Ketubot 29b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Say: even the fine

she has

in place of a sale.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the law of our Mishna, which imposes a fine on one who has intercourse with disqualified women:

And

if

these

disqualified girls—

are they subjects of a fine [that is, “are they girls for whom there is a fine”]!?

[are they girls for whom there is a fine]!?

And why!?

For

it is stated here

in the passage concerning one who rapes a virgin:

“And she shall be his wife,”

and this indicates that the Torah is speaking of one who had intercourse with

a woman who is fit for him,

with whom he can fulfill the mitzva of taking her as a wife. But disqualified women are not fit for him; if so, from where do we know that he is liable for a fine for them!?

Reish Lakish said:

It is written in the passage concerning rape:

“Na'ara”—

“na'ara”—

“the na'ara.”

A. “When a man finds a virgin na'ara.”

B. “And the man who lies with her shall give the father of the na'ara fifty silver [shekels].”

It would have been sufficient for the verse to say: “And he shall give her father fifty silver [shekels].”

And since the verse repeated and said “the na'ara” a second time, this is a source for one derivation.

C. And on that second occasion, it would have been sufficient for it to say merely “na'ara.”

And since the verse added the letter heh and said “the na'ara,” this is a source for a second derivation.

And this is how we must learn:

A.

One—the first

“na'ara”

is for itself,

to teach the liability for a fine in the rape of a fit na'ara.

B.

And one—the second

“na'ara,” which is superfluous—

comes to include,

to include that he is liable for a fine even for

those liable for negative commandments,

despite the fact that she is not fit for him to maintain her as a wife.

C.

And one—the superfluous letter heh in “the na'ara”

—

comes to include those liable to karet.

For even though she is forbidden to him, and if he betroths her the betrothal will not take effect [because they do not have the capacity for marriage], as is the law with those liable to karet, in whom betrothal does not take effect, nevertheless he is liable for a fine.

Rav Pappa said:

The inclusion of those liable for negative commandments and those liable to karet is learned from another verse, in the passage concerning seduction:

“Virgin”—

“virgins”—

“the virgins.”

A. “If a man seduces a virgin.”

B. “He shall weigh out money according to the bride-price of the virgins.”

The verse could have said only “according to the bride-price,” relying on the expression “virgin” that had already been mentioned earlier. And since the verse said “according to the bride-price of [the] virgins,” this is one inclusion.

C. And the verse added the letter heh at the beginning of the word and said “the virgins”; this is a second inclusion.

And we must learn:

One—the first

“virgin”

is for itself;

it is needed for a fit na'ara.

And one—the second

“virgins”

comes to include those liable for negative commandments,

who are not fit for him to maintain as wives.

And one—

the addition of the heh, when it says “the virgins,”

comes to include

also

those liable to karet,

who do not have the capacity for marriage and betrothal.

And we raise a question concerning this:

And Rav Pappa,

who learns this law from “the virgins,”

for what reason did he not say like Reish Lakish,

who learns this law from “the na'ara”?

And we answer:

That—the verse of “the na'ara”—

verse, “the na'ara,”

is needed for him

for Rav Pappa to learn from it

the principle of Abaye.

For Abaye said:

If he had intercourse with her,

with the na'ara or the minor, through rape or seduction,

and she died

before the father brought the one who had intercourse with her to court, he is

exempt

from giving a fine to her father—

since

it is stated: “And he shall give the father of the na'ara

fifty silver [shekels]”—

the verse teaches, by saying “the father of the na'ara,” that only

the father of a na'ara,

when she is alive, shall the one who had intercourse with her give a fine,

but not to the father

of a na'ara who has already

died.

And Reish Lakish,

who includes those liable for negative commandments and those liable to karet from “the na'ara,”

for what reason did he not say like Rav Pappa,

who includes them from “the virgins”?

That

verse [“the virgins”]

is needed for him

for Reish Lakish in order

to

learn through it

a gzera shava,

from the expression “virgin” stated in the passage concerning rape, corresponding to the expression “virgin” stated concerning seduction.

And if the word “the virgins” were not superfluous, so as to be “available” for a gzera shava, we would not learn the gzera shava.

For it was taught:

It is stated concerning seduction [Exodus 22:15]:

“He shall weigh out money

[the seducer, into the hand of the girl’s father]—

according to the bride-price of the virgins.”

That is, the seducer shall pay the girl’s father money in shekels. But it is not stated here what amount of shekels is “the bride-price of the virgins,” and we learn this from the fifty silver [shekels] stated concerning rape.

This is the expression “virgin” in the passage concerning seduction.

And it is stated in the passage concerning rape: “When a man finds a virgin na'ara who was not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, the man who lies with her shall give the father of the na'ara fifty silver [shekels].” But it is not stated what kind of coin those fifty silver [shekels] are to be.

This is the expression “virgin” in the passage concerning rape.

And through the gzera shava, which compares rape with seduction, we learn that the meaning of the verse “He shall weigh out money—according to the bride-price of the virgins” is as follows:

That this—

the amount of shekels that the seducer pays—

shall be according to “the bride-price of the virgins,”

stated concerning rape, which is fifty silver [shekels].

And

on the other hand, the verse teaches that

“the bride-price of the virgins”—

the fine of fifty silver [shekels] stated concerning rape, concerning which it was not stated what silver coin the verse is discussing—

shall be like this,

like the coin of the seducer, concerning which it says “he shall weigh out,” whose meaning is coins of “shekels,” and not silver coins.

And the Gemara again raises a difficulty:

And Reish Lakish, too,

who learns from “the na'ara” to include those liable for negative commandments and those liable to karet, surely

it is needed for him

to use “the na'ara”

for the principle of Abaye,

to learn from this expression that if the girl died before the bringing of the case to court, he does not pay a fine to her father!?

And Rav Pappa, too,

who learns from “the virgins” to include those liable for negative commandments and those liable to karet, surely

it is needed for him

to use the verse “the virgins” so that it will be available

for a gzera shava,

for otherwise we would not learn the gzera shava!?

And on the basis of these difficulties, the Gemara explains that Rav Pappa and Reish Lakish did not disagree. Rather, those liable for negative commandments and those liable to karet are to be included for the fine from both verses together:

Rather, six verses are written

[six verses are written]:

A.

“Na'ara”

B.

“Na'ara”

C.

“The na'ara”

D.

“Virgin”

E.

“Virgins”

F.

“The virgins.”

Two—

two verses, namely “na'ara” and “virgin”—

are for themselves,

to teach about the rape and seduction of a fit na'ara.

One—that is, the expression “And he shall give the father of the [na'ara]”—teaches

—namely, the expression “and he shall give the father of [the] na’ara”—teaches

the principle of Abaye,

that the girl must be alive at the time of bringing the case to court.

And one,

the expression “the [virgins]”—

for a gzera shava,

to compare the payments for rape and seduction.

Two remained for him,

two inclusions remained: the addition of the letter heh to the word “the na'ara” [in the passage concerning rape], and to the word “the virgins” [in the passage concerning seduction], to teach:

One, to include those liable for negative commandments,

for he is liable for a fine for them.

And one, to include those liable to karet,

for he is likewise liable for a fine for them.

Now the Gemara explains that our Mishna disagrees with the tannaim in the beraita:

And

our Mishna, which imposes a fine on one who has intercourse with those liable for negative commandments and those liable to karet, comes

to exclude this tanna,

to exclude the view of this tanna, that is, the views of the two tannaim mentioned in the beraita below!

For it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the rape of a virgin:

“And she shall be his wife”:

And Shimon the Yemenite and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya disagreed in their exposition of this verse:

Shimon the Yemenite

[from a place called “Timnat,” and because he was not ordained he was not called “Rabbi”]

says:

Since the verse said the expression “she shall be his wife,” which is an expression of marriage and betrothal, the verse teaches that there is a liability for a fine only for

a woman who has

for the rapist

the capacity for marriage

and betrothal.

But with regard to women with whom betrothal does not take effect for the one who had intercourse with them, he is not liable for a fine for them.

But

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says:

The verse teaches that there is a liability for a fine only for one who has intercourse with

a woman whom he is fit to maintain as a wife,

but a woman whom he is not fit to maintain as a wife, because she is forbidden to him, even if betrothal takes effect for him with her, he is exempt from the fine. And our Mishna, which imposes a fine both for those liable for negative commandments and for those liable to karet, disagrees with both of these tannaim.

And the Gemara explains the disagreement between Shimon the Yemenite and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya:

What is the difference between them,

what practical legal difference is there between the two views?

Rabbi Zeira said: A mamzeret and a netina —

for one who has intercourse with them violates only a negative commandment, but betrothal takes effect for him with them—

is the difference between them.

And “netina” was mentioned only alongside “mamzeret”; see carefully Tosafot at the beginning of our chapter, s.v. “These”; however, the Shita Mekubetzet wrote, in Rashi’s view, that even a netina forbidden by rabbinic enactment was excluded from a fine; see there; and his reasoning may be connected to the issue discussed by the later authorities [see the note above], whether the prohibition against maintaining her is the “reason” for exempting him from the fine or a “sign.”

For

according to the one who says

[Shimon the Yemenite], who requires for the payment of the fine only that she be a woman who

has the capacity for marriage, this too—

a mamzeret and a netina, despite the fact that she is forbidden to him—

has

for him

the capacity for marriage,

for betrothal takes effect for him with her. Therefore, according to his view, the one who had intercourse with her is liable for a fine for her.

But

according to the one who says

[Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya], who requires that she be a woman whom he is

fit to maintain as a wife, in this case—

a mamzeret and a netina—

is not fit for him to maintain as a wife. Therefore, according to his view, the one who had intercourse with her is not liable for a fine.

Therefore, according to his view, the offender is not liable to pay a fine for her.

The Gemara further discusses:

And according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that betrothal does not take effect with those liable for negative commandments,

and it follows that even if we expound “a woman who has the capacity for marriage,” all those liable for negative commandments are excluded according to Rabbi Akiva, since according to his view none of them has the capacity for marriage—

what is the difference between them—

between the meaning of the verse according to Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and the meaning of the verse according to Shimon the Yemenite, for according to Rabbi Akiva betrothal does not take effect with all of them?

The difference between them

between the exposition “a woman whom he is fit to maintain” and “a woman who has the capacity for marriage” is with regard to a fine where there is the prohibition of

a widow

to a High Priest—

for she has the capacity for marriage even according to Rabbi Akiva, but he is not fit to maintain her as a wife.

And

like Rabbi Simai.

Anyone who has intercourse with a woman with whom betrothal does not take effect for him—the offspring is a mamzer. And any woman with whom betrothal takes effect for him—the offspring is fit [even if he had intercourse with her without betrothal].

For it was taught: Rabbi Simai says: From all of them—

even from those liable for negative commandments—

Rabbi Akiva makes mamzerim,

[and betrothal does not take effect with her],

except for a widow to a High Priest,

although she is forbidden to him by a negative commandment, if he has intercourse with her the offspring is not a mamzer [and betrothal takes effect for him with her]—

For the Torah said concerning a high priest with regard to a widow: "

"a widow, and a divorced woman, and one profaned, a prostitute—these

he shall not take," and the verse placed next to it:

and "

And he shall not profane

his seed among his people"—

And the verse came to teach: only

profane ones

[profane sons]

he

[the high priest or the ordinary priest who have intercourse with a woman disqualified for the priesthood]—

causes

in his seed.

And he does not

—he—

make mamzerim

from his seed.

And the Gemara continues and discusses:

And according to Rabbi Yishavav—

who disagrees with Rabbi Simai—

who says:

Come and let us cry out against Akiva ben Yosef

[he is Rabbi Akiva] for multiplying mamzerim in Israel for no reason,

for he would say

Rabbi Akiva:

Anyone who has no permitted intercourse in Israel—

even a widow with a high priest—

the offspring is a mamzer.

If so, according to Rabbi Yishavav’s position, the question returns to its place:

What is the difference between them?!

It is written in the Torah [Deuteronomy 23:8–9]: “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land. Children who are born to them, the third generation, shall enter the assembly of Hashem.”

And since the Torah said, “Children who are born to them, the third generation, shall enter the assembly of Hashem,” we learn from here that the first and second generations [of converts] of an Edomite and an Egyptian shall not enter the assembly of Hashem, whether males or females.

And if they entered the assembly of Hashem, they transgressed a prohibition of a positive commandment, as we hold: a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment.

That is to say, a prohibition that you learn through the principle of “from the affirmative you hear the negative” is only a positive commandment, and is not a negative commandment for which one is flogged.