Ketubot 39b — the Talmud in English

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon

to disagree with our Mishna: even

the one who violates by force does not pay for the pain, because ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

she will ultimately experience pain under her husband.

The Sages said to him:

the Sages:

one who is possessed by force is not comparable

who has pain,

to one who is possessed willingly

by her husband, who has no pain!

It is thus proven that the pain—which according to the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Shimon he is obligated to pay—is the pain of being thrown onto the ground, for concerning this pain Rabbi Shimon would not say, “she will ultimately experience pain under her husband,” because the husband does not throw her down.

Rather, Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

the pain which, according to the Sages, the one who violates by force is obligated to pay is

the pain of spreading the legs.

And so it is

the verse

says, that there is pain in spreading the legs, for the prophet said by way of disgrace:

that there is pain in spreading the legs, for the prophet said by way of disgrace:

“And you spread your legs to every passerby”,

for because of her abundant promiscuity she was not concerned about the pain and would spread her legs to every passerby.

And we raise an objection:

if so,

that the pain is for spreading the legs, then

the one who seduces also

should pay for her pain, because this pain is applicable to her as well; and why did we learn in our Mishna that the one who seduces does not pay for pain?!

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: The analogy of the one who is seduced

who is possessed willingly

to what is this comparable?

To a person who said to his fellow: Tear my silk garment and be exempt

from paying the damage; and this one as well, since she was possessed willingly, waived the claim for him.

The Gemara is astonished at the comparison:

“My”!?

Is the case that we are discussing comparable to silk garments that belong to her?!

But the silk garments

belong to her father

[they are her father’s], that is: this pain which he is obligated to pay belongs to her father , and this is comparable to one who says to his fellow, “Tear my father’s silk garment and be exempt”!?

Rather, Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

The pain for which the one who violated by force pays is not the pain of spreading the legs, but the pain of tearing the hymen at the time of the first intercourse; and the reason that the one who seduces does not pay a fine is that

the intelligent ones among them

[among the women]

say: one who is seduced—

at the time of the act itself—

has no pain

that is fit to be compensated.

The Gemara is astonished:

But we see that she has it

and our eyes see that even the one who is seduced has pain, even at the time of intercourse!?

Abaye said: My mother told me

[my nurse, for Abaye was an orphan] that the woman’s sensation at the time of the first intercourse is

like hot water on the head of a bald man,

like hot water on the head of a bald man; and this is not pain for which one must pay, because it is worth less than a peruta, and the reason that she has no pain is the pleasure of intercourse that she has at that time.

Rava said: My wife told me,

who is

the daughter of Rav Ḥisda,

regarding the woman’s sensation at the time of the first intercourse: it is

like the prick of a bloodletter’s instrument,

like the sensation of a puncture made by the instrument of a craftsman who lets blood, and this is not pain for which one must pay.

Rav Pappa said: My wife told me,

who is

the daughter of Abba Sura’a: Like hard bread on the palate,

like hard bread that scratches the palate.

We learned in the Mishna:

the one who violates by force gives immediately

the fine,

and the one who seduces when he takes her out:

The Gemara is astonished at the wording of the Mishna, “and the one who seduces

when he takes her out”:

And is

she already his wife,

so that she needs to leave him!?

Abaye said: Say

that you should read as follows: and the one who seduces gives the fine

when he does not marry her,

when she or her father refuse him, or when the one who seduces himself refuses.

It was likewise taught

in accordance with Abaye’s interpretation:

For it was taught:

a.

Even though they said: the one who seduces gives

the fine

when he does not marry her,

nevertheless the

humiliation

and the

injury

he

gives immediately,

whether he marries her or whether he does not marry her.

b.

Both the one who violates by force and the one who seduces, whether she or her father can prevent

him from marrying her.

The Gemara raises a question against the beraita:

Granted, in the case of one who was seduced

both she and her father can prevent him—

because

it is written

in the passage concerning one who was seduced:

“If her father utterly refuses

to give her to him,” so the father can prevent it.

But

I have only her father

who can prevent it; as for

she herself—

from where

can she prevent it?

The Torah says: “If he utterly refuses,”

and the word “refuses” is an amplification, to teach: refusal

in any event,

that is, every refusal applicable to the matter, even through the daughter.

But in the case of one who violates by force,

where you likewise say that both she and her father can prevent him, this is difficult:

Granted, she

[the daughter] can prevent it, because

it is written: “He shall have her

as a wife,” which implies that she makes herself

willingly

and not against her will.

But her father,

of the one violated by force,

from where

can he prevent it?

Abaye said: So that the sinner

the one who violated her

should not profit,

for before he violated her he could not marry the daughter without her father.

Rava said:

the father’s prevention in the case of one violated by force is learned by

a kal va-chomer

from the case of one who was seduced:

And if the one who seduces,

the less severe sinner,

who

is

transgressed only against the will of her father,

and not against the will of the woman, for he had intercourse with her with her consent, and nevertheless

both she and her father can prevent him

from marrying her,

the one who violates by force,

who is the more severe sinner,

who

is

transgressed against her father’s will and

also

against her own will, all the more so

that she and her father can prevent him from marrying her.

The Gemara explains:

Rava did not say as Abaye,

who explained the reason for the prevention by the father of one violated by force as being so that the sinner should not profit; because Rava holds:

since he pays

the sinner

a fine, it is not “the sinner profits.”

Abaye did not say as Rava,

who explained the reason for the prevention by the father of one violated by force through a kal va-chomer from one who was seduced; because in his view this can be refuted:

in the case of one who seduces, he

the one who had intercourse with her himself

can prevent

for he is not obligated to marry her, therefore

her father also can prevent.

But

in the case of one who violates by force, he

himself

cannot prevent, her father likewise

one may say that he

cannot prevent, and he prevents only because “the sinner should not profit.”

and it is only because of the principle that the sinner should not profit that he can prevent the marriage.

It was taught in another beraita: Even though they said that one who violates by force gives immediately

the fine, and it would seemingly be necessary for us to say that the fine is not in place of the ketuba, for he gives the fine immediately to her father, whereas if the money of the fine were in place of the ketuba, he should not give the fine to her father, but should give it to the woman, for the ketuba belongs to her.

This is not so, and the fine is in place of the ketuba, and

when he takes her out

his wife whom he violated

she has no claim against him,

no claim for a ketuba.

Before the Gemara finishes quoting the beraita, the Gemara is astonished at it:

“When he takes her out”!?

Can he take her out,

is he able to take her out, when the Torah said: “He may not send her away all his days”!?

Say

that this is how you should interpret the beraita:

when she leaves,

meaning: when she causes the departure, by demanding a bill of divorce from him,

she has no claim against him,

and therefore the tanna used the wording “when he takes her out,” because the bill of divorce depends on his will, and he gives it only willingly. And likewise, if he

dies

the one who violated by force after he married her,

the money of his fine has gone out in her ketuba,

that is, she has already received her ketuba through the money of his fine.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: she has a ketuba of one hundred

like the ketuba of a woman who was possessed.

In what do they disagree,

what is the reason for the disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Yosei as to whether she has a ketuba?

The Sages hold:

what, then, is

the reason the Sages enacted a ketuba

for other women? Rather,

so that she should not be easy in his eyes to take out.

cannot be divorced,

But

indeed

he cannot take her out

even if he wishes, for he is forbidden to send her away, and therefore she has no ketuba.

And Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda holds:

even here the reason for the enactment of the ketuba that applies to all women applies, for although he is forbidden to take her out without her consent, nevertheless

this

the one who violated by force

also

can

cause her pain until she says, “I do not want you,”

[he will cause her pain until she says, “I do not want you,”] and he will divorce her; and in order that he not do so, a ketuba should be enacted for her.

We learned in the Mishna:

The rapist drinks from his own vessel,

and the seducer, if he wishes to divorce her, divorces her:

He said:

He posed a difficulty:

Rava of Pirzekya posed a difficulty to Rav Ashi: Since they learn from each other,

behold, the rapist and the seducer are learned one from the other with regard to the amount of the fine, that it should be fifty, and the nature of the fine, that it should be in shekels.