Ketubot 38b — the Talmud in English

Say: “a virgin”,

it is stated that the word “virgin” is the one that comes

for a gezerah shavah,

and he is forever liable even for one who has had intercourse,

and

if

“who has not been betrothed”

comes to teach

excluding a young woman who became betrothed and was divorced,

to say that she has no fine at all

!? And we answer:

It is reasonable

that the verse

“who has 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 call her “a young woman, a virgin”.

And the Gemara asks:

On the contrary!

Let it be stated that the word

“virgin”

comes

for a gezerah shavah

and not to exclude her entirely from the fine,

for I can call her “who has not been betrothed”!?

And we answer:

It is reasonable,

that the one who has had intercourse is exempt from the fine, whereas the betrothed one is not exempt, because:

This one—

the one who has had intercourse—

her body has changed

[her body changed from that of a virgin to that of one who has had intercourse], and her blemish is not so great.

And

if

this one—

the betrothed one—

her body has not changed.

And the Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Yosei the Galilean—

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

this reasoning,

that the rapist pays shekels and the seducer pays fifty silver pieces,

from where does he have it?

For according to him, “who has not been betrothed” is not mufneh from which to derive a gezerah shavah of this rapist and seducer from one another!?

And we explain:

He derives it

this reasoning, Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,

from

that

as it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the seducer:

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

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

that this shall be

the number of shekels in the case of the seducer,

according to the bride-price of virgins.

That is, the number of fifty silver pieces explicitly stated concerning the rapist.

And the bride-price of virgins,

which is the fine explicitly stated concerning the rapist,

shall be like this,

like the payment of the seducer, which is silver shekels.

And here the Gemara returns to the beraita brought above, according to which, for Rabbi Akiva, one who has intercourse with a betrothed young woman who was divorced has a fine, and her fine belongs to her father; and it asks:

The statement of Rabbi Akiva

of the beraita

against Rabbi Akiva

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

And we answer:

There are two tannaim, and according to Rabbi Akiva

they are tannaim who disagreed concerning Rabbi Akiva’s view, what his method is.

And we challenge:

Granted, Rabbi Akiva of the Mishna,

who holds that she has a fine belonging to herself, this is the reason: because

a gezerah shavah does not come and remove the verse entirely from its plain meaning,

it is impossible that “who has not been betrothed” should depart entirely from its plain meaning. Therefore, the tanna of our Mishna, according to Rabbi Akiva, holds that the verse necessarily comes to say that the fine belongs to herself.

But according to Rabbi Akiva of the beraita

one must challenge: Is it the case that

a gezerah shavah comes and removes it 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 betrothed young woman and one who was not betrothed!?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Read in it

in the plain meaning of the verse

“who has not been betrothed”

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

And the Gemara asks: Does the Torah need to write “who is not betrothed”? For we already knew that

a betrothed woman is subject to stoning,

and from “there shall be no calamity” we learned that a person liable for death is exempt from payments; if so, why do I need “who is not betrothed”!?

And we answer: The Torah needed to make known the rule of “he is held liable by the greater penalty” concerning a fine, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is a novelty that the Torah innovated concerning a fine,

for every fine is a novelty, therefore

even though he is put to death, he pays.

It teaches us that even the fine is exempted by the rule of “he is held liable by the greater penalty.”

And we challenge:

And according to Rabba, who said:

indeed,

it is a novelty that the Torah innovated concerning a fine,

and therefore

even though he is put to death

he

pays, what is there to say!?

And we answer:

He holds

Rabba

like Rabbi Akiva of the Mishna,

who interprets the plain meaning of the verse as referring to a young woman who became betrothed and was already divorced, to teach that her fine belongs to herself; and he did not derive “he is held liable by the greater penalty.”

The Sages taught: The fine

of every raped and seduced woman

to whom

[so it initially enters the mind in understanding the beraita]?

Some say:

To her father.

And some say: to herself.

And the Gemara asks:

To herself—

why!?

But the fine of a raped and seduced woman belongs to her father, as it is stated in the Torah!?

He said,

he explained,

Rav Ḥisda:

The beraita is not speaking of an ordinary raped woman; rather,

here,

in the beraita,

we are dealing with a young woman who became betrothed and was divorced.

And they disagree concerning the dispute of Rabbi Akiva of the Mishna,

who holds that her fine belongs to 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 with regard to paying 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,

and not to the father of a dead woman.

And the Gemara explains:

That which is obvious to Abaye

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

was a question for Rava

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

For Rava asked:

A young woman with whom intercourse occurred, and the father did not manage to bring the one who had intercourse with her to court until she died, and the time of her coming of age arrived while she was in the grave; if she had been alive, the fine would belong to herself, since her case had not been brought to court until she came of age. However, if the time of her coming of age arrived in the grave, Rava was uncertain: Is there

“coming of age” in the grave, or is there no “coming of age” in the grave?

And the Gemara explains the uncertainty: This is obvious to Rava, that if the young woman died before the case was brought to court, the obligation of the fine did not lapse; however, it is uncertain:

whether

there is coming of age in the grave, and

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

belongs to her son

[it is his, for he is her heir].

Or perhaps there is no coming of age in the grave, and

if so,

it belongs to her father,

the fine belongs to her father, like all other young women whose fathers receive the payment of the fine, and not they themselves?