Ketubot 29b (כט:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Say: It also has a fine

in place of

the sale.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the ruling of our Mishna, which requires a fine from one who has intercourse with women who are disqualified:

And

if

these

disqualified young women

are subject to a fine [that is, “are daughters for whom a fine is paid]!?

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

But why!?

For

it is stated here

in the passage concerning one who rapes a virgin:

“And she shall be his wife,”

which 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 in their case!?

Reish Lakish said:

It is written in the passage concerning rape:

“Na’ara” –

“na’ara” –

“the na’ara.”

a. “If a man finds a virgin na’ara.”

b. “Then the man who lay with her shall give the father of the na’ara fifty silver.”

The verse needed to say only: “He shall give her father fifty silver.”

Since the verse repeated the word “[the] na’ara” a second time, this provides the basis for one derivation.

c. And on that second occasion, it could have said merely “na’ara.”

Since the verse added the letter heh and said “the na’ara,” this provides the basis for a second derivation.

And this is how we must interpret it:

a.

One – the first “na’ara”

comes

for its own sake,

to teach the liability for a fine in the case of raping a fit na’ara.

b.

And one – the second “na’ara,” which is superfluous,

“na'ara,” which is superfluous,

comes to include,

teaching that he is liable for a fine even for

those subject to prohibitions,

despite the fact that she is not fit for him to marry.

c.

And one – the extra letter heh in “the na’ara”

—

comes to include those subject to karet.

Even though she is forbidden to him, and if he betroths her the betrothal does not take effect [since they are not capable of a valid marital relationship], as is the rule with those subject to karet, in whose case betrothal does not take effect, nevertheless he is liable for a fine.

Rav Pappa said:

The inclusion of those subject to negative prohibitions and those subject to karet is derived 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 word “virgin” already mentioned earlier. Since the verse says “according to the bride-price of [the] virgins,” there 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 derive as follows:

One – the first “virgin”

“virgin”

is for its own sake,

as it is needed for a fit na’ara.

And one – the second “virgins”

“virgins”

comes to include those subject to negative prohibitions,

who are not fit for him to marry.

And one – the addition of the heh, when it says “the virgins,”

“the virgins”

comes to include

even

those subject to karet,

who are not capable of a valid marital relationship or betrothal.

The Gemara asks:

And Rav Pappa,

who derives this law from “the virgins,”

why did he not say as Reish Lakish,

who derives this law from “the na’ara”?

And we answer:

That verse

“the na’ara”

is needed

by Rav Pappa to derive from it

the principle stated by Abaye.

As Abaye said:

If he had intercourse with her,

with the na’ara or the minor, by rape or seduction,

and she died

before her father brought the offender to court, he is

exempt

from paying the fine to her father—

since

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

fifty silver”—

the verse teaches, by saying “the father of the na’ara,” that specifically

the father of a na’ara,

when she is alive, receives the fine from the offender,

but not the father of

a na’ara who has already

died.

And Reish Lakish,

who includes those subject to negative prohibitions and those subject to karet from “the na’ara,”

why did he not say as Rav Pappa,

who includes them from “the virgins”?

That verse

“the virgins”

is needed

by Reish Lakish in order

to

derive by means of

gzera shava,

comparing the word “virgin” stated in the passage concerning rape with the word “virgin” stated in the passage concerning seduction.

If the word “the virgins” were not superfluous, so as to be “available” for a gzera shava, we could not derive the gzera shava.

As it was taught:

It is stated concerning seduction [Exodus 22:16]:

“He shall weigh out money

[the seducer shall give it to the father of the na’ara]

according to the bride-price of the virgins.”

That is, the seducer must pay the father of the na’ara a sum of silver. However, it is not stated here what amount of silver is meant by “the bride-price of the virgins”; we learn this from the fifty silver stated in the passage concerning rape.

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

And it is stated in the passage concerning rape: “If a man finds a virgin na’ara who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, then the man who lay with her shall give the father of the na’ara fifty silver.” However, it is not stated what type of coin those fifty silver are to be.

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

And by means of 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 silver paid by the seducer

shall be like “the bride-price of the virgins,”

stated in the passage concerning rape, namely, fifty silver.

And

conversely, the verse teaches that

“the bride-price of the virgins”

—the fine of fifty silver stated in the passage concerning rape, where the type of silver coin is not specified—

shall be like this,

like the coin of the seducer’s payment, for the verse there says “he shall weigh out,” indicating coins of “shekels,” and not silver coins of lesser denomination.

The Gemara raises the difficulty again:

And Reish Lakish, too,

who derives from “the na’ara” the inclusion of those subject to negative prohibitions and those subject to karet, it is needed

needs

for “the na’ara”

for the principle stated by Abaye,

to teach from this expression that if the na’ara died before the trial, he does not pay the fine to her father!?

And Rav Pappa, too,

who derives from “the virgins” the inclusion of those subject to negative prohibitions and those subject to karet, it is needed

needs

for the verse “the virgins” so that it will be available

for a gzera shava,

since otherwise we could not derive the gzera shava!?

Based on these difficulties, the Gemara explains that Rav Pappa and Reish Lakish do not disagree. Rather, those subject to negative prohibitions and those subject to karet are included in the fine by means of 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

—the two verses, namely, “na’ara” and “virgin”—

are for their own sake,

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

One

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

the principle stated by Abaye,

that the na’ara must be alive at the time of the trial.

And one

—the expression “[the] virgins”—

is for a gzera shava,

to equate the payments for rape and seduction.

Two remained for them:

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 subject to negative prohibitions,

for whom he is liable for a fine.

And one: to include those subject to karet,

for whom as well he is liable for a fine.

The Gemara now explains that our Mishna disagrees with the tannaim cited in the beraita:

And

our Mishna, which requires a fine from one who has intercourse with those subject to negative prohibitions and those subject to karet, comes

to exclude this tanna,

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

As it was taught:

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

“And she shall be his wife”:

Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya disagree concerning the interpretation of this verse:

Shimon HaTimni

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

says:

Since the verse uses the expression “shall be his wife,” which denotes a valid marital relationship and betrothal, the verse teaches that there is a liability for a fine only in the case of

a woman with whom there is

for the rapist

a valid marital relationship

and betrothal.

But with regard to women with whom betrothal does not take effect for the offender, the offender is not liable for a fine.

Whereas

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 marry,

but if she is not fit for him to marry because she is forbidden to him, even if betrothal takes effect with her, he is exempt from the fine. Our Mishna, however, which requires a fine both for those subject to negative prohibitions and for those subject to karet, disagrees with both of these tannaim.

The Gemara explains the dispute between Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya:

What is the practical difference between them,

what legal difference results from the two opinions?

Rabbi Zeira said: A mamzeret and a netina

—one who has intercourse with them violates only a negative prohibition, but betrothal takes effect 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 HaTimni] that for purposes of payment of the fine it is necessary only that she be a woman with

a valid marital relationship, this too

—a mamzeret and a netina, despite being forbidden to him—

has

with him

a valid marital relationship,

as betrothal takes effect with her. Therefore, according to his opinion, the offender is liable for a fine for her.

Whereas

according to the one who says

[Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya] that she must be a woman whom he is

fit to marry, then

a mamzeret and a netina

are not fit for him to marry.

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

The Gemara continues:

And according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that betrothal does not take effect with those subject to negative prohibitions,

it follows that even if we interpret “a woman with whom there is a valid marital relationship,” all those subject to negative prohibitions are thereby excluded according to Rabbi Akiva, since according to him no valid marital relationship exists with any of them—

what is the difference between them—

between the meaning of the verse according to Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and its meaning according to Shimon HaTimni, since according to Rabbi Akiva betrothal does not take effect with any of them?

There is a difference between them,

between the derivation “a woman whom he is fit to marry” and “a woman with whom there is a valid marital relationship,” regarding a fine in the case of the prohibition of an

almanah

to a Kohen Gadol

—a valid marital relationship exists with her even according to Rabbi Akiva, but he is not fit to marry her.

And

in accordance with Rabbi Simai.

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

As it was taught: Rabbi Simai says: From all of them

—even from those subject to negative prohibitions—

Rabbi Akiva makes mamzerim

[and betrothal does not take effect with her],

except for an almanah to a Kohen Gadol,

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

For the Torah says

concerning a High Priest and a widow: “A widow, a divorcee, a profaned woman, or a prostitute—these

he shall not take,”

and Scripture juxtaposed to it:

“and he shall not profane”

his offspring among his people”—

And Scripture comes to teach: only

disqualified offspring

[sons who are halalim]

does he

[the High Priest or ordinary priest who has intercourse with a woman disqualified from marrying into the priesthood]

produce

among his offspring.

And he does not

produce

mamzerim

from his offspring.

And the Gemara continues its discussion:

And according to Rabbi Yishvav—

who disagrees with Rabbi Simai—

who says:

Come, let us cry out against Akiva ben Yosef

[that is, Rabbi Akiva,] for he gratuitously increases the number of mamzerim in Israel,

for he would say

Rabbi Akiva:

Anyone whose intercourse is not permitted in Israel—

even intercourse between a widow and a High Priest—

the offspring is a mamzer.

If so, according to Rabbi Yishvav’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 despise an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not despise an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land. The children who are born to them, in the third generation, [after the grandfather’s conversion,] may enter the assembly of the Lord.”

And since the Torah says, “The children who are born to them, in the third generation, may enter the assembly of the Lord,” we learn from here that the first and second generations [of converts] of an Edomite and an Egyptian may not enter the assembly of the Lord, whether males or females.

And if they entered the assembly of the Lord, they violated a prohibition derived from a positive mitzva, for we maintain: a negative command inferred from a positive command is a positive command.

That is, a prohibition that you derive through the principle “from the affirmative you infer the negative” is only a prohibition derived from a positive mitzva, and is not a negative command for which one receives lashes.