬转讜诪讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜谞住 讞讬讬讘 讜讛诪驻转讛 驻讟讜专

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讜 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜拽谞住讛 诇注爪诪讛 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讬转讜诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜谞住 讞讬讬讘 讜讛诪驻转讛 驻讟讜专

GEMARA: Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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.

讬转讜诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 讻讬转讜诪讛 诪讛 讬转讜诪讛 诇注爪诪讛 讗祝 谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 诇注爪诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 住讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽专讬 专讘 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讟讜讘讬谞讗 讚讞讻讬诪讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬讝讛讜 讘讜砖转 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讜讛诪转讘讬讬砖 驻讙诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖驻讞讛 谞诪讻专转 讘砖讜拽 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 拽谞住 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讗讚诐

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.

讙诪壮 讜讗讬诪讗 讞诪砖讬诐 住诇注讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬讗诪专讜 讘注诇 讘转 诪诇讻讬诐 讞诪砖讬诐 讘注诇 讘转 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讬讗诪专讜 注讘讚 谞讜拽讘 诪专讙诇讬讜转 砖诇砖讬诐 注讘讚 注讜砖讛

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

诪注砖讛 诪讞讟 砖诇砖讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬诇讜 讘讗讜 注诇讬讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 讻讚专讻讛 讜讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讬讗诪专讜 讘注诇 砖诇讬诪讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讘注诇 驻讙讜诪讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讬讗诪专讜 注讘讚 讘专讬讗 砖诇砖讬诐 注讘讚 诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 砖诇砖讬诐

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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 转讞转 讗砖专 注讬谞讛 讛谞讬 转讞转 讗砖专 注讬谞讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞转谉 讛讗讬砖 讛砖讜讻讘 注诪讛 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讻住祝 讛谞讗转 砖讻讬讘讛 讞诪砖讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐

Rather, Abaye said a different proof. The verse says: 鈥淔ifty shekels of silver鈥because he tormented her鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver鈥 (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.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇讚讬讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞注讜专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讻诇 砖讘讞 谞注讜专讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: And say that these additional payments are paid to her? The Gemara answers that the verse says: 鈥淏etween a father and his daughter, being in her young womanhood, in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:17), from which it is derived that all profits of her young womanhood go to her father.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖诪注砖讛 讛讘转 诇讗讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讻讜专 讗讬砖 讗转 讘转讜 诇讗诪讛 诪讛 讗诪讛 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇专讘讛 讗祝 讘转 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪讘谞注讜专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淎nd if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant鈥 (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 鈥淏eing in her young womanhood, in her father鈥檚 house.鈥 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鈥檚 authority with regard to her vows, which he has the right to nullify. The matter of monetary rights is not addressed in that verse.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪讬谞讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪拽谞住讗 诪诪讜谞讗 诪拽谞住讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讘讬讛 讛讜讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪住专 诇讛 诇诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉

And if you say: Let us derive monetary matters from vows, i.e., just as she is subject to her father鈥檚 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.

驻讙诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖驻讞讛 谞诪讻专转 讛讬讻讬 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 诇讛 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讛 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 诇讬转谉 讘讬谉 砖驻讞讛 讘转讜诇讛 诇砖驻讞讛 讘注讜诇讛 诇砖诪砖讜

The mishna continues: How is her degradation assessed? One considers her as though she was 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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 砖驻讞讛 讘注讜诇讛 诇砖驻讞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘注讜诇讛 诇讛砖讬讗讛 诇注讘讚讜 讜诇注讘讚讜 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讘注讘讚 砖讬砖 诇讜 诇专讘讜 拽讜专转 专讜讞 讛讬诪谞讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讻专 讗讬谉 拽谞住 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专 拽讟谞讛 讬砖 诇讛 诪讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 谞注专讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻专 讛讘讜讙专转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 诪讻专 讜诇讗 拽谞住

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讻专 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讬砖 诇讛 诪讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 诪砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讻专 讗讬谉 拽谞住 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住

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.

拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 拽谞住 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讻专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讘诪讛讜讛 注爪诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 谞注专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 讘诪砖诪注

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 岣sda said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as the verse says with regard to a rapist: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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 鈥測oung woman [na鈥檃ra]鈥; however, although the term is pronounced na鈥檃ra, it is written as na鈥檃r, without the letter heh, and even a minor girl is indicated by that term.

砖诪注讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞谞谉 诪讘讬 讻诇讜讞讬转 讗讝诇 讗诪专讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转讜谉 讗讛讗 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讗讛讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 谞注专讛 诪诇讗 讚讬讘专 讛讻转讜讘

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, son of Rav 岣nan, from a place called Bei Kelo岣t, 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: 鈥淎nd they shall give them to the father of the young woman [na鈥檃ra]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19). The verse spoke of na鈥檃ra, 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鈥檃r, even a minor girl would be included.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 谞注专讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讗诪转 讛讬讛 讛讚讘专 讛讝讛 诇讗 谞诪爪讗讜 讘转讜诇讬诐 诇谞注专讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗转 讛谞注专讛 讗诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讜住拽诇讜讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗讜 讘转 注讜谞砖讬谉 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讻讗谉 谞注专讛 讛讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 谞注专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 讘诪砖诪注

Rav Adda bar Ahava strongly objects to this: The reason is that the Merciful One writes 鈥na鈥檃ra 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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥檚 house and stone her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:20鈥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鈥檃ra, 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 鈥na鈥檃ra without a heh, even a minor girl is indicated.

  • 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 40: Putting a Price on Humiliation

3 mishnayot: 1. An orphan who is betrothed and then gets divorced - and is then raped, what penalty does...

Ketubot 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 40

诇讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讙诪专讜 诪讛讚讚讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讛专 讬诪讛专谞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 诇讜 诪讚注转讜

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: 鈥淗e shall pay a dowry for her to be a wife to him鈥 (Exodus 22:15); 鈥渢o him鈥 means in accordance with his will.

讻讬爪讚 砖讜转讛 讘注爪讬爪讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬转讗 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪谞讛专讚注讗 谞讬转讬 注砖讛 讜谞讚讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛

搂 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鈥檃, and I asked him: Let the positive mitzva: 鈥淎nd to him she shall be as a wife鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 谞讬转讬 注砖讛 讜谞讬讚讞讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻讙讜谉 诪讬诇讛 讘爪专注转 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇拽讬讜诪讬讛 诇注砖讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬 讗诪专讛 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 诪讬 讗讬转讬讛 诇注砖讛 讻诇诇

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬转讜诪讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜谞住 讞讬讬讘 讜讛诪驻转讛 驻讟讜专

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讜 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜拽谞住讛 诇注爪诪讛 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讬转讜诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜谞住 讞讬讬讘 讜讛诪驻转讛 驻讟讜专

GEMARA: Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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.

讬转讜诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 讻讬转讜诪讛 诪讛 讬转讜诪讛 诇注爪诪讛 讗祝 谞注专讛 砖谞转讗专住讛 讜谞转讙专砖讛 诇注爪诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 住讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽专讬 专讘 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讟讜讘讬谞讗 讚讞讻讬诪讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬讝讛讜 讘讜砖转 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讜讛诪转讘讬讬砖 驻讙诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖驻讞讛 谞诪讻专转 讘砖讜拽 讻诪讛 讛讬转讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讬驻讛 拽谞住 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讗讚诐

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.

讙诪壮 讜讗讬诪讗 讞诪砖讬诐 住诇注讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讬讗诪专讜 讘注诇 讘转 诪诇讻讬诐 讞诪砖讬诐 讘注诇 讘转 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讬讗诪专讜 注讘讚 谞讜拽讘 诪专讙诇讬讜转 砖诇砖讬诐 注讘讚 注讜砖讛

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

诪注砖讛 诪讞讟 砖诇砖讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬诇讜 讘讗讜 注诇讬讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讞讚 讻讚专讻讛 讜讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讬讗诪专讜 讘注诇 砖诇讬诪讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讘注诇 驻讙讜诪讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讘讬 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讬讗诪专讜 注讘讚 讘专讬讗 砖诇砖讬诐 注讘讚 诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 砖诇砖讬诐

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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 转讞转 讗砖专 注讬谞讛 讛谞讬 转讞转 讗砖专 注讬谞讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞转谉 讛讗讬砖 讛砖讜讻讘 注诪讛 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讻住祝 讛谞讗转 砖讻讬讘讛 讞诪砖讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐

Rather, Abaye said a different proof. The verse says: 鈥淔ifty shekels of silver鈥because he tormented her鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver鈥 (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.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇讚讬讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞注讜专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讻诇 砖讘讞 谞注讜专讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: And say that these additional payments are paid to her? The Gemara answers that the verse says: 鈥淏etween a father and his daughter, being in her young womanhood, in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:17), from which it is derived that all profits of her young womanhood go to her father.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖诪注砖讛 讛讘转 诇讗讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讻讜专 讗讬砖 讗转 讘转讜 诇讗诪讛 诪讛 讗诪讛 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇专讘讛 讗祝 讘转 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪讘谞注讜专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淎nd if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant鈥 (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 鈥淏eing in her young womanhood, in her father鈥檚 house.鈥 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鈥檚 authority with regard to her vows, which he has the right to nullify. The matter of monetary rights is not addressed in that verse.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪讬谞讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 谞讬诇祝 诪拽谞住讗 诪诪讜谞讗 诪拽谞住讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讘讬讛 讛讜讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪住专 诇讛 诇诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉

And if you say: Let us derive monetary matters from vows, i.e., just as she is subject to her father鈥檚 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.

驻讙诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 砖驻讞讛 谞诪讻专转 讛讬讻讬 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 诇讛 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讛 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 诇讬转谉 讘讬谉 砖驻讞讛 讘转讜诇讛 诇砖驻讞讛 讘注讜诇讛 诇砖诪砖讜

The mishna continues: How is her degradation assessed? One considers her as though she was 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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 砖驻讞讛 讘注讜诇讛 诇砖驻讞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讘注讜诇讛 诇讛砖讬讗讛 诇注讘讚讜 讜诇注讘讚讜 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 讘注讘讚 砖讬砖 诇讜 诇专讘讜 拽讜专转 专讜讞 讛讬诪谞讜

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讻专 讗讬谉 拽谞住 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专 拽讟谞讛 讬砖 诇讛 诪讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 谞注专讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻专 讛讘讜讙专转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 诪讻专 讜诇讗 拽谞住

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讻专 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 讬砖 诇讛 诪讻专 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽谞住 诪砖转讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 诪讻专 讗讬谉 拽谞住 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 拽讟谞讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讚 砖转讬讘讙专 讬砖 诇讛 拽谞住

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.

拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪讻专 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 拽谞住 讘诪拽讜诐 诪讻专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讘诪讛讜讛 注爪诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 谞注专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 讘诪砖诪注

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 岣sda said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as the verse says with regard to a rapist: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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 鈥測oung woman [na鈥檃ra]鈥; however, although the term is pronounced na鈥檃ra, it is written as na鈥檃r, without the letter heh, and even a minor girl is indicated by that term.

砖诪注讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞谞谉 诪讘讬 讻诇讜讞讬转 讗讝诇 讗诪专讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转讜谉 讗讛讗 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讗讛讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 谞注专讛 诪诇讗 讚讬讘专 讛讻转讜讘

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, son of Rav 岣nan, from a place called Bei Kelo岣t, 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: 鈥淎nd they shall give them to the father of the young woman [na鈥檃ra]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19). The verse spoke of na鈥檃ra, 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鈥檃r, even a minor girl would be included.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 谞注专讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讗诪转 讛讬讛 讛讚讘专 讛讝讛 诇讗 谞诪爪讗讜 讘转讜诇讬诐 诇谞注专讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗转 讛谞注专讛 讗诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讜住拽诇讜讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗讜 讘转 注讜谞砖讬谉 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讻讗谉 谞注专讛 讛讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 谞注专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 讘诪砖诪注

Rav Adda bar Ahava strongly objects to this: The reason is that the Merciful One writes 鈥na鈥檃ra 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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥檚 house and stone her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:20鈥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鈥檃ra, 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 鈥na鈥檃ra without a heh, even a minor girl is indicated.

Scroll To Top