Ketubot 40a — the Talmud in English

,

for this matter as well,

even concerning the obligation of the rapist to marry her, even against his will,

they should be derived from one another, that the seducer should be learned from the ravisher: just as the ravisher is obligated to marry her, so too the seducer!?

: let the case of the seducer be learned from that of the rapist, for just as the rapist is obligated to marry her, so too is the seducer!?

And we answer:

the verse says

concerning the seducer:

“He shall surely give her marriage to him as a wife, ‘to him’,”

implies

with his consent, that if he does not wish, he need not marry her.

, meaning that if he does not wish to marry her, he does not marry her.

We learned in the Mishna:

“How does he drink from his own vessel, etc.”

if she is found [to have a blemish], etc., or if she is unfit to enter into the community of Israel, he is not permitted to retain her:

Rav Kahana said: I stated this teaching [

I stated the teaching—the following objection]

before Rav Zevid of Nehardea:

why, if she is unfit to enter into the community of Israel, such as a mamzeret, does he not need to marry her? But

let the positive commandment come of “She shall be a wife to him”

of “she shall be his wife”

and override the negative commandment of “A mamzer shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord”!?

of “a mamzer shall not enter the assembly of the Lord”!?

Rav Zevid of Nehardea said to me:

:

Where do we say, ‘Let a positive commandment come and override a negative commandment’? For example, circumcision in the case of leprosy,

for if he had leprosy on his foreskin, and he is prohibited by a negative commandment from removing it, as it is stated, “Beware of the plague of leprosy,” nevertheless the positive commandment of circumcision overrides the negative commandment —

And because

it is impossible to fulfill the positive commandment

without transgressing the negative commandment.

But here

the positive commandment does not override the negative commandment, for

if she says, ‘I do not want [him],’ is there any positive commandment at all [

if she says that she does not want him to marry her, is there a positive commandment to marry her]!?

And since this is so, they teach her to say, “I do not want”!

Mishna:

An orphan

a complete one [who has no father], whose fine belongs to herself, and likewise an orphan during her father’s lifetime that is, a maiden

who became betrothed and was divorced

whose fine too belongs to herself, and in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s view in the Mishna above, 38a:

Rabbi Elazar says: The ravisher is liable

for the fine if he had intercourse with her,

and the seducer,

since she acts with her consent, he is

exempt,

for she waives it for him.

Gemara:

Rabba bar bar Hanna said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Elazar [

who is Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua] who said in our Mishna: The seducer does not pay a fine for a maiden who became betrothed and was divorced—

he stated it according to the method of his teacher, Rabbi Akiva—

For he said

in the Mishna above, 38a: A maiden who became betrothed and was divorced

has a fine, and her fine belongs to herself—

And since it belongs to her herself, the seducer is not liable, for she waived it for him, since she acted with her consent.

From where,

and from where [do we know] that Rabbi Elazar holds like Rabbi Akiva?

From the fact that it teaches

in our Mishna:

“An orphan; Rabbi Elazar says: The ravisher is liable, and the seducer is exempt”

but

an orphan

is a matter of

obviousness,

that the seducer is exempt, since the fine belongs to her herself and she waives it; why, then, did the tannaitic authority need to state this law at all?

Rather, this teaches us:

that a maiden who became betrothed and was divorced

her law is

like that of an orphan: just as an orphan’s

fine is

herself, so too a maiden who became betrothed and was divorced,

the fine is

herself,

and therefore the seducer is exempt!

That is: “an orphan,” mentioned in our Mishna, has two meanings:

The first: an actual orphan who has no father; and since the fine belongs to her herself, the seducer is exempt.

The second: “an orphan during her father’s lifetime,” namely, a maiden who became betrothed and was divorced, who is like an orphan, whose fine belongs to her herself; therefore the seducer is exempt.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabba bar Shila said that

Rav Hamnuna the elder said that Rav Adda bar Ahava said,

Rav said: The halakha is like Rabbi Elazar.

and

Rav called concerning Rabbi Elazar [

Rav called out concerning Rabbi Elazar]:

“Fortunate among the wise” [

fortunate among the wise].

Mishna:

What is humiliation

that the ravisher and the seducer are liable to pay, as explained in the Mishna above, 39a?

Everything is according to the one who humiliates and the one who is humiliated,

for the humiliation of an average person who humiliates is more severe than that of a lowly person and than that of an important person; and likewise, the humiliation of the woman who is humiliated is according to her importance. The judges see her standing and his standing, and assess how much money it would be appropriate for her father and family to pay so that this matter would not happen to them from such a person, and he is liable to pay that amount.

What is

degradation

that the ravisher and the seducer are liable to pay, as explained in the Mishna there?

We view her as though she were a maidservant being sold

in the marketplace: how much was she worth

before she had intercourse, while she was a virgin,

and how much is she worth

after she had intercourse; and the Gemara explains why her value for being sold as a maidservant is reduced by her having become one who has had intercourse.

The

fine is equal for every person

and for every woman, namely: fifty sela.

And every

monetary obligation

that has a fixed measure from the Torah,

such as the fine of the ravisher and the seducer, which is fixed at fifty sela, is

equal for every person.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the very obligation of humiliation and degradation in the case of the ravisher and the seducer:

But say: The Merciful One said fifty sela for everything,

perhaps when the Torah said to pay fifty sela, the Torah had already included humiliation and degradation in this sum, and they are not an additional debt beyond it!?

Rabbi Zeira said:

it is impossible that the payment for humiliation should be equal for all women and included in the fifty sela fixed for every woman, for those who hear will wonder and

say:

Is it possible that if he

had intercourse with the daughter of kings—

whose humiliation is great—he pays

fifty

sela, in which humiliation is included, and if he

had intercourse with the daughter of commoners—

whose humiliation is slight—he too pays

fifty

sela and includes the humiliation within them!?

Necessarily, humiliation is paid separately, and everything is according to the one who humiliates and the one who is humiliated; and just as humiliation is paid separately, so too degradation.

Abaye said to him: If so,

also

concerning

an ox that killed the

slave—

whose owner is liable to pay the slave’s master thirty sela, fixed by the Torah—

they will also say:

if the ox killed an

a slave who drills pearls—

whose value is great—the ox’s owner pays for the slave

thirty

sela,