## Ketubot Daf 39a

###### Ketubot 39a:1
[Ketubot 39a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/39a:1)

וּמִי מִעַבְּרָא? וְהָתָנֵי רַב בִּיבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת בְּמוֹךְ, אֵלּוּ הֵן: קְטַנָּה, וּמְעוּבֶּרֶת, וּמְנִיקָה. קְטַנָּה — שֶׁמָּא תִּתְעַבֵּר וְתָמוּת, מְעוּבֶּרֶת — שֶׁמָּא תַּעֲשֶׂה עוּבָּרָהּ סַנְדָּל, מְנִיקָה — שֶׁמָּא תִּגְמוֹל אֶת בְּנָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava’s dilemma is based on the assumption that a rape victim is able to conceive before she is a grown woman. The Gemara asks: **And can** a minor **conceive? But didn’t Rav Beivai teach** a *baraita* **before Rav Naḥman:** It is permitted for **three women** to **engage in relations with a** contraceptive **resorbent. These are they: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman.** The *baraita* elaborates: **A minor** may do so **lest she conceive and die; a pregnant** woman, **lest her** existing **fetus** be crushed by another fetus and **assume** the shape of **a sandal** fish if she conceives a second time; and **a nursing** woman, **lest** she conceive, causing her milk to spoil, which will lead **her** to **wean her son** prematurely, endangering his health.


###### Ketubot 39a:2
[Ketubot 39a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/39a:2)

וְאֵיזוֹהִי קְטַנָּה — מִבַּת אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד עַד שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד. פָּחוֹת מִיכֵּן וְיָתֵר עַל כֵּן מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְהוֹלֶכֶת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְהוֹלֶכֶת, וּמִן הַשָּׁמַיִם יְרַחֵמוּ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׁוֹמֵר פְּתָאִים ה׳״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the *baraita* further states: **What is a minor girl?** A minor girl is a girl **from eleven years and one day old until twelve years and one day old.** If she was **less than that** age or **more than that** age, **she proceeds and engages in relations in her usual manner;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Both this** woman **and that** woman, i.e., in the cases of all these women, **she proceeds and engages in relations in her usual manner, and from Heaven they will have mercy** and prevent any mishap, **due to** the fact **that it is stated: “The Lord preserves the simple”** (Psalms 116:6). Apparently, a minor is unable to conceive.


###### Ketubot 39a:3
[Ketubot 39a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/39a:3)

וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּאִיעַבַּרָא כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה, וְאוֹלִידָה כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה. וּבְשִׁיתָּא יַרְחֵי מִי קָא יָלְדָה? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין בֵּין נַעֲרוּת לְבַגְרוּת אֶלָּא שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים. וְכִי תֵּימָא: בְּצִיר הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא, הָא טְפֵי — אִיכָּא, הָא ״אֶלָּא״ קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say that she conceived when she was a young woman,** twelve years old, **and gave birth when she was a young woman,** and died before she reached the status of a grown woman, can a woman **give birth in six months** after conception? **But didn’t Shmuel say: There are only six months between** becoming **a young woman and** becoming **a grown woman? And if you say** that Shmuel is saying that it is **less** than six months **that there is not** transition from young woman to grown woman status; however, **more** than six months **there is** transition, as different women develop differently, and therefore she could conceive and give birth while she is a young woman, that is not so, **as** Shmuel **said: Only,** indicating that the period is neither less nor more than six months.


###### Ketubot 39a:4
[Ketubot 39a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/39a:4)

אֶלָּא, הָכִי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: יֵשׁ בֶּגֶר בַּקֶּבֶר וּפָקַע אָב, אוֹ דִלְמָא: אֵין בֶּגֶר בַּקֶּבֶר, וְלָא פָּקַע אָב? מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי בָּעֵי לַהּ הָכִי: מִיתָה עוֹשָׂה בַּגְרוּת, אוֹ אֵין עוֹשָׂה בַּגְרוּת? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rava’s dilemma is unrelated to whether or not her son inherits the fine payment. **This is his dilemma: Is there** achievement of **grown-woman status in the grave and** therefore the right of the **father** to receive payment of the fine **lapsed;** and since there is no one claiming the payment, the rapist need not pay? **Or perhaps there is no** achievement of **grown-woman** status **in the grave, and** the right of the **father did not lapse. Mar bar Rav Ashi raised the dilemma** in **this** manner: Does **death effect grown-woman status or does it not effect grown-woman status?** No resolution was found for this dilemma, and the Gemara concludes that the dilemma **stands** unresolved.


###### Ketubot 39a:5
[Ketubot 39a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/39a:5)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵאַבָּיֵי: בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְנִתְאָרְסָה, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, מִי כְּתִיב: ״וְנָתַן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֲרוּסָה״? וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּתַנְיָא: בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְנִשֵּׂאת, לְעַצְמָהּ: מִי כְּתִיב ״וְנָתַן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא נְשׂוּאָה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On a similar note, **Rava inquired of Abaye:** If he forcibly **had intercourse with** a young woman **and she was** later **betrothed, what is** the *halakha*? Abaye **said to him: Is it written: And he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not betrothed?** Actually it is written: “If a man finds a young woman…who was not betrothed” (Deuteronomy 22:28), which indicates that the determining factor is whether she was betrothed before the rape and not whether she is engaged at the moment of payment. Rava asked him: **And according to your reasoning, that which was taught** in a *baraita*: If he forcibly **had intercourse** with a young woman **and she** later **married,** the fine is paid **to her,** not to her father. There too, ask: **Is it written: And he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not married?** Even though the verse does not address the moment of payment, if she married the fine is paid to her.


###### Ketubot 39a:6
[Ketubot 39a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/39a:6)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, הוֹאִיל וּבַגְרוּת מוֹצִיאָה מֵרְשׁוּת אָב, וְנִישּׂוּאִין מוֹצִיאִין מֵרְשׁוּת אָב, מָה בַּגְרוּת בָּא עָלֶיהָ וּבָגְרָה — לְעַצְמָהּ, אַף נִישּׂוּאִין בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְנִשֵּׂאת — לְעַצְמָהּ. אֶלָּא אֵירוּסִין, מִי קָא מַפְּקִי מֵרְשׁוּתָא דְּאָב לִגְמָרֵי? הָא תְּנַן: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין לָהּ נְדָרֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye retorted: **How can** these cases be **compared? There,** in the case of marriage, there is reason to diverge from the plain meaning of the verse, **as grown-woman status removes her from** the **authority of the father and marriage removes her from** the **authority of the father. Just as** with regard to **grown-woman status,** if he forcibly **had intercourse with her and she became a grown woman,** the fine is paid **to her,** as it is written: “And he shall give to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:29); **so too,** with regard to **marriage,** if he forcibly **had intercourse with her and she** later **married,** the fine is paid **to her. However,** with regard to **betrothal, does** it **remove** her **from** the **authority of the father entirely? Didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Nedarim* 66b): With regard to **a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband** together **nullify her vows?** Apparently, betrothal does not remove her entirely from her father’s authority, and therefore, the *halakha* with regard to betrothal cannot be derived from the *halakha* with regard to grown-woman status. Therefore, Rava’s question is not difficult.


###### Ketubot 39a:7
[Ketubot 39a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/39a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְפַתֶּה נוֹתֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים, וְהָאוֹנֵס אַרְבָּעָה. הַמְפַתֶּה נוֹתֵן בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם וּקְנָס, מוֹסִיף עָלָיו אוֹנֵס שֶׁנּוֹתֵן אֶת הַצַּעַר. מָה בֵּין אוֹנֵס לִמְפַתֶּה: הָאוֹנֵס נוֹתֵן אֶת הַצַּעַר, וְהַמְפַתֶּה אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן אֶת הַצַּעַר. הָאוֹנֵס נוֹתֵן מִיָּד, וְהַמְפַתֶּה לִכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיא. הָאוֹנֵס שׁוֹתֶה בַּעֲצִיצוֹ, וְהַמְפַתֶּה, אִם רָצָה לְהוֹצִיא — מוֹצִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The seducer gives** the father of his victim **three things, and the rapist** gives the father **four.** The mishna specifies: **The seducer gives** the father payments for **humiliation, degradation, and** the **fine. A rapist adds** an addition to **his** payments, **as he** also **gives** payment for the **pain. What** are the differences **between** the *halakha* of **a rapist and** that of **a seducer? The rapist gives** payment for **the pain, and the seducer does not give** payment for **the pain. The rapist gives** payment **immediately, and the seducer** does not pay those payments immediately but only **when he releases** her. **The rapist drinks from his vessel [*atzitzo*],** i.e., marries the woman he raped, perforce, **and the seducer, if he wishes to release** her, **he releases** her.


###### Ketubot 39a:8
[Ketubot 39a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/39a:8)

כֵּיצַד שׁוֹתֶה בַּעֲצִיצוֹ: אֲפִילּוּ הִיא חִיגֶּרֶת, אֲפִילּוּ הִיא סוֹמָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ הִיא מוּכַּת שְׁחִין. נִמְצָא בָּהּ דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, אוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לָבֹא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְקַיְּימָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״, אִשָּׁה הָרְאוּיָה לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna clarifies: **How does** the rapist **drink from his vessel? Even if** the woman he raped **is lame, even if she is blind, and even if she is afflicted with boils,** he is obligated to marry her and may not divorce her. However, if **a matter of licentiousness is found in her,** e.g., if she committed adultery, **or if she is unfit to enter the Jewish people,** e.g., if she is a *mamzeret*, **he is not permitted to sustain her** as his wife, **as it is stated: “And to him she shall be as a wife”** (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred that she must be **a woman who is** legally **suitable for him.**


###### Ketubot 39a:9
[Ketubot 39a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/39a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** צַעַר דְּמַאי? אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: צַעַר שֶׁחֲבָטָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חֲבָטָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי שִׁירָאִין, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפָטוּר? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי — וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אוֹנֵס אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַצַּעַר — מִפְּנֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna taught that a rapist pays for the pain that he caused. The Gemara asks: **For what pain** is he obligated to pay? **Shmuel’s father said:** It is for the **pain that** he caused when **he slammed her onto the ground** while raping her. **Rabbi Zeira** strongly **objects to this: But if** what you say is **so,** if **he slammed her onto silk, so too** is the *halakha* **that** he is **exempt** from payment for pain? **And if you say indeed** that it is **so, but isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A rapist does not pay** for **the pain due to** the fact