Ketubot 40b — the Talmud in English

And if the ox killed

a slave who performs the work of a needle -

whose value is only slight - he too pays

thirty

sela, and where is the distinction between them!?

But regarding a slave, indeed this is the law: for every slave the owner of the ox pays that fixed amount, and if so, you can likewise say this regarding the fine of the rapist and the seducer. Yet it still remains difficult: and let us say: “Fifty sela,” the Merciful One said, for all matters!?

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said,

another reason to establish that the Torah did not intend to include the humiliation and the diminution in the amount that the Torah fixed: for if you say that the same amount is paid for all virgins, it follows that

if two men had intercourse with her: the first

had intercourse with her

in the usual manner, and

the

second

had intercourse with her first

in an unusual manner

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

They will say:

the one who

had intercourse with

a woman

entirely intact

pays [both for intercourse in the usual manner and for intercourse in the unusual manner]

fifty,

even though her humiliation is great, and this second one who

had intercourse with a diminished woman [

who had already experienced intercourse in an unusual manner] also pays

fifty,

even though her humiliation is less than that of one entirely intact; is it possible that there should be no distinction at all between them!? Rather, certainly their distinction is in the amount of the humiliation paid in addition to the fine, according to the importance of the woman, and just as the humiliation is paid separately, so too the diminution is paid separately.

Abaye said

to Rabbi Zeira:

If so, regarding a slave as well they will say:

for a

healthy slave

he pays

thirty,

and for a

slave afflicted with boils

also

thirty;

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

Rather, Abaye said,

from here you can learn that the humiliation and the diminution are not included in the amount that the Torah fixed:

And because

the verse says

in the passage concerning rape: “And the man who lay with her shall give the father of the young woman fifty silver [pieces], and she shall be his wife

in place of his having afflicted her”—

and since Scripture needed to say “in place of his having afflicted her,” it implies that Scripture came to say:

these

fifty silver [pieces] are

in place of his having afflicted her ;

it follows that there is

also

humiliation and diminution

that are not because of affliction, for they exist even in the case of other persons who injure.

Rava said

another source that the humiliation and the diminution are not included in the fifty silver [pieces]:

Because

the verse says: “And the man who lay with her shall give the father of the young woman fifty silver [pieces]”,

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

For

the pleasure of intercourse

alone he pays

fifty; it follows that there is

another payment not for the pleasure of intercourse, namely the

humiliation and

the

diminution,

which are not paid for the pleasure of intercourse, but as in the case of other persons who injure.

The Gemara adds and asks another question concerning the humiliation and the diminution:

From where [do we know] that the humiliation and the diminution are also given to her father,

and let us say: to her

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

the verse says

in the matter of the annulment of vows, which the father annuls:

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

and it implies that during her youth, in her father’s house, she is also such that

all the gain of her youth

belongs

to her father,

and included in the gain of youth are also the humiliation and the diminution.

The Gemara is astonished at the principle that we are coming to learn from this verse, that all the gain of youth belongs to her father:

But then, as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: From where [do we know] that the work of the daughter

during her childhood and youth belongs

to her father?

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

and therefore his daughter was compared to a maidservant in order to teach:

just as the work of her hands of a maidservant belongs to her master, so the work of the daughter’s hands belongs to her father.

And if, according to your words, all the gain of youth belongs to her father—

why do I need

a special verse for the work of her hands, that it belongs to her father? For that too is the gain of youth, and

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

Rather,

it is proven from Rav Huna’s words in the name of Rav that

that

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

in the annulment of vows

alone

is it written,

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 will say,

what of it that it is written concerning the annulment of vows? In any event,

let us derive from it

that all the gain of youth should belong to her father, from the annulment of vows; and why in truth did we need a special verse concerning the work of her hands, that it belongs to her father!?

Monetary law

namely, all the gain of youth,

from a prohibition

namely, the annulment of vows,

we do not derive

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

And if you will say,

nevertheless

let us derive

that all the gain of youth belongs to her father

from the fine

of rape and seduction, which belongs to her father—

Monetary law cannot be derived from a fine,

we do not learn monetary law from a fine!

And on the strength of this difficulty from Rav Huna’s words, the Gemara retracts from the previous source that the humiliation and the diminution belong to her father, and explains:

Rather,

in truth, it is not from the verse that we learn that the humiliation and the diminution belong to her father, but

it is reasonable that they belong to her father,

for it is in his power to humiliate her with the humiliation of intercourse and to diminish her with the diminution of intercourse—

For

indeed,

if he wished,

the father could

hand her over

his daughter

to a disgraceful man afflicted with boils

to marry her through intercourse, for the father has the right over his daughter to marry her through intercourse.

And since, if the father wished, he could take money from the disgraceful man or the one afflicted with boils in order to humiliate and diminish her, it follows that the one who had intercourse with her caused him to lose that money, and therefore he must pay it to her father. We learned in the Mishna: “Diminution: we see her as though she were a maidservant being sold; how much she was worth and how much she is worth”:

How do we assess it,

how do we assess this diminution?

Abuh of Shmuel said: We assess how much a person wishes to pay between a virgin maidservant and a non-virgin maidservant in order to use her

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

The Gemara is astonished:

A non-virgin maidservant in order to use her!?

But

what difference does it make to him,

what concern is it to one who purchases a maidservant in order to use her whether the maidservant is a virgin or a non-virgin!?

Rather,

this is how the diminution is assessed: we assess how much a person wishes to pay

between a non-virgin maidservant and a maidservant who is not a non-virgin

when he purchases her in order

to marry her to his slave.

for the difference between a non-virgin maidservant and a virgin maidservant

when he purchases her in order

The Gemara is still astonished:

And for his slave

also,

what difference does it make to him,

what concern is it to the master whether the maidservant is a virgin or a non-virgin? After all, the entire purpose of purchasing her is so that he will have offspring from her, and the non-virgin is just as suitable as the virgin!?

And the Gemara explains: We are not discussing the purchase of a maidservant in order to marry her to an ordinary slave, where the master’s entire purpose in purchasing her is to increase the offspring that will be his slaves—

Rather,

[it is] a slave who gives his master satisfaction,

since he is careful in his work, and the master prefers a virgin maidservant in order to gratify him and give him a taste of the taste of a virgin.

Mishna:

Every place where there is a sale,

that is, every daughter whom her father can sell as a Hebrew maidservant, namely, when she is a minor—

he has no

to her father

fine,

for there is no fine for a minor.

a penalty on her account,

And

every place where there is for her father

a

fine

in her,

that is, when she is a young woman,

there is no

for her father

a

sale

as a maidservant!

And the Mishna explains:

A

minor daughter has a sale

as a maidservant,

but she has no fine.

Whereas a

young woman has a fine, but she has no sale

as a maidservant.

Whereas an

adult woman 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 in a place where there is a sale, namely, for a minor—

is the statement of Rabbi Meir,

but the Sages say:

she has a fine in a place where there is a sale.

For it was taught in a beraita: A minor, from one day old until she produces two hairs, has a sale but no fine,

from the time she produces two hairs until she becomes an adult, she has a fine but no sale, the statement of Rabbi Meir

for Rabbi Meir used to say: Every place where there is a sale, there is no fine, and every place where there is a fine, there is no sale!

And the Sages say: A minor from three years

and one day

who becomes fit for intercourse and whose virginity does not return

until she becomes an adult has a fine!

The Gemara challenges the wording of the beraita in the words of the Sages, “a minor, etc., has a fine”: is it that

there is no fine

indeed a minor has a fine, but

no sale!?

Yet it is an explicit verse: “And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant”!?

And we answer:

Say: also a fine

is available to a minor

in a place where there is a sale,

and from the time she produces two hairs until she becomes an adult she has a fine and has no sale [and from one day old until three years and one day, she has a sale and has no fine].

Rav Hisda said: What is the reason of Rabbi Meir

that there is no fine for a minor?

For

the verse says

in the passage of the fine for rape:

“And she shall be his wife,”

which shows that

the one who can make herself [

who has the ability to give herself over for marriage]

is what Scripture is speaking about,

namely, an adult woman, but not a minor, who cannot marry herself.

And the Rabbis,

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

He said

he explained,

Reish Lakish,

for

the verse says

throughout the entire passage of rape:

“young woman”—

with the letter heh omitted at the end of the word, in order to teach:

even a minor is included in its meaning.

He heard it -

he heard the explanation of Reish Lakish -

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

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 the words of Reish Lakish as distinguishing between “maiden,” written fully, and “maiden,” written defectively, with regard to a minor, concerning the fine for rape and seduction] -

whereas

we teach it with regard to this [

we teach the words of Reish Lakish with regard to the following matter]:

Reish Lakish said:

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

B. But

one who gives a bad name to

his wife,

the minor,

behold, he is

exempt

from payment of the fine,

as it is stated

in the section concerning one who gives a bad name: “And they shall fine him one hundred silver coins, etc.

and give them to the father of the maiden,”

the verse spoke of “maiden” in full,

and teaches: a maiden, but not a minor.

Rav Adda bar Ahava challenges

the words of Reish Lakish concerning one who gives a bad name: For from the words of Reish Lakish it follows that

the reason is that Scripture wrote “maiden”

in full, we know that he is not liable for the minor;

were it not so,

but had “maiden” been written defectively,

I would have said: even

for the

minor

he would be liable.

But it is written

in the section concerning one who gives a bad name:

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

and a minor

is

not liable to punishment,

and it follows by itself that the entire section spoke only of a maiden and not of a minor!

And if so, Scripture need not have written “maiden” in full in order to exclude the minor!?

And we answer:

rather,

this is what Reish Lakish said: Therefore the Torah wrote “maiden” in full in the case of one who gives a bad name—not to teach about itself did it emerge, for we would know this in any event, since a minor is not liable to punishment—but in order to teach:

Here,

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

maiden; but everywhere that “maiden”

is written defectively,

even a minor is included in its meaning.