## Ketubot Daf 36a

###### Ketubot 36a:1
[Ketubot 36a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/36a:1)

עֲרָיוֹת מַמָּשׁ, ״שְׁנִיּוֹת״ — מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, כֵּיוָן דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא חַזְיָא לֵיהּ, אַמַּאי אֵין לָהֶן קְנָס? אֶלָּא: ״עֲרָיוֹת״ — חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, ״שְׁנִיּוֹת״ — חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת. אֲבָל חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין יֵשׁ לָהֶן קְנָס, וּמַנִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 36a:2
[Ketubot 36a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/36a:2)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי ״עֲרָיוֹת״ — חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין וְחַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת, ״שְׁנִיּוֹת״ — חַיָּיבֵי לָאוִין. מַנִּי — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 36a:3
[Ketubot 36a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/36a:3)

הַמְמָאֶנֶת אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי. הָא קְטַנָּה בְּעָלְמָא — אִית לַהּ. מַנִּי — רַבָּנַן הִיא דְּאָמְרִי: קְטַנָּה יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אַיְילוֹנִית אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: קְטַנָּה אֵין לָהּ קְנָס, וְהָא מִקַּטְנוּתָהּ יָצְתָה לְבֶגֶר. רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Ketubot 36a:4
[Ketubot 36a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/36a:4)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, וּבִמְמָאֶנֶת סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וּמִי סָבַר לַהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: עַד מָתַי הַבַּת מְמָאֶנֶת — עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה שָׁחוֹר עַל הַלָּבָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 36a:5
[Ketubot 36a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/36a:5)

אֶלָּא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, וּבִקְטַנָּה סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר. וּמִי סָבַר לַהּ? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְאִם אִיתָא, ״זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 36a:6
[Ketubot 36a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/36a:6)

רַפְרָם אָמַר: מַאי ״מְמָאֶנֶת״ — הָרְאוּיָה לְמָאֵן. וְלִיתְנֵי קְטַנָּה! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Ketubot 36a:7
[Ketubot 36a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/36a:7)

אַיְילוֹנִית אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי. וּרְמִינְהִי: הַחֵרֶשֶׁת וְהַשּׁוֹטָה וְהָאַיְילוֹנִית — יֵשׁ לָהֶן קְנָס, וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. וְהָא, מַאי רוּמְיָא? הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא רַבָּנַן! וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ, מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Ketubot 36a:8
[Ketubot 36a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/36a:8)

מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְמִירְמֵא אַחֲרִיתִי עִילָּוֵיהּ: הַחֵרֶשֶׁת וְהַשּׁוֹטָה וְהַבּוֹגֶרֶת ומוּכַּת עֵץ — אֵין לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. הַסּוֹמָא וְאַיְילוֹנִית — יֵשׁ לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: סוֹמָא אֵין לָהּ טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Ketubot 36a:9
[Ketubot 36a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/36a:9)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הֵיכָא דְּקָא טָעֲנָה אִיהִי, הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָא טָעֲנָה אִיהִי, מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? אִין, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מְהֵימְנָא, כְּגוֹן זוֹ ״פְּתַח פִּיךָ לְאִלֵּם״ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 36a:10
[Ketubot 36a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/36a:10)

וְהַבּוֹגֶרֶת אֵין לָהּ טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. וְהָאָמַר רַב: בּוֹגֶרֶת, נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.