Talmud - Ketubot 36a כתובות ל״ו א׳

actual forbidden relatives prohibited by Torah law, and secondary relatives means, as it does in most cases, relatives prohibited by rabbinic law, that cannot be, for since those secondary relatives are suitable for him to marry and are not prohibited by Torah law, why do they not receive a fine if they are raped or seduced? Rather, the meaning of these terms in this context is different: Forbidden relatives are those for which one is liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty; secondary relatives are those for which one is liable to receive karet, which are relatively less severe than those for which one is executed. However, those liable for violating regular prohibitions receive payment of a fine if they are raped or seduced. And according to whose opinion is the baraita taught? It is the opinion of Shimon HaTimni, who exempts from paying a fine only one who rapes a woman with whom betrothal is ineffective.

Some say that we can explain that forbidden relatives refers to all relatives with whom relations are forbidden by severe prohibitions, both those for which one is liable to death by the court and those for which he is liable to karet, and secondary relatives refers to those relatives with whom one who engages in relations is liable for violating regular prohibitions. According to this approach, whose opinion does this follow? It is that of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, who maintains that even a woman raped by a man forbidden to her by a regular prohibition is not entitled to the fine, despite the fact that betrothal is effective in that case.

§ The baraita stated: A girl who refuses to remain married to her husband receives neither payment of a fine for rape nor payment of a fine for seduction, because she was married and therefore lost her presumptive status as a virgin. The Gemara infers: But an ordinary minor girl has a fine for rape. If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the baraita taught? It is the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A minor girl has a fine for rape. The Gemara asks: Say the latter clause of the baraita: A sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit] has neither a fine for rape nor a fine for seduction, as she will not develop the signs of puberty and her legal status is that of a minor until she is twenty, at which point she assumes the status of a grown woman. In that halakha, the baraita comes to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: A minor girl does not have a fine for rape, and the same is true for this ailonit, who emerged from her status as a minor at the age of twenty to the status of a grown woman, skipping the stage of a young woman. The first clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

And if you say that the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and with regard to a girl who refuses to remain married Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that not only a minor girl but a young woman may also end her marriage through refusal, and the baraita is referring to a young woman and not to a minor; but does he maintain that opinion? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that he disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda in this matter? It was taught: Until when can a girl refuse to remain married? Until she develops two pubic hairs, signs of puberty rendering her a young woman; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: She can refuse until the area covered by the black pubic hairs is greater than the white skin of the genital area. That occurs approximately six months later, at which point she becomes a grown woman.

Rather, the Gemara suggests: The baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and with regard to a minor girl, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that a minor girl does not receive payment of a fine for rape, and therefore, an ailonit is not entitled to payment. The Gemara asks: But does he maintain that opinion? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said with regard to the mishna below (40b), which states: Any case where there is the right of a father to effect the sale of his daughter as a Hebrew maidservant, i.e., when she is a minor, there is no fine if she is raped, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir? And if it is so that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that opinion, Rav should have said: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, this tanna of the baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to one halakha, that there is no fine for the rape of a minor, and disagrees with him with regard to one halakha, that a young woman may conclude her marriage through refusal.

Rafram said: This entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and what is the meaning of the statement: With regard to a girl who refuses, there is neither a fine for rape nor a fine for seduction? It is referring to one who is fit to refuse, i.e., as long as she is a minor she is not entitled to the fine. The Gemara asks: And if that is the case, let the tanna simply teach the halakha with regard to a minor. Why teach a simple halakha in so convoluted a manner? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.

§ The baraita stated: An ailonit has neither a fine for rape nor a fine for seduction. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and an ailonit have a fine for rape and they have a claim concerning virginity. If one of these women married with the presumptive status of a virgin and received a corresponding marriage contract, her husband can cause her to lose her marriage contract by claiming that she was not a virgin. The Gemara rejects this argument: And what is the contradiction in this? It can be explained simply: This baraita, in which it was taught that the ailonit receives no fine, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; that baraita, in which it was taught that the ailonit receives a fine, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara is puzzled: And as the resolution is so obvious, he who raised the contradiction, why did he raise it? The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in this matter is known.

The Gemara answers: He cited this baraita due to the fact that he has another baraita from which to raise as a contradiction to it: A deaf-mute, and an imbecile, and a grown woman, and a woman whose hymen was torn not in the course of sexual relations, do not have a claim concerning virginity, as they do not have the presumptive status of a virgin. However, a blind woman and an ailonit have a claim concerning virginity. Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A blind woman does not have a claim concerning virginity. The baraitot contradict each other with regard to the claim concerning virginity of a deaf-mute and an imbecile.

Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, as this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who holds that a woman who, in response to a claim concerning her virginity, is believed if she says that she was raped after her betrothal and therefore does not lose her marriage contract. And that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that a woman is not believed if she makes that claim, and therefore she loses her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: Say that you heard that Rabban Gamliel accepts her contention in a case where she claims that she was raped after the betrothal; however, in a case where she did not claim that that was the case, did you hear that he accepts her contention? The Gemara answers: Yes, since Rabban Gamliel said she is believed when she states that she was raped after betrothal, the deaf-mute and the imbecile are also believed even though they are unable to make the claim, as in a cases like that, it is a case of: “Open your mouth for the mute” (Proverbs 31:8). When a person lacks the capacity to proffer the claim on his own, the court makes the claim on her behalf.

§ The baraita stated: A grown woman does not have a claim concerning virginity because of changes as her body matures, her hymen is no longer completely intact. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav say: The Sages give a grown woman who had relations on her wedding night, the entire first night, during which she may have relations with her husband several times? Any blood seen during that night is attributed to the blood of her hymen, which is ritually pure, and not menstrual blood. Apparently, even a grown woman has her hymen intact.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Ketuvot 36a examines rabbinic debates over which forbidden family relationships exempt a rapist or seducer from paying the compensatory fine.