Ketubot 37a — the Talmud in English

And

because

Rabbi Yehuda held

that the captive

remains in her presumption of sanctity,

as explained in our Mishna!?

A. Any woman from the daughters of Israel from whose source of blood there emerged blood [from the womb] thereby becomes impure with the impurity of a menstruant. But gentile women do not become impure with the impurity of a menstruant, and the blood of their menstruation is considered merely like the blood of an animal.

B. The Sages decreed that when a woman sees blood, all the pure things that she touched before seeing the blood become impure, throughout the period of “a twenty-four-hour period” that preceded the seeing of the blood.

And the reason for the matter is that the Sages were concerned lest the blood emerge from the womb into the passageway that leads it outward, but not emerge immediately outside, whereas the woman becomes impure from the moment the blood emerges from the womb into the passageway [even though the blood has not yet emerged outside], and the blood remains inside the passageway before emerging outside. It follows that she was impure before the seeing of the blood.

But if she examined herself within the last “twenty-four-hour period,” she is impure only until the time of the examination [called “the last inspection”].

And this is what they said concerning all women: that they render impure “a twenty-four-hour period, and from inspection to inspection.”

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

on the same day on which she immersed for her conversion.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is sufficient for her

to render pure things impure at

her time.

That is, from the time of the seeing, and she does not render them impure retroactively, for the blood of her menstruation that emerged from her while she was a gentile does not render impure.

And likewise she does not render impure retroactively even the pure things that she touched on that day after the time when she immersed for conversion, despite the fact that she was already then fit to become impure with the impurity of a menstruant.

For with regard to every woman whose pure things that she touched cannot be rendered impure retroactively all the way back to an actual twenty-four-hour period, the Sages did not decree that they become impure retroactively; therefore she does not render them impure even from the time when she immersed.

Rabbi Yosei says:

the female convert

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

and from “inspection”

to inspection.”

And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei further disagreed concerning the law of the female convert:

And

the female convert who converted

must wait

before marrying

three months

from the time she immersed [even though she had not been married while a gentile], so that if she becomes pregnant, they will know to distinguish between seed sown in sanctity and seed sown not in sanctity,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

—a female convert who converted—

Rabbi Yosei permits

her

to become betrothed and to marry immediately,

and she does not need to wait at all [and later in the discussion his reason will be explained].

It is evident, then, that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the female convert is not presumed to be a virgin, and therefore she must have a period of waiting for the purpose of “distinction,” so that we can distinguish between the seed produced from her intercourse while she was a gentile and the seed that will be produced by her while she is Jewish.

If so, this is difficult against Rabbi Yehuda himself, who said in our Mishna that the captive is “presumed to be a virgin”!

He said to him

Rav Yosef to Rav Pappa bar Shemuel: And do you

compare a female convert to a captive?

What question and contradiction are you raising from the law of a female convert against the law of a captive, so that it is difficult for you how Rabbi Yehuda can hold that the female convert is not presumed to be a virgin, whereas the captive is presumed to be a virgin!?

For

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 this reason we required a period of waiting,

does not guard herself [

she does not guard herself].

But

a captive,

who is an Israelite—

guards herself [

she guards herself].

However, Rav Pappa bar Shemuel continued to raise an objection:

And

still,

there is a comparison:

you have reason to ask a contradiction from the law of

one captive [

against the law of]

a captive,

since in another beraita we find that Rabbi Yehuda associated the law of a captive with the law of a female convert, and required waiting for the purpose of distinction in both cases!

For it was taught in a beraita: A female convert, a captive, and a maidservant, who were redeemed, converted, and freed,

when they are

older than three years and one day,

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

and therefore, when they converted, were redeemed, or were freed, these women

must wait

before marrying

three months,

in order to distinguish between seed sown in sanctity and seed sown not in sanctity,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Whereas

Rabbi Yosei permits

them

to become betrothed and to marry immediately,

without waiting for the purpose of distinction.

And it is proven that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned even about intercourse with a captive. Whereas in our Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the captive remains in her presumption of sanctity.

He fell silent,

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

He said to him

Rav Yosef to Rav Pappa bar Shemuel:

Have you heard anything concerning this,

have you heard any resolution of this matter?

He said to him,

Rav Pappa bar Shemuel:

This is what

resolved

Rav Sheshet:

That beraita, in which Rabbi Yehuda obligates the captive to wait three months, is dealing with a case where

they saw that she had intercourse.

, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said:

And we object:

If so—

that it is certain that she had intercourse—

what is the reason of Rabbi Yosei,

who disagrees and does not require waiting?

For this would be understandable if they had not seen that she had intercourse: it would be possible to explain Rabbi Yosei’s reason as being that he is not concerned about their intercourse. But according to Rav Sheshet’s explanation, that he interprets the beraita as referring to a case where they saw that she had intercourse, it is difficult: What is Rabbi Yosei’s reason for not requiring waiting for the purpose of distinction!?

Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei holds: A woman who engages in illicit intercourse—

uses a cloth [

she places a cloth in that place after intercourse and draws the seed out from there], and she does this in order

not to become pregnant,

so there is no longer concern that she will bear a child from seed sown not in sanctity, even if she had intercourse.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against this resolution:

Granted, a female convert,

it can indeed be said that she uses a cloth

since she intends to convert [

since she intends to convert], and from the time she decided to convert, she

guards herself [

guards herself] and prepares a cloth for herself.

And Rashi there explains that even a married woman guards herself, meaning that she also separates herself from her husband. And even

a captive as well

properly uses a cloth, since

she does not know where they will bring her,

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

And

a maidservant

who was freed by a writ of manumission

also

uses a cloth,

since she heard it from her master,

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

But a Canaanite maidservant who

goes out

to freedom

by

the

removal of

tooth or eye,

which is an unexpected release,

what can be said?

How could it occur to her that she would be freed, so that you would say that she uses a cloth!?

And if you say:

Indeed,

every

case

that occurs automatically [

that is, every situation that she does not anticipate]

Rabbi Yosei did not say,

that she is permitted to become betrothed and to marry immediately.

This is not a resolution. For—

And

what of a woman raped through circumstances beyond her control,

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

and

nevertheless

it was taught in a beraita: A raped woman and a seduced woman must wait three months, the words of 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 to marry immediately!

Rather, Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei holds: A woman who engages in illicit intercourse turns herself over

after she has had intercourse

in order

to discharge the seed, with the aim

that she not become pregnant.

And even the woman raped through circumstances beyond her control can do this, and all women who engage in illicit intercourse do so.

And the Gemara discusses:

But the other,

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

The reason of Rabbi Yehuda is that

we are concerned lest she did not turn herself over thoroughly.

.

We learned in the Mishna: And anyone who becomes liable for his life does not pay money,

as it is stated: “And there shall be no disaster,”

he shall surely be punished.

— .

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

for

this—the law of “he is subject to the greater penalty”—

”—

from here,

from this verse, is it

derived!?

But

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 saying “according to the measure of his wickedness” in the singular:

For one wickedness

alone

you obligate him, but you do not obligate him for two wickednesses!

And we answer:

One verse—“and there shall be no disaster”—speaks

of

death and money,

that he dies and does not pay.

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

of

lashes and money,

that he does not receive lashes and pay.

And it is necessary,

the Torah had to inform us both concerning death and money and concerning lashes and money that he is not punished with two punishments!

For if it had informed us

only of

death and money,

I would say:

Because

in death

there is loss of life,

which is a severe punishment, and therefore it is sufficient if you punish him by making him lose his life, by putting him to death.

But concerning 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,

we should not say that he does not receive lashes and pay, but rather we impose both punishments upon him.

And if it had informed us

only concerning

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 punishment.

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

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.

And according to Rabbi Meir, who says: He receives lashes and pays,

and necessarily “according to the measure of his wickedness” comes to teach that he does not die and pay, the difficulty is:

two

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

why do I need them?

And we answer:

one

verse—“and there shall be no disaster"—

with death and money.