Ketubot 37a (לז.) — the Talmud in English

And

since

Rabbi Yehuda held

that the captive woman

retains her presumptive status of sanctity, as explained in our Mishna, is this not a contradiction?!

!?

A. Any Jewish woman from whose vaginal source blood emerges becomes impure with the impurity of a menstruant. Gentile women, however, do not become impure with the impurity of a menstruant, and the blood of their menstruation is considered merely the blood of an animal.

B. The Sages decreed that when a woman sees blood, all pure objects that she touched during the period of “a twenty-four-hour period” preceding her seeing the blood become impure.

The reason for this is that the Sages were concerned that perhaps the blood emerged from the uterus into the vestibule leading outside, but did not immediately emerge externally. The woman becomes impure from the moment the blood leaves the uterus and enters the vestibule—even though the blood has not yet emerged outside—and the blood may remain in the vestibule before emerging. It follows that she became impure before seeing the blood.

However, if she examined herself during the last “twenty-four-hour period,” she is impure only until the time of the examination, which is called “the last examination.”

This is what they said concerning all women: They render pure objects impure for “a twenty-four-hour period, and from examination to examination.”

And it was taught in a beraita: A female convert who converted and saw blood

on the same day that she immersed for her conversion,

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is sufficient

that she render the pure objects impure at

that time—

that is, from the time she saw the blood. She does not render them impure retroactively, since the menstrual blood that emerged from her while she was a gentile does not impart impurity.

Likewise, she does not render impure retroactively even the pure objects that she touched on that day after the time she immersed for conversion, although at that point she was already capable of becoming impure with the impurity of a menstruant.

For with regard to any woman concerning whom it is impossible to render impure retroactively the pure objects she touched for a full twenty-four-hour period, the Sages did not decree that she should render them impure retroactively. Therefore, she does not render them impure even from the time she immersed.

Rabbi Yosei says:

the female convert

is like all women, and renders impure for a twenty-four-hour period,

and from “examination”

to “examination.”

There is another dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei concerning the law of a female convert:

And

the female convert who converted

must wait

before marrying

three months

from the time she immersed—even though she was not married while a gentile—in order that, if she becomes pregnant, it will be possible to distinguish between offspring conceived in sanctity and offspring conceived outside sanctity,

according to Rabbi Yehuda.

—a female convert who converted—

Rabbi Yosei permits

her

to become betrothed and marry immediately,

and she need not wait at all; the Gemara will explain his reason later in the discussion.

Thus, Rabbi Yehuda holds that a female convert does not have the presumptive status of a virgin. Therefore, she must wait for a period of time for purposes of “distinguishing,” so that we can distinguish between offspring born from intercourse she had as a gentile and offspring to whom she will give birth as a Jewish woman.

If so, Rabbi Yehuda himself is subject to a difficulty, since in our Mishna he said that a captive woman has the

presumptive status of a virgin?! Rav Yosef said to

Rav Pappa bar Shemuel: “Do you really

compare a female convert to a captive woman

? What difficulty and contradiction are you raising from the law of a female convert against the law of a captive woman, such that it is difficult for you to understand how Rabbi Yehuda can hold that a female convert does not have the presumptive status of a virgin, whereas a captive woman does have the presumptive status of a virgin?!

After all,

a female convert,

with regard to whom we are considering whether her intercourse occurred while she was a gentile or while she was Jewish, and for that reason we required a period of waiting,

does not guard herself

[she does not guard herself].

But

a captive woman,

who is Jewish,

does guard herself

[she guards herself].

However, Rav Pappa bar Shemuel continued to raise a difficulty:

And

still,

there remains a comparison: You can raise a contradiction from the law of

a captive woman

against

the law of

a captive woman, since in another beraita we find that Rabbi Yehuda grouped the law of a captive woman together with the law of a female convert and required a waiting period for purposes of distinguishing in both cases!

For it was taught in a beraita:

A female convert, a captive woman, and a maidservant who were redeemed, converted, or emancipated

when they were

older than three years and one day,

we must be concerned that they had intercourse while gentiles, after the age of three, since at that age they become fit for intercourse—

Therefore, when they converted, were redeemed, or were emancipated, they

must wait

before marrying

three months,

in order to distinguish between offspring conceived in sanctity and offspring conceived outside sanctity,

according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Whereas

Rabbi Yosei permits

them

to become betrothed and marry immediately,

without waiting for purposes of distinguishing.

It is therefore evident that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned even about intercourse with a captive woman. Yet in our Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda holds that a captive woman retains her presumptive status of sanctity.

He fell silent,

as Rav Yosef was silent and did not know how to answer Rav Pappa bar Shemuel’s difficulty.

Rav Yosef said to

Rav Pappa bar Shemuel:

Have you heard anything concerning this—

have you heard any resolution of this matter?

Rav Pappa bar Shemuel said to him:

:

This is what

resolved the matter

Rav Sheshet:

That beraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda requires a captive woman to wait three months, is speaking of a case in which she was

seen engaging in intercourse.

, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said:

And we raise a difficulty:

If so—

if it is certain that she had intercourse—

what is the reason of Rabbi Yosei,

who disagrees and does not require a waiting period?

This works well if she was not seen engaging in intercourse: Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning can then be explained as his not being concerned about their having intercourse. But according to Rav Sheshet’s interpretation, that the beraita is speaking of a case in which she was seen engaging in intercourse, the difficulty arises: What is Rabbi Yosei’s reason for not requiring a waiting period for purposes of distinguishing?!

Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei holds that a woman who engages in licentious intercourse

uses a wad

[she places a wad in that place after intercourse and draws the semen out from there], and she does so

so that she will not become pregnant,

so there is no longer concern that she will give birth to offspring conceived outside sanctity, even if she had intercourse.

The Gemara is surprised by this resolution:

Granted, with regard to a female convert,

it can indeed be said that she uses a wad,

since she intends to convert

[since she intends to convert], and from the time she decides to convert, she

guards herself

[she guards herself] and prepares a wad for herself.

And

a captive woman as well

can properly use a wad, since

she does not know where they will take her,

she does not know where her captors will bring her, and perhaps they will bring her to a Jewish city and she will be redeemed.

And

a maidservant

who was emancipated by a bill of manumission

also

uses a wad,

since she hears it from her master,

she heard from her master that he was about to emancipate her.

But

what of a Canaanite maidservant who

goes out

to freedom

through

the loss of a

tooth or eye,

which is an emancipation that is not anticipated?

What can be said?

How could she have imagined that she would be emancipated, so that you could say that she uses a wad?!

And if you say:

Indeed,

every

case that occurs

automatically

[that is, every situation that she does not anticipate]

was not stated by Rabbi Yosei,

who permits her to become betrothed and marry immediately—

That is not a resolution. For—

And

there is the case of a woman raped, which occurs automatically

She is subjected to intercourse against her will; she did not know that she would be raped and did not prepare a wad.

And

nevertheless

it was taught in a beraita: A raped woman and a seduced woman must wait three months, according to Rabbi Yehuda.

—she has intercourse against her will, did not know that she would be raped, and did not prepare a cloth for herself—

Rabbi Yosei permits her to become betrothed and marry immediately!

Rather, Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei holds that a woman who engages in licentious intercourse turns herself over

after intercourse

in order

to expel the semen, with the aim

that she will not become pregnant.

Even a raped woman can do this, and all women who engage in licentious intercourse do so.

The Gemara discusses this:

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehuda, who requires a waiting period—why does he not rely on this practice of women who engage in licentious intercourse?

Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is that

we are concerned that perhaps she did not turn herself over thoroughly.

.

We learned in the Mishna: “And anyone who becomes liable for a capital offense does not pay money,”

as it is stated: ‘And there shall be no fatality’—

‘he shall be punished.’

— .

The Gemara is surprised:

And

if

this—the law of “he is liable for the more severe punishment”—

is derived

from here,

from this verse

is it derived?!

After all,

it is derived from there,

from another verse:

As it is stated: “Then the judge shall cause him to lie down and strike him before him

according to the measure of his wickedness.”

The verse teaches, by stating “according to the measure of his wickedness” in the singular, that

because of one transgression

alone

you may obligate him, but you may not obligate him on account of two transgressions?!

And we answer:

One

verse—“and there shall be no fatality”—speaks

of death and money,

so that he dies and does not pay.

And one

verse—“according to the measure of his wickedness”—speaks

of lashes and money,

so that he is not flogged and made to pay.

And it is necessary,

the Torah had to teach us both the case of death and money and the case of lashes and money, that one is not punished with both penalties.

For had it taught us

only

death and money,

I would say:

Because

with death

there is loss of life,

which is a severe punishment, therefore it is sufficient if you punish him by causing him to lose his life and be killed.

But with lashes and money, where there is no loss of life,

—the Torah had to teach us both the case of death and payment and the case of lashes and payment, that a person is not punished with two punishments!

I might say no:

It should not be said that he is not flogged and made to pay; rather, both penalties should be imposed upon him.

And had it taught us

only the case of

lashes and money,

I would say:

Because its prohibition is not severe,

the prohibition for which he became liable to lashes is not a severe prohibition, and it is sufficient to punish him with one penalty.

But with death and money, where its prohibition is severe,

the prohibition for which he became liable to death

I might say no.

, since he became liable for death,

Therefore,

it is necessary

to have both verses.

But according to Rabbi Meir, who says: One is flogged and made to pay,

and it is necessarily the case that “according to the measure of his wickedness” teaches that one is not executed and made to pay, the difficulty arises:

Why do I need

two verses—“and there shall be no fatality” and “according to the measure of his wickedness”—

?

And we answer:

one

verse—"and there shall be no disaster"—

with death and monetary payment.