## Ketubot Daf 38b

###### Ketubot 38b:1
[Ketubot 38b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38b:1)

אֵימָא: ״בְּתוּלָה״ — לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, וַ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָסָה״ — פְּרָט לְנַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Say** to the contrary; the term **“virgin,”** written with regard to both rape and seduction, is **to** derive **a verbal analogy,** and not to exclude a non-virgin, **and** the phrase **“Who was not betrothed”** will be interpreted as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interpreted it, to **exclude a young woman who was betrothed and divorced.**


###### Ketubot 38b:2
[Ketubot 38b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38b:2)

מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָסָה״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ ״נַעֲרָה בְּתוּלָה״. אַדְּרַבָּה: ״בְּתוּלָה״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָסָה״! מִסְתַּבְּרָא: הָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי גּוּפַהּ, וְהָא לָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי גּוּפַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It stands to reason** that the phrase **“Who was not betrothed”** is utilized **to** derive **a verbal analogy,** and not to exclude one who was betrothed and divorced, **as** even after the divorce **I can** still **read** the phrase **“A young woman who is a virgin”** as applying **to her.** The Gemara asks: **On the contrary,** utilize the term **virgin to** derive **a verbal analogy, as** even if she is not a virgin, **I can** still **read** the phrase **“Who was not betrothed”** as applying **to her.** The Gemara answers: **It stands to reason** that the term “virgin” excludes a non-virgin, and the phrase “Who was not betrothed” is utilized to derive a verbal analogy, as **this** woman who engaged in relations, **her body changed, and that** woman who was betrothed and divorced, **her body did not change,** and therefore her status with regard to the fine should similarly not change.


###### Ketubot 38b:3
[Ketubot 38b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38b:3)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הַאי סְבָרָא מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּתַנְיָא: ״כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקוֹל כְּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת״, שֶׁיְּהֵא זֶה כְּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת, וּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת כָּזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where** does **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili** derive **this conclusion** with regard to the amount of the payment for seduction and the type of money used in the payment for rape? The Gemara responds: **He derives it from that which was taught** in a *baraita* that it is written with regard to seduction: **“He shall weigh money like the dowry of the virgins”** (Exodus 22:16), from which it is derived **that this** fine for seduction **will be like the dowry** paid **to the virgins** elsewhere for rape, fifty silver coins, **and the dowry** paid **to the virgins** for rape **will be like this** fine for seduction in shekels.


###### Ketubot 38b:4
[Ketubot 38b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38b:4)

קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אַדְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments: It is **difficult** as there is a contradiction between one statement **of Rabbi Akiva** and another statement **of Rabbi Akiva.** In the mishna he ruled that the fine for the rape of a young woman who was betrothed and divorced is paid to the woman, and in the *baraita* he ruled that it is paid to her father. The Gemara answers: These are conflicting traditions of **two *tanna’im* in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Ketubot 38b:5
[Ketubot 38b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38b:5)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין, לָא אָתְיָא גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה וּמַפְּקָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא מִפְּשָׁטֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּבָרַיְיתָא, אָתְיָא גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה וּמַפְּקָא מִפְּשָׁטֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara observes: **Granted,** the statement of **Rabbi Akiva of the mishna** is reasonable, as **a verbal analogy does not come and divert the verse from its plain meaning entirely.** The plain meaning of the phrase: “Who was not betrothed” is that there is a difference between a young woman who was betrothed, who receives payment of the fine, and one who was not, whose father receives payment of the fine. **However,** according **to Rabbi Akiva of the *baraita*,** does **a verbal analogy come and divert the verse from its plain meaning entirely,** and teach that there is no difference at all between a young woman who was betrothed and one who was not?


###### Ketubot 38b:6
[Ketubot 38b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38b:6)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: קְרִי בֵּיהּ ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֲרוּסָה״. אֲרוּסָה בַּת סְקִילָה הִיא! סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְחִידּוּשׁ הוּא שֶׁחִידְּשָׁה תּוֹרָה בִּקְנָס, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיקְּטִיל — מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Interpret the verse** as: **Who is not betrothed.** It does not mean that the young woman was not betrothed in the past, rather, that she is not currently betrothed. The Gemara asks: There is no need for a verse to derive that the rapist is exempt from paying a fine if the young woman is betrothed, as the rape of **a betrothed** young woman **is** punishable **by stoning,** and the rapist is certainly exempt from paying the fine. The Gemara answers: As **it might enter your mind to say: Since it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to** the payment of **a fine, even though he is killed he pays** the fine. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that one who is executed is exempt from payment of the fine.


###### Ketubot 38b:7
[Ketubot 38b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38b:7)

וּלְרַבָּה דְּאָמַר חִידּוּשׁ הוּא שֶׁחִידְּשָׁה תּוֹרָה בִּקְנָס, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיקְּטִיל מְשַׁלֵּם, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabba, who said** that this is indeed the *halakha*: Since **it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to** the payment of **a fine, even though he is killed he pays** the fine, **what is there to say?** What is derived from the verse that says that there is no fine if the young woman is betrothed? The Gemara answers: Rabba **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva of the mishna,** who interpreted the verse as it is written, meaning that it is referring to one who was betrothed and divorced.


###### Ketubot 38b:8
[Ketubot 38b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38b:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קְנָסָהּ לְמִי, לְאָבִיהָ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: לְעַצְמָהּ. לְעַצְמָהּ אַמַּאי! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָכָא בְּנַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה עָסְקִינַן, וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּבָרַיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** With regard to a young woman who was raped, **to whom** is **her fine** paid? It is paid **to her father; and some say:** It is paid **to her.** The Gemara asks: **To her? Why?** The verse explicitly states that the fine is paid to her father. **Rav Ḥisda said: Here we are dealing with a young woman who was betrothed and divorced, and** these *tanna’im* in the *baraita* **disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Akiva of the mishna and Rabbi Akiva of the *baraita*,** with regard to whom the rapist pays the fine in that case.


###### Ketubot 38b:9
[Ketubot 38b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38b:9)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בָּא עָלֶיהָ וּמֵתָה — פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה״ — וְלֹא לַאֲבִי מֵתָה. מִלְּתָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְאַבָּיֵי, מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Abaye said:** If **one had intercourse with** a young woman, **and she died** before he was sentenced, he is **exempt** from paying the fine, **as it is stated: “And** the man who lay with her **shall give to the father of the young woman”** (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred, **and not to the father of a dead** girl. The Gemara comments: This **matter that** was **obvious to Abaye** was **raised as a dilemma to Rava.**


###### Ketubot 38b:10
[Ketubot 38b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38b:10)

דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: יֵשׁ בֶּגֶר בַּקֶּבֶר, אוֹ אֵין בֶּגֶר בַּקֶּבֶר? יֵשׁ בֶּגֶר בַּקֶּבֶר — וְדִבְנָהּ הָוֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: אֵין בֶּגֶר בַּקֶּבֶר, וּדְאָבִיהָ הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rava raised a dilemma: Is there** achievement of **grown-woman status in the grave or is there not** achievement of **grown-woman status in the grave?** The *halakha* is that if a young woman is raped and the rapist did not pay the fine until she became a grown woman, the rapist pays the fine to her and not to her father. Rava’s dilemma is in a case where a young woman dies and her rapist was convicted only after the time elapsed that were she alive she would have reached grown-woman status. **Is there** achievement of **grown-woman status in the grave, and** therefore she is entitled to the fine and **it is** the property of **her son** as his mother’s heir? **Or perhaps there is no** achievement of **grown-woman status in the grave, and the fine is** the property of **her father,** as she was a young woman when she died.