Ketubot 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

Imagine that the word “virgin”

is the word that comes

for a gezerah shavah,

and he is therefore always liable even in the case of a woman who had already engaged in intercourse,

and

if

“who had not been betrothed”

comes to teach

the exclusion of a young woman who had been betrothed and then divorced,

meaning that she has no fine at all!?

And we answer:

It is reasonable

that the verse

“who had not been betrothed”

is the one that comes

for a gezerah shavah.

For

there is no reason to exempt her from the fine, since

I can apply to her the phrase “a young woman who is a virgin.”

And the Gemara wonders:

On the contrary!

Let it be said that the word

“virgin”

comes

for a gezerah shavah

and not to exclude her entirely from the fine,

for I can apply to her the phrase “who had not been betrothed”!?

And we answer:

It is reasonable

that a woman who had already engaged in intercourse is exempt from the fine, whereas a betrothed woman is not exempt, because:

In the former case—

the woman who had already engaged in intercourse—

her body has changed

[her body changed from that of a virgin to that of a woman who had engaged in intercourse], and her degradation is not so great.

But

in

the latter case—

the betrothed woman—

her body has not changed.

And the Gemara asks:

And as for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

who derives from “who had not been betrothed” that a betrothed woman has no fine—

this reasoning,

that the rapist pays sela’im while the seducer pays fifty silver dinars,

from where does he derive it?

For according to him, “who had not been betrothed” is not superfluous for deriving by gezerah shavah that the fine of the rapist and that of the seducer should be derived from one another!?

And we explain:

He derives

this reasoning for Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

from

that

which was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the seducer:

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

The verse equated the fine of the seducer with the fine of the rapist, in order to teach

that this—

the number of sela’im in the case of the seducer—

shall be according to the bride-price of virgins,

that is, the amount of fifty silver dinars explicitly stated in the case of the rapist.

And the bride-price of virgins,

which is the fine explicitly stated in the case of the rapist,

shall be like this,

like the payment of the seducer, which is a sum of sela’im.

Here the Gemara returns to the beraita cited above, which states that according to Rabbi Akiva, if one had intercourse with a betrothed young woman who was then divorced, she is entitled to a fine and her fine belongs to her father. And it wonders:

There is a difficulty between Rabbi Akiva

of the beraita

and Rabbi Akiva

of our Mishna, who said: Indeed, she is entitled to a fine, but the fine belongs to her herself!?

And we answer:

They are two tannaim, and their opinions are both in accordance with Rabbi Akiva

—two tannaim disagreed about what Rabbi Akiva’s position is.

And we challenge this:

Granted, as for Rabbi Akiva of the Mishna,

who holds that the fine belongs to her herself, this is the reason:

the gezerah shavah cannot come and remove the verse entirely from its plain meaning,

for it is impossible that “who had not been betrothed” should be removed entirely from its plain meaning. Therefore, the tanna of our Mishna, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, holds that the verse must necessarily be teaching that the fine belongs to her herself.

Rather, as for Rabbi Akiva of the beraita,

the difficulty remains: Is it possible that

the gezerah shavah comes and removes the verse entirely from its plain meaning

—is it possible to remove the verse entirely from its plain meaning and say that there is no distinction at all between a young woman who had been betrothed and one who had not been betrothed!?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Read it as follows:

According to the plain meaning of the verse,

“who was not betrothed”

at the time of the intercourse, because since he is liable to the death penalty, he does not pay a fine.

And the Gemara answers: Does the Torah need to write “who was not betrothed”? We already know that

a betrothed woman is subject to stoning,

and from “if there is no fatal accident” we derive that one who is liable to the death penalty is exempt from monetary payments. If so, why do I need “who was not betrothed”!?

And we answer: The Torah needed to teach the law that one who incurs a greater penalty is exempt from a lesser payment even with regard to a fine, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is an innovation that the Torah introduced with regard to a fine,

as every fine is an innovation, therefore

even though he is executed, he pays.

It teaches us that even a fine is exempted by the principle that one who incurs a greater penalty is exempt from a lesser payment.

And we challenge this:

And according to Rabba, who said:

indeed,

it is an innovation that the Torah introduced with regard to a fine,

and therefore

even though he is executed,

he

pays, what can be said!?

And we answer:

Rabba holds

that

he follows Rabbi Akiva of the Mishna,

who interprets the plain meaning of the verse as referring to a young woman who had been betrothed and had already been divorced, to teach that her fine belongs to her herself; he did not derive from it the principle that one who incurs a greater penalty is exempt from a lesser payment.

The Sages taught: The fine

of every raped and seduced young woman

to whom

[this is the initial understanding of the beraita]?

Some say:

To her father.

And some say: To her herself.

And the Gemara wonders:

To her herself—

why!?

The fine of a raped or seduced young woman belongs to her father, as is stated in the Torah!?

He said—

he explained—

Rav Ḥisda:

The beraita is not speaking of an ordinary raped young woman. Rather,

here,

in the beraita,

we are dealing with a young woman who had been betrothed and then divorced.

And they disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva of the Mishna,

who holds that her fine belongs to her herself,

and Rabbi Akiva of the beraita,

who holds that her fine belongs to her father.

Abaye said: If he had intercourse with her, and she died

before his case was concluded and he was ordered to pay the fine, he is

exempt

from the fine.

As it is stated: “And he shall give to the father of the young woman,”

which implies that the young woman is alive,

but not to the father of one who died.

The Gemara explains:

That which was obvious to Abaye,

that if the young woman died he is exempt from the fine,

was a question for Rava

[Rava was uncertain about it, according to the interpretation of Mar bar Rav Ashi regarding his uncertainty, as will be explained in the continuation of the sugya].

For Rava asked:

A young woman with whom a man had intercourse, but whose father did not manage to bring the man to court before she died, and the time of her becoming a bogeret arrived while she was in the grave; had she been alive, the fine would have belonged to her herself, since the case had not been brought to court before she reached maturity. However, if the time of her maturity arrived in the grave, Rava was uncertain:

Does “maturity” occur in the grave, or does “maturity” not occur in the grave?

The Gemara explains the uncertainty: Rava was certain that if the young woman died before the case was brought to court, the obligation to pay the fine did not lapse. But he was uncertain:

Does

maturity occur in the grave, and

it follows that the fine should belong to her herself; and since she died, the fine

belongs to her son

[for he is her heir].

Or perhaps maturity does not occur in the grave, and

therefore

it belongs to her father,

the fine belongs to her father, as with all other young women whose fathers receive the payment of the fine rather than the women themselves?