כתובות כט

כתובות כט

אֵלּוּ נְעָרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן קְנָס: הַבָּא עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת וְעַל הַנְּתִינָה וְעַל הַכּוּתִית, הַבָּא עַל הַגִּיּוֹרֶת וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ, פְּחוּתוֹת מִבְּנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד.

MISHNA: These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them: One who engages in intercourse with a mamzeret, or with a Gibeonite woman [netina], who are given [netunim] to the service of the people and the altar (see Joshua 9:27), or with a Samaritan woman [kutit]. In addition, the same applies to one who engages in intercourse with a female convert, or with a captive woman, or with a maidservant, provided that the captives were ransomed, or that the converts converted, or that the maidservants were liberated when they were less than three years and one day old, as only in that case do they maintain the presumptive status of a virgin.

הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה — יֵשׁ לָהֶם קְנָס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בְּהִכָּרֵת — אֵין בָּהֶן מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין.

Similarly, one who engages in intercourse with his sister, i.e., he rapes her, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with his father’s brother’s wife after they divorced, or with a menstruating woman, there is a fine paid. Although there is karet for engaging in relations with any of the women enumerated in this list, one is liable to pay the fine because there is no court-imposed capital punishment. In cases where there is a court-imposed death penalty, the rapist would be exempt from paying the fine.

גְּמָ׳ הָנֵי נְעָרוֹת, פְּסוּלוֹת אִית לְהוּ קְנָס, כְּשֵׁירוֹת לָא?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵלּוּ נְעָרוֹת פְּסוּלוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם קְנָס — הַבָּא עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת וְעַל הַנְּתִינָה וְעַל הַכּוּתִית.

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders: Is it these young women with flawed lineage listed in the mishna, for whom there is a fine paid if they are raped, while for young women with unflawed lineage, no, there is no fine? The Gemara explains that this is what the tanna is saying: These are the young women with flawed lineage for whom there is a fine paid if they are raped. This is not a comprehensive list; rather, the tanna enumerates those young women for whom a fine is paid despite their flawed lineage: One who has relations with a mamzeret, or with a Gibeonite woman, or with a Samaritan woman.

נַעֲרָה אִין, קְטַנָּה לָא. מַאן תַּנָּא?

The mishna teaches the halakha with regard to a young woman, from which the Gemara infers: With regard to a young woman, yes, one is liable to pay the fine if he rapes her, but with regard to a minor, no, one is not liable to pay the fine. Who is the tanna who maintains that one is liable for raping a young woman but not a minor?

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: קְטַנָּה מִבַּת יוֹם אֶחָד וְעַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת — יֵשׁ לָהּ מֶכֶר וְאֵין לָהּ קְנָס. וּמִשֶּׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת וְעַד 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.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The tanna is Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a minor from the age of one day old until she grows two pubic hairs, there is the possibility of sale for her, as her father may sell her as a Hebrew maidservant, but there is no fine paid for her if she is raped. And once she grows two pubic hairs, from that point until she matures into a grown woman there is a fine for her, as during that period she is a young woman, with regard to whom the Torah law of a rapist and a seducer applies, but there is no possibility of sale for her. Once she grows two hairs she is no longer under her father’s control and can no longer be sold. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would state a principle: Any place where there is a sale, there is no fine; and any place where there is a fine, there is no sale.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קְטַנָּה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְעַד שֶׁתִּיבְגַּר — יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס. קְנָס אִין, מֶכֶר לָא?! אֵימָא:

And the Rabbis say: With regard to a minor from the age of three years and one day old until she matures into a grown woman, there is a fine for her. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that a fine, yes, there is, but a sale, no, there is not? Do the Rabbis maintain that the father has no right to sell his minor daughter? The Gemara emends the text: Say:

אַף קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר.

There is a fine even in a place where there is sale. That is, not only can a minor girl from the age of three be sold until she matures, but she also receives payment of the fine.

וְהָנֵי בְּנֵי קְנָסָא נִינְהוּ? וְאַמַּאי? אִיקְּרִי כָּאן: ״וְלוֹ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״, אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״נַעֲרָה״, ״נַעֲרָה״, ״הַנַּעֲרָה״. חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, וְחַד לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת.

§ The Gemara questions the basic halakha that one who rapes young women of flawed lineage is liable to pay the fine: And are these young women entitled to the fine? But why? I read here with regard to a rapist: “And to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which the Sages derived that only a wife who is suitable for him is eligible to receive payment of a fine from a rapist. Reish Lakish said that one verse states: “If a man finds a young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:28), and another states: “And he shall give to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:29). This is tantamount to three mentions: Young woman, young woman, the young woman, as the superfluous definite article is interpreted as a third mention of the term. One mention is required to teach the matter itself, that one who rapes a young woman is liable to pay a fine; and one is to include payment of a fine to those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions; and one is to include payment of a fine to those young women for whose rape one is liable to receive karet.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: ״בְּתוּלָה״, ״בְּתוּלוֹת״, ״הַבְּתוּלוֹת״. חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, וְחַד לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת.

Rav Pappa said: This is derived from the halakha of the seducer, as the verses state: “And if a man seduce a virgin…he shall weigh money like the dowry of the virgins” (Exodus 22:15–16). This is tantamount to three mentions: Virgin, virgins, the virgins. One mention is required to teach the matter itself; and one is to include those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions; and one is to include those young women for whom one who rapes them is liable to receive karet.

וְרַב פָּפָּא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְאַבָּיֵי. דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בָּא עָלֶיהָ וּמֵתָה — פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה״. לַאֲבִי נַעֲרָה, וְלֹא לַאֲבִי מֵתָה.

The Gemara asks: And Rav Pappa, what is the reason that he did not cite the source as Reish Lakish did? The Gemara answers: That derivation from the three instances of the term young woman is required by him to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said, as Abaye said: If one engaged in forced intercourse with a young woman and she died before he stood trial, he is exempt from paying the fine, as it is stated: “And he shall give to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:29). From the fact that the verse does not simply say: To her father, it is inferred: To the father of the young woman and not to the father of a dead woman. He is liable only if the young woman is still alive.

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב פָּפָּא? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. דְּתַנְיָא: ״כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקוֹל כְּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת״, שֶׁיְּהֵא זֶה כְּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת, וּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת כָּזֶה. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ נָמֵי, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְאַבָּיֵי. וְרַב פָּפָּא נָמֵי, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה!

The Gemara asks: And Reish Lakish, what is the reason that he did not cite the source as Rav Pappa did? The Gemara answers: That derivation from the three instances of the term virgin is required by him to derive a verbal analogy, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to a seducer: “He shall weigh [yishkol] money like the dowry of the virgins” (Exodus 22:16), from which it is derived that this fine of a seducer should be a sum of fifty sela like the dowry of the virgins specified in the case of a rapist; and the dowry of the virgins must be paid in sela like this fine of the seducer. Therefore, Reish Lakish holds that no additional matters may be derived from the term virgins. The Gemara asks: And for Reish Lakish too, isn’t it required by him to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said? And similarly, for Rav Pappa, isn’t it required by him to derive a verbal analogy?

אֶלָּא: שִׁיתָּא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי? ״נַעֲרָה״ ״נַעֲרָה״ ״הַנַּעֲרָה״. ״בְּתוּלָה״ ״בְּתוּלוֹת״ ״הַבְּתוּלוֹת״, תְּרֵי לְגוּפַיְיהוּ, חַד לְכִדְאַבָּיֵי, וְחַד לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. אִיַּיתַּרוּ לֵיהּ תְּרֵי. חַד — לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, וְחַד — לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת.

Rather, there are six verses written, and both Reish Lakish and Rav Pappa derive matters from all of them. In the two passages discussing the rapist and the seducer, it is written: Young woman, young woman, the young woman; virgin, virgins, the virgins. Two mentions are required to teach the matters themselves, the basic halakhot of a rapist and a seducer; one mention is needed to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said; and one mention is necessary to derive a verbal analogy with regard to the dowry of virgins. Two mentions of the term remain for him; one is to include those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions, and one is to include those young women for whom one who rapes them is liable to receive karet. Reish Lakish and Rav Pappa do not disagree; the derivation of each complements that of the other.

וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלוֹ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״, שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ הֲוָיָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לְקַיְּימָהּ.

§ The Gemara comments: And the mishna comes to exclude the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “And to him she shall be [tihye] as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29). Shimon HaTimni says: This is referring to a woman for whom there is betrothal [havaya]. If one betroths a woman with whom relations are punishable by karet, the betrothal does not take effect. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: This is referring to a woman who is suitable for him to sustain, whom he need not divorce due to her flawed lineage.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֲוָיָה, הָא נָמֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֲוָיָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר רְאוּיָה לְקַיְּימָהּ, הָא אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְקַיְּימָהּ.

The Gemara begins its analysis of the baraita with the question: What is the practical difference between the statements of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Zeira said: The difference between their opinions is with regard to a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman, or any other woman who is forbidden but for whom betrothal takes effect. According to the one who said that the criterion is whether there is betrothal, for this woman there is also betrothal. If a Jewish man betroths a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman, although it is prohibited to do so, the betrothal takes effect. However, according to the one who said that the criterion is whether the woman is suitable for him to sustain, this woman is not suitable for him to sustain, since due to the prohibition he is obligated to divorce her.

וּלְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, כְּרַבִּי סִימַאי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: מִן הַכֹּל עוֹשֶׂה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַמְזֵרִין, חוּץ מֵאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״לֹא יִקַּח … וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל״ — חִילּוּלִין הוּא עוֹשֶׂה, וְאֵין עוֹשֶׂה מַמְזֵרִין.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, who said: Betrothal does not take effect for women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions, what is the difference between them? According to his opinion, betrothal of a mamzeret does not take effect either. The Gemara answers: The difference between their statements is the case of a widow raped by a High Priest, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Simai, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: Rabbi Akiva deems children from all illicit relations mamzerim, except for a child born from a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah said: “A widow and a divorcée he shall not take…and he shall not profane [yeḥallel] his seed among his people” (Leviticus 21:14–15), from which it is derived: If he has a child with a widow he creates ḥillulin, i.e., the male offspring of those relations is a ḥalal, disqualified from the priesthood, and the female offspring is a ḥalala, unfit to marry a priest, but he does not create mamzerim. Apparently, in that case, the betrothal does take effect.

וּלְרַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, דְּאָמַר: בּוֹאוּ וְנִצְוַח עַל עֲקִיבָא בֶּן יוֹסֵף, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בִּיאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yeshevav, who said: Come, let us scream at Akiva ben Yosef, who is proliferating mamzerim, as he would say: With regard to anyone who does not have the possibility of permitted relations in the Jewish people, including a widow with a High Priest, the offspring is a mamzer, what is the difference between their opinions, between the one who said that a fine is paid to women with whom the betrothal takes effect and the one who said that a fine is paid to women suitable for one to sustain? Rabbi Yeshevav maintains that betrothal does not take effect even in the case of a widow to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to