## Ketubot Daf 29b

###### Ketubot 29b:1
[Ketubot 29b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/29b:1)

אַף קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is a **fine even in a place** where there is **sale.** That is, not only can a minor girl from the age of three be sold until she matures, but she also receives payment of the fine.


###### Ketubot 29b:2
[Ketubot 29b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/29b:2)

וְהָנֵי בְּנֵי קְנָסָא נִינְהוּ? וְאַמַּאי? אִיקְּרִי כָּאן: ״וְלוֹ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״, אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״נַעֲרָה״, ״נַעֲרָה״, ״הַנַּעֲרָה״. חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, וְחַד לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara questions the basic *halakha* that one who rapes young women of flawed lineage is liable to pay the fine: **And are these** young women **entitled** to the **fine? But why? I read here** with regard to a rapist: **“And to him she shall be as a wife”** (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which the Sages derived that only **a wife who is suitable for him** is eligible to receive payment of a fine from a rapist. **Reish Lakish said** that one verse states: “If a man finds a young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:28), and another states: “And he shall give to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:29). This is tantamount to three mentions: **Young woman, young woman, the young woman,** as the superfluous definite article is interpreted as a third mention of the term. **One** mention is required **to** teach the matter **itself,** that one who rapes a young woman is liable to pay a fine; **and one** is **to include** payment of a fine to those young women for whose rape one is **liable for** violating **prohibitions; and one** is **to include** payment of a fine to those young women for whose rape one is **liable to** receive ***karet*.**


###### Ketubot 29b:3
[Ketubot 29b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/29b:3)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: ״בְּתוּלָה״, ״בְּתוּלוֹת״, ״הַבְּתוּלוֹת״. חַד לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, וְחַד לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** This is derived from the *halakha* of the seducer, as the verses state: “And if a man seduce a virgin…he shall weigh money like the dowry of the virgins” (Exodus 22:15–16). This is tantamount to three mentions: **Virgin, virgins, the virgins. One** mention is required **to** teach the matter **itself; and one** is **to include** those young women for whose rape one is **liable for** violating **prohibitions; and one** is **to include** those young women for whom one who rapes them is **liable to** receive ***karet*.**


###### Ketubot 29b:4
[Ketubot 29b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/29b:4)

וְרַב פָּפָּא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְאַבָּיֵי. דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בָּא עָלֶיהָ וּמֵתָה — פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה״. לַאֲבִי נַעֲרָה, וְלֹא לַאֲבִי מֵתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rav Pappa, what is the reason** that **he did not cite** the source **as Reish Lakish** did? The Gemara answers: **That** derivation from the three instances of the term young woman is **required by him to** teach **in accordance with that** which **Abaye** said, **as Abaye said:** If one **engaged in** forced **intercourse with** a young woman **and she died** before he stood trial, he is **exempt** from paying the fine, **as it is stated: “And he shall give to the father of the young woman”** (Deuteronomy 22:29). From the fact that the verse does not simply say: To her father, it is inferred: **To the father of the young woman and not to the father of a dead** woman. He is liable only if the young woman is still alive.


###### Ketubot 29b:5
[Ketubot 29b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/29b:5)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב פָּפָּא? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. דְּתַנְיָא: ״כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקוֹל כְּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת״, שֶׁיְּהֵא זֶה כְּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת, וּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת כָּזֶה. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ נָמֵי, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְאַבָּיֵי. וְרַב פָּפָּא נָמֵי, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Reish Lakish, what is the reason** that **he did not cite** the source **as Rav Pappa** did? The Gemara answers: **That** derivation from the three instances of the term virgin is **required by him to** derive **a verbal analogy, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that it is written with regard to a seducer: **“He shall weigh [*yishkol*] money like the dowry of the virgins”** (Exodus 22:16), from which it is derived **that this** fine of a seducer **should be** a sum of fifty *sela* **like the dowry of the virgins** specified in the case of a rapist; **and the dowry of the virgins must be** paid in *sela* **like this** fine of the seducer. Therefore, Reish Lakish holds that no additional matters may be derived from the term virgins. The Gemara asks: **And** for **Reish Lakish too,** isn’t it **required by him to** teach **in accordance with that** which **Abaye** said? **And** similarly, for **Rav Pappa,** isn’t it **required by him to** derive **a verbal analogy?**


###### Ketubot 29b:6
[Ketubot 29b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/29b:6)

אֶלָּא: שִׁיתָּא קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי? ״נַעֲרָה״ ״נַעֲרָה״ ״הַנַּעֲרָה״. ״בְּתוּלָה״ ״בְּתוּלוֹת״ ״הַבְּתוּלוֹת״, תְּרֵי לְגוּפַיְיהוּ, חַד לְכִדְאַבָּיֵי, וְחַד לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. אִיַּיתַּרוּ לֵיהּ תְּרֵי. חַד — לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, וְחַד — לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** there are **six verses written,** and both Reish Lakish and Rav Pappa derive matters from all of them. In the two passages discussing the rapist and the seducer, it is written: **Young woman, young woman, the young woman; virgin, virgins, the virgins. Two** mentions are required **to** teach the matters **themselves,** the basic *halakhot* of a rapist and a seducer; **one** mention is needed **to** teach **in accordance with that** which **Abaye** said; **and one** mention is necessary **to** derive **a verbal analogy** with regard to the dowry of virgins. **Two** mentions of the term **remain for him; one** is **to include** those young women for whose rape one is **liable for** violating **prohibitions, and one** is **to include** those young women for whom one who rapes them is **liable to** receive ***karet*.** Reish Lakish and Rav Pappa do not disagree; the derivation of each complements that of the other.


###### Ketubot 29b:7
[Ketubot 29b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/29b:7)

וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלוֹ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״, שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ הֲוָיָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לְקַיְּימָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments: **And** the mishna comes **to exclude** the opinion **of this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that it is written: **“And to him she shall be [*tihye*] as a wife”** (Deuteronomy 22:29). **Shimon HaTimni says:** This is referring to **a woman for whom there is betrothal [*havaya*].** If one betroths a woman with whom relations are punishable by *karet*, the betrothal does not take effect. **Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says:** This is referring to **a woman who is suitable for** him to **sustain,** whom he need not divorce due to her flawed lineage.


###### Ketubot 29b:8
[Ketubot 29b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/29b:8)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֲוָיָה, הָא נָמֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֲוָיָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר רְאוּיָה לְקַיְּימָהּ, הָא אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְקַיְּימָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara begins its analysis of the *baraita* with the question: **What is** the practical difference **between** the statements of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya? The Gemara explains that **Rabbi Zeira said:** The difference **between their** opinions is with regard to **a *mamzeret* or a Gibeonite woman,** or any other woman who is forbidden but for whom betrothal takes effect. **According to the one who said** that the criterion is whether **there is betrothal,** for **this** woman **there is also betrothal.** If a Jewish man betroths a *mamzeret* or a Gibeonite woman, although it is prohibited to do so, the betrothal takes effect. However, **according to the one who said** that the criterion is whether the woman is **suitable for** him to **sustain, this** woman **is not suitable for** him to **sustain,** since due to the prohibition he is obligated to divorce her.


###### Ketubot 29b:9
[Ketubot 29b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/29b:9)

וּלְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: אֵין קִידּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּחַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין, מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, כְּרַבִּי סִימַאי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: מִן הַכֹּל עוֹשֶׂה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַמְזֵרִין, חוּץ מֵאַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״לֹא יִקַּח ... וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל״ — חִילּוּלִין הוּא עוֹשֶׂה, וְאֵין עוֹשֶׂה מַמְזֵרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Akiva, who said: Betrothal does not take effect for** women for whose rape one is **liable for** violating **prohibitions, what is** the difference **between them?** According to his opinion, betrothal of a *mamzeret* does not take effect either. The Gemara answers: The difference **between their** statements is the case of **a widow** raped **by a High Priest, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Simai, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Simai says: Rabbi Akiva deems** children **from all** illicit relations ***mamzerim*, except for a** child born **from a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah said:** “A widow and a divorcée **he shall not take…and he shall not profane [*yeḥallel*]** his seed among his people” (Leviticus 21:14–15), from which it is derived: If he has a child with a widow **he creates *ḥillulin*,** i.e., the male offspring of those relations is a *ḥalal*, disqualified from the priesthood, and the female offspring is a *ḥalala*, unfit to marry a priest, **but he does not create *mamzerim*.** Apparently, in that case, the betrothal does take effect.


###### Ketubot 29b:10
[Ketubot 29b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/29b:10)

וּלְרַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, דְּאָמַר: בּוֹאוּ וְנִצְוַח עַל עֲקִיבָא בֶּן יוֹסֵף, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בִּיאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Yeshevav, who said: Come, let us scream at Akiva ben Yosef,** who is proliferating *mamzerim*, **as he would say:** With regard to **anyone who does not have** the possibility of permitted **relations in the Jewish people,** including a widow with a High Priest, **the offspring is a *mamzer*, what is** the difference **between their** opinions, between the one who said that a fine is paid to women with whom the betrothal takes effect and the one who said that a fine is paid to women suitable for one to sustain? Rabbi Yeshevav maintains that betrothal does not take effect even in the case of a widow to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference **between them** with regard to