Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth
But is she,1 however, capable of [normal]
conception?2 Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman:3 Three [categories of] women may use an absorbent4 in their marital intercourse:5 a minor, and an expectant and nursing mother. The minor,6 because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother,6 because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.7 A nursing mother,6 because otherwise she might have to wean her child [prematurely]8 and this would result in his death.9 And what is [the age of such] a minor?10 From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under,11 or over this age12 must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages said: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner, and mercy13 will be vouchsafed from Heaven, for it is said in the Scriptures, The Lord preserveth the simple.14 And should you reply that this is a case where she conceived when she was a na'arah and gave birth to a child when she was still a na'arah [it could be objected:] Does one give birth to a child within six months [after conception]? Did not Samuel, in fact, state: The period between the age of na'aruth15 and that of bagruth16 is only six months? And should you suggest [that he meant to say] that there were no less but more [than six months] surely [it could be retorted] he used the expression, only'!17 It must be this, then, that he18 asked: Is the state of adolescence19 attainable in the grave20 and her father consequently forfeits21 [his right],22 or is perhaps the state of adolescence not attainable in the grave23 and the father, therefore, does not forfeit24 [his right]?
Raba enquired of Abaye: What [is the legal position if] he28 had intercourse and became betrothed?29 The other replied: Is it written in Scripture. 'Then the man … shall give unto the father of the damsel30 who was not a betrothed woman'?31 Following, however, your line of reasoning, [the first retorted, one can argue in respect] of what was taught: '[If the offender had] intercourse with her and she married [the fine] belongs to herself', is it written in Scripture. 'Then the man … shall give unto the father of the damsel32 who was not a married woman'? — What a comparison!33 There34 [the following analogy may well be made]: Since the state of
adolescence liberates a daughter from her father's authority35 and marriage also liberates a daughter from her father's authority36 [the two may be compared to one another]: As [in the case of] adolescence, if she attains adolescence after he had intercourse with her,37 [the fine] belongs to the girl herself,38 so also [in the case of] marriage, if she married after he had intercourse with her,37 [the fine] belongs to the girl herself. But as to betrothal, does it completely liberate a daughter from her father's authority? Surely we learned: [In the case of] a betrothed girl39 her father and her husband jointly may invalidate her vows.40
MISHNAH. THE SEDUCER PAYS THREE FORMS [OF COMPENSATION] AND THE VIOLATOR FOUR. THE SEDUCER PAYS COMPENSATION FOR INDIGNITY AND BLEMISH41 AND THE [STATUTORY] FINE, WHILE THE VIOLATOR PAYS AN ADDITIONAL [FORM OF COMPENSATION] IN THAT HE PAYS FOR THE PAIN.
WHAT [IS THE DIFFERENCE] BETWEEN [THE PENALTIES OF] A SEDUCER AND THOSE OF A VIOLATOR? THE VIOLATOR PAYS COMPENSATION FOR THE PAIN BUT THE SEDUCER DOES NOT PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE PAIN. THE VIOLATOR PAYS42 FORTHWITH43 BUT THE SEDUCER [PAYS ONLY] IF HE DISMISSES44 HER. THE VIOLATOR MUST DRINK OUT OF HIS POT45 BUT THE SEDUCER MAY DISMISS [THE GIRL] IF HE WISHES. WHAT IS MEANT BY46 'MUST DRINK OUT OF HIS POT'?
— EVEN IF SHE IS LAME, EVEN IF SHE IS BLIND AND EVEN IF SHE IS AFFLICTED WITH BOILS [HE MAY NOT DISMISS HER]. IF, HOWEVER, SHE WAS FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED47 AN IMMORAL ACT OR WAS UNFIT TO MARRY AN ISRAELITE48 HE MAY NOT CONTINUE TO LIVE WITH HER, FOR IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, AND UNTO HIM SHE SHALL BE FOR A WIFE,49 [IMPLYING] A WIFE THAT IS FIT 'UNTO HIM.
GEMARA. [For the] PAIN of what?50 — The father of Samuel replied: For the pain [he has inflicted] when he thrust her upon the ground.
R. Zera demurred: Now then, if he had thrust her upon silk stuffs51 would he for a similar reason52 be exempt? And should you say that the law is so indeed,52 was it not [it may be retorted] taught: 'R. Simeon b. Judah stated in the name of R. Simeon.53 A violator does not pay compensation for the pain [he has inflicted] because
the woman would ultimately have suffered the same pain from her husband, but they1 said to him: One who is forced to intercourse cannot be compared to one who acts willingly'?2 — [The reference.] in fact,3 said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha [is to the] pain of opening the feet, for so it is said in Scripture, And hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by.4 But if so, the same applies to one who has been seduced?5 R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The case of one who has been seduced may be compared to that of a person who said to his friend, 'Tear up my silk garments and you will be free from liability'.6 'My'? Are they7
not her father's?8 — This, however, said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, [is the explanation]: The smart women among them declare that one who is seduced experiences no pain. But do we not see that one does experience pain? — Abaye replied: Nurse9 told me: Like hot water on a bald head.10 Raba said: R. Hisda's daughter11 told me, Like the prick of the blood-letting lancet.12 R. Papa said: The daughter of Abba of Sura11 told me, Like hard crust in the jaws.13
THE VIOLATOR PAYS FORTHWITH BUT THE SEDUCER [PAYS ONLY] IF HE DISMISSES HER etc. WHEN HE DISMISSES HER! Is she then his wife?14 Abaye replied: Read, 'If he does not marry her,15 So it was also taught: Although it was laid down that the seducer pays [the statutory fine] only if he does not marry her, he must pay compensation for indignity and blemish forthwith. And [in the case of] the violator as well as [of] the seducer, she herself or her father may oppose.16
As regards one who has been seduced, this17 may well be granted because it is written in Scripture. If her father will refuse,18 [since from 'refusing']19 I would only [have known that] her father [may refuse], whence [could it be deduced that] she herself [may also refuse]?20 It was, therefore, explicitly stated 'will refuse', implying either of them.21 But as regards a violator, though one may well grant that she [may refuse him since] it is written in Scripture. 'and onto him she shall be22 [which implies]23 only if she is so minded, whence, however, [it may be objected] is it deduced that her father [may also object to the marriage]? — Abaye replied: [Her father was given the right to object] in order that the sinner24 might not gain an advantage.25 Raba replied; It26 is deduced a minori ad majus: If a seducer who has acted against the wish of her father alone may be rejected either by herself or by her father how much more so the violator who has acted both against the wish of her father and against the wish of herself.
Raba did not give the same reply as Abaye, because, having paid the fine, [the offender can] no [longer be described as a] sinner gaining an advantage. Abaye does not give the same reply as Raba [because it may be argued:27 In the case of] a seducer, since he himself may object [to the marriage], her father also may object to it; [but in the case of] a violator, since he himself may not object [to the marriage] her father also may have no right to object to it.
Another Baraitha taught: Although it has been laid down that the violator pays forthwith28 she has no claim upon him29 when he divorces her.30 ['When he divorces her'! Can he divorce her?31 — Read: When she demands a divorce32 she has no claim upon him].29 If he died, the fine is regarded as a quittance for her kethubah.33 R. Jose the son of R. Judah ruled: She is entitled34 to a kethubah for one maneh.35
On what principle do they36 differ? — The Rabbis hold the view that the only reason why37 the Rabbis instituted a kethubah [for a wife was] in order that the man might not find it easy38 to divorce her,39 but [the violator,] surely, cannot divorce her.40 R. Jose the son of R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that this man too might torment her until she says to him, 'I do not want you'.41 THE VIOLATOR MUST DRINK OUT OF HIS POT. Said Raba of Parazika42 to R. Ashi. Consider! [The fines of a violator and a seducer] are deduced from one another.43
- To Next Folio -