Ketubot 40b (מ:) — the Talmud in English

And if the ox killed the

slave performing needlework—

whose value is only slight—even he pays

thirty

sela, so where is the distinction between them!?

But in the case of a slave, this is indeed the law: for every slave, the owner of the ox pays that same fixed amount. If so, you should likewise say this with regard to the fine for rape and seduction. And still the question remains: And perhaps the Merciful One said: Fifty sela for all aspects of the matter!?

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said,

there is another reason to establish that the Torah did not intend to include the compensation for humiliation and impairment within the amount that it specified: For if you say that an equal amount is paid for all virgins, it follows that

if two men had intercourse with her, one

had intercourse with her

in the usual manner, and

the

other

had intercourse with her first

in an unusual manner

and she is still a virgin with regard to intercourse in the usual manner—

They will say:

The one who

had intercourse with

a completely

intact

woman [whether in the usual or unusual manner] pays

fifty, even though her humiliation is considerable; and this second man, who

had intercourse with a woman whose virginity was impaired [as she had already had intercourse in an unusual manner], also pays

had intercourse with a woman whose status had been diminished [who had already had intercourse with her in an unusual manner]

also pays

fifty,

even though her humiliation is less than that of a completely intact woman. Is it possible that there should be no distinction whatsoever between them!? Rather, certainly the distinction between them is in the amount of humiliation paid in addition to the fine, according to the woman’s worth; and just as humiliation is paid separately, so too impairment is paid separately.

Abaye said

to Rabbi Zeira:

If so, in the case of a slave too, they should say:

For a

healthy slave one pays

pays

thirty, and for a

and for a

slave afflicted with boils

also

thirty;

is it possible that there should be no distinction whatsoever between them!?

Rather, Abaye said,

from here you can learn that humiliation and impairment are not included within the amount that the Torah specified:

And because

the verse says

in the passage concerning rape: “The man who lay with her shall give the girl’s father fifty silver coins, and she shall be his wife

in place of the fact that he afflicted her”—

And since Scripture had to say, “in place of the fact that he afflicted her,” this indicates that Scripture came to say:

These

fifty silver coins are

in place of the fact that he afflicted her ;

by inference, there is

another payment for

humiliation and impairment,

which are not on account of affliction, since they apply even in the case of other forms of injury.

Rava said

there is another source that humiliation and impairment are not included in the fifty silver coins:

Because

the verse says: “The man who lay with her shall give the girl’s father fifty silver coins,”

and the Torah said “who lay with her” in order to teach:

For

the pleasure of intercourse

alone he pays

fifty; by inference, there is

another payment not for the pleasure of intercourse, namely,

the humiliation and

the

impairment,

which are not paid for the pleasure of intercourse, but are like the payments for other forms of injury.

The Gemara adds and asks another question concerning humiliation and impairment:

From where is it derived that humiliation and impairment are also given to her father?

And perhaps: to her—

perhaps he gives these payments to the daughter!? The Gemara answers: Because

the verse says

with regard to the annulment of vows, which the father performs:

“In her youth, in her father’s house,”

indicating that during her youth, when she is in her father’s house, she is also so with regard to the fact that

all the benefits of her youth

belong

to her father,

and the benefits of youth include humiliation and impairment as well.

The Gemara is astonished by the principle that we seek to derive from this verse, that all the benefits of youth belong to her father:

But if so, what of that which Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that a daughter’s

earnings during her minority and youth

belong to her father?

As it is stated: “And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant,”

and her daughter was compared to a maidservant in order to teach:

Just as a maidservant’s labor belongs to her master, so too a daughter’s labor belongs to her father.

And if, as you say, all the benefits of youth belong to her father—

why do I need

a special verse teaching that her earnings belong to her father? Surely her earnings too are among the benefits of youth, and

it could be derived from “In her youth, in her father’s house”!?

Rather,

Rav Huna’s statement in the name of Rav proves that

that

verse, “In her youth, in her father’s house,”

with regard to the annulment of vows

alone

is written; it means that in this regard she is under her father’s authority, but not with regard to the benefits of youth.

for with regard to this matter she is under her father’s authority, but not with regard to the gain of youth.

And if you would say:

What difference does it make that it is written with regard to the annulment of vows? In any event,

let us derive from it

that all the benefits of youth belong to her father, based on the law of the annulment of vows. Why, then, was a special verse needed to teach that her earnings belong to her father!?

Monetary law,

that is, all the benefits of youth,

from a prohibition,

that is, the annulment of vows,

we do not derive

[we do not derive monetary law from a prohibition]!

And if you would say:

Nevertheless,

let us derive

that all the benefits of youth belong to her father

from the fine

for rape and seduction, which belongs to her father—

We do not derive monetary law from a fine,

as monetary law is not derived from a fine!

As a result of this difficulty from Rav Huna’s statement, the Gemara retracts the previous source that humiliation and impairment belong to her father, and explains:

Rather,

in truth, we do not derive from the verse that humiliation and impairment belong to her father; rather,

it is logical that they belong to her father,

since it is within his power to humiliate her through the humiliation of intercourse and to impair her through the impairment of intercourse—

For

indeed,

if he wished, the father

could have

handed her over

his daughter

to a repulsive man or one afflicted with boils

to consecrate her through intercourse, since the father has the right to consecrate his daughter through intercourse.

And since, if the father had wished, he could have taken money from the repulsive man or the one afflicted with boils in order to humiliate and impair her, it follows that the man who had intercourse with her caused him to lose that money, and therefore he must pay it to the father.

We learned in the Mishna:

“With regard to impairment, one views her as though she were a maidservant being sold

for how much she was worth and how much she is worth”:

How do we assess her,

that is, how do we assess this impairment?

Samuel’s father said: One assesses how much a person would be willing to pay for the difference between a virgin maidservant and a nonvirgin maidservant for his service,

that is, the man who had intercourse with her must pay the difference in price between a virgin maidservant and a nonvirgin maidservant when she is purchased in order to serve him.

The Gemara is astonished:

A nonvirgin maidservant for his service!?

But

what difference does it make to him,

what concern is it to one who purchases a maidservant for his service whether the maidservant is a virgin or a nonvirgin!?

Rather,

this is how impairment is assessed: One assesses how much a person would be willing to pay

for the difference between a nonvirgin maidservant and a maidservant who is not a nonvirgin

when he purchases her in order

to marry her to his slave.

And for his slave

The Gemara is still astonished:

And to his slave

as well,

what difference does it make to him?

What concern is it to the master whether the maidservant is a virgin or a nonvirgin? The entire purpose of purchasing her is so that she will bear him offspring, and a nonvirgin is just as suitable for this as a virgin!?

The Gemara explains: We are not discussing the purchase of a maidservant for the purpose of marrying her to an ordinary slave, where the master’s entire purpose in purchasing her is to increase the number of offspring who will be his slaves—

Rather,

it is a slave who gives his master satisfaction,

as he is careful in his work, and the master prefers a virgin maidservant in order to give him pleasure and let him experience the taste of a virgin.

Mishna:

Wherever there is sale,

that is, wherever a daughter may be sold by her father as a Hebrew maidservant, namely, when she is a minor—

he has no

father

fine for her,

as there is no fine for a minor.

And

wherever there is

for her father

a fine,

namely, when she is a young woman,

there is no

for her father

sale

as a maidservant!

The Mishna explains:

A

minor daughter has a sale

as a maidservant,

but has no fine.

Whereas a

young woman has a fine, but has no sale

as a maidservant.

Whereas

an adult daughter has neither a sale

as a maidservant

nor a fine.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

This

that we learned: There is no fine where there is sale, namely, in the case of a minor—

is the statement of Rabbi Meir,

but

the Sages say: She has a fine where there is sale.

As it was taught in a baraita: A minor from one day old until she develops two pubic hairs has a sale but no fine,

from the time she develops two pubic hairs until she becomes an adult, she has a fine but no sale; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir would say:

Wherever there is sale, there is no fine, and wherever there is a fine, there is no sale!

And the Sages say: A minor from the age of three years

and one day

who has become fit for intercourse, and whose virginity will not return

until she becomes an adult, has a fine!

The Gemara challenges the wording of the baraita in the statement of the Sages, “A minor, etc., has a fine”: Is it saying that

there is no fine—that a minor indeed has a fine—but

there is indeed a penalty for a minor, but

no sale!?

Yet there is an explicit verse: “And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant”!

And we answer:

Say: She also has a fine

in the case of a minor

where there is sale; from the time she develops two pubic hairs until she becomes an adult, she has a fine but no sale [from one day old until three years and one day, she has a sale but no fine].

and from the time she develops two pubic hairs until she reaches adulthood, she has a penalty but no sale [and from one day old until three years and one day, she has a sale but no penalty].

Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir,

who says that a minor has no fine?

Because

the verse says

in the passage concerning the fine for rape:

“And she shall be his wife”,

which indicates that

the one who can make herself

[who has the ability to place herself under another’s authority for marriage]

is whom Scripture is discussing,

namely, an adult woman and not a minor, who cannot consecrate herself.

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Meir—what is their reason for disagreeing with him!?

He said—

that is, he explained—

Reish Lakish: Because

for

the verse says

throughout the passage concerning rape:

“na'ara,”

with the final heh omitted from the word, in order to teach:

even a minor is included.

He heard it -

he heard the explanation of Reish Lakish -

Rav Pappa, son of Rav Hanan, from Bei Kaluhit [

a place name] -

he went and repeated it before Rav Shimi bar Ashi

he went and repeated the matter before Rav Shimi bar Ashi.

He said to him,

Rav Shimi bar Ashi:

You teach it with regard to this [

you teach Reish Lakish's statement as distinguishing between na'ara written in full and na'ar written defectively with regard to a minor, concerning the fine for rape and seduction] -

whereas

we teach it with regard to this [

we teach Reish Lakish's statement concerning the following matter]:

Reish Lakish said:

a. If one who has intercourse with his wife, who is a na'ara, on the first occasion, gives her a bad name, claiming that he did not find signs of virginity in her, and also says that he investigated the matter and found witnesses who testified that she had committed adultery while betrothed to him, and the father went and brought witnesses who refuted the husband's witnesses, then the husband is liable for lashes, the fine, and one hundred silver coins; but if the matter is found to be true, the na'ara who committed adultery while betrothed is executed by stoning.

b. But

one who gives a bad name to

his wife

who is a minor,

he is

exempt

from payment of the fine,

as it is stated

in the passage concerning one who gives a bad name to his wife: “And they shall fine him one hundred silver coins, and so on,

and give them to the father of the maiden,”

the verse speaks of “na'ara” in full spelling,

teaching: a na'ara, but not a minor.

Rav Adda bar Ahava challenges

Reish Lakish's statement concerning one who gives his wife a bad name: From Reish Lakish's words it may be inferred that

the reason is that Scripture wrote “na'ara

” in full, and therefore we know that he is not liable for a minor;

but if that were not so,

rather, if “na'ar” had been written defectively,

I would have said: even

for the

minor

he would be liable.

But it is written

in the passage concerning one who gives a bad name to his wife:

“And if this matter was true, and signs of virginity were not found in the maiden, they shall take the maiden out to the entrance of her father's house, and stone her” -

and a minor

is

not subject to punishment,

so it follows by itself that the entire passage speaks only of a na'ara, and not of a minor!?

And if so, Scripture need not have written “na'ara” in full in order to exclude a minor!?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what Reish Lakish said: Therefore, in the passage concerning one who gives his wife a bad name, the Torah wrote “na'ara” in full—not to teach this matter itself, since we would know it anyway, as a minor is not subject to punishment—but in order to teach:

Here,

in the case of one who gives his wife a bad name, where it is written in full, he is liable only for a

“na'ara”; but everywhere that “na'ar

is written defectively,

even a minor is included.