מַעֲשֵׂה מַחַט שְׁלֹשִׁים?!

the needlecraft of a tailor, a common, less valuable skill, is the fine also thirty sela ? Rather, just as with regard to the slaves, the sum is not dependent on the standing of the victim, so too with regard to a woman who was raped.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִילּוּ בָּאוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, יֹאמְרוּ: בָּעַל שְׁלֵימָה חֲמִשִּׁים, בָּעַל פְּגוּמָה – חֲמִשִּׁים?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, גַּבֵּי עֶבֶד נַמִי יֹאמְרוּ, עֶבֶד בָּרִיא – שְׁלֹשִׁים, עֶבֶד מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין – שְׁלֹשִׁים?!

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said a different proof: Had two men en-gaged in forced intercourse with her, one vaginal intercourse, and one anal intercourse, they will say: If one who engaged in forced intercourse with an untainted virgin pays fifty sela , does one who engaged in forced intercourse with her when she is tainted, i.e., after she has engaged in anal intercourse, also pay fifty sela ? Apparently, the fifty sela is the fixed sum of the fine, while the rest of the payment varies on a case-by-case basis. Abaye said to him: This too is no proof, as if so, with regard to a slave as well, they will say if one whose ox gored a healthy slave pays thirty sela , does one whose ox gored a slave afflicted with boils also pay thirty sela ?

אֶלָּא אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: אָמַר קְרָא ״תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִינָּהּ״, הָנֵי – תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִינָּהּ, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם. רָבָא אֲמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשּׁוֹכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף״ הֲנָאַת שְׁכִיבָה – חֲמִשִּׁים, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם.

Rather, Abaye said a different proof. The verse says: “Fifty shekels of silver… because he tormented her” (Deuteronomy 22:29); these fifty sela are the fine paid because he tormented her. From which it may be inferred that there are the additional payments of humiliation and degradation beyond that sum mentioned in the verse. Rava said an alternative proof. The verse says: “And the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver” (Deuteronomy 22:29). For the pleasure of lying with her he pays fifty sela ; may be inferred that there are the additional payments of humiliation and degradation, beyond payment of the fine.

וְאֵימָא לְדִידָהּ? אָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״ – כָּל שֶׁבַח נְעוּרֶיהָ לְאָבִיהָ.

The Gemara asks: And say that these additional payments are paid to her? The Gemara answers that the verse says: “Between a father and his daughter, being in her young womanhood, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17), from which it is derived that all profits of her young womanhood go to her father.

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה הַבַּת לְאָבִיהָ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְכִי יִמְכּוֹר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה״ מָה אָמָה מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְרַבָּהּ, אַף בַּת מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לְאָבִיהָ – לָמָּה לִי? תֵּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִ״בִּנְעוּרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״! אֶלָּא, הַהִיא בַּהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: From where is it derived that the handiwork of the daughter goes to her father? It is as it is stated: “And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant” (Exodus 21:7), juxtaposing his daughter to a maidservant: Just as a maidservant, her handiwork belongs to her master, as she was sold for that purpose; so too a daughter, her handiwork goes to her father. Why do I need this complicated proof? Let him derive it directly from the verse “Being in her young womanhood, in her father’s house.” Rather, this cannot be derived from that verse because that verse is written with regard to the nullification of vows. A young woman is subject to her father’s authority with regard to her vows, which he has the right to nullify. The matter of monetary rights is not addressed in that verse.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: נֵילַף מִינֵּיהּ – מָמוֹנָא מֵאִיסּוּרָא לָא יָלְפִינַן. וְכִי תֵּימָא: נֵילַף מִקְּנָסָא – מָמוֹנָא מִקְּנָסָא לָא יָלְפִינַן. אֶלָּא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּאָבִיהָ הָוֵי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי – מָסַר לָהּ למְנוּוָּל וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין.

And if you say: Let us derive monetary matters from vows, i.e., just as she is subject to her father’s authority with regard to vows the same is true with regard to monetary matters, we do not derive monetary matters from ritual matters. And if you say: Let us derive that her father receives payment from the halakha of a fine, i.e., just as the fine is paid to her father, as explicitly stated in the Torah, so too, other payments are also paid to her father, we do not derive monetary matters from fines. The payment of a fine is a novel element decreed by the Torah and cannot serve as a paradigm for standard monetary matters. Rather, the Gemara explains that it is reasonable that the payments of humiliation and degradation are paid to her father, as if he wished to do so he could give her hand in marriage to a repulsive man or one afflicted with boils, thereby humiliating her. Since her humiliation is under his control, payment for her humiliation is similarly his.

״פְּגָם – רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ הִיא שִׁפְחָה נִמְכֶּרֶת״. הֵיכִי שָׁיְימִינַן לָהּ? אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בְּתוּלָה לְשִׁפְחָה בְּעוּלָה לְשַׁמְּשׁוֹ,

The mishna continues: How is her degradation assessed? One considers her as though she was a maidservant sold in the marketplace, and assesses how much she would have been worth beforehand and how much she would be worth currently. The Gemara asks: How do we assess her value? Shmuel’s father said: One estimates the difference between how much a person is willing to give to purchase a virgin maidservant and how much he is willing to give to purchase a non-virgin maidservant to serve him.

מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינָּהּ? אֶלָּא: בֵּין שִׁפְחָה בְּעוּלָה לְשִׁפְחָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּעוּלָה לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ לְעַבְדּוֹ. וּלְעַבְדּוֹ מַאי נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִינָּהּ? בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לְרַבּוֹ קוֹרַת רוּחַ הֵימֶנּוּ.

The Gemara asks: With regard to a non-virgin maidservant to serve him; if he purchases her for service, what difference is there to him whether or not she is a virgin? Rather, the difference between a maidservant who engaged in intercourse and a maidservant who did not engage in intercourse is with regard to how much one is willing to marry her to his slave. The Gemara further asks: And with regard to marrying her to his slave, what difference is there to him whether or not she is a virgin? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to a slave from whom his master has a sense of satisfaction, and he seeks a virgin for the slave in order to reciprocate. The difference between the price that the master is willing to pay for each of the maidservants is the degradation that the offender pays the victim.

מתני׳ כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֶכֶר – אֵין קְנָס, וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְנָס – אֵין מֶכֶר. קְטַנָּה – יֵשׁ לָהּ מֶכֶר וְאֵין לָהּ קְנָס, נַעֲרָה – יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס וְאֵין לָהּ מֶכֶר. הַבּוֹגֶרֶת – אֵין לָהּ לֹא מֶכֶר וְלֹא קְנָס.

Any place where there is sale by a father of his minor daughter as a Hebrew maidservant, there is no fine if she is raped. And any place where there is a fine, when a young woman is raped; there is no sale by the father. The Gemara specifies: A minor is subject to sale by her father, and she is not entitled to a fine if she is raped. A young woman is entitled to a fine if she is raped and is not subject to sale. A grown woman is neither subject to sale nor entitled to a fine.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר. דְּתַנְיָא: קְטַנָּה מִבַּת יוֹם אֶחָד וְעַד שֶׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת – יֵשׁ לָהּ מֶכֶר וְאֵין לָהּ קְנָס, מִשֶּׁתָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁתִּיבָּגֵר יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס וְאֵין לָהּ מֶכֶר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֶכֶר – אֵין קְנָס, וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קְנָס – אֵין מֶכֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: קְטַנָּה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְעַד שֶׁתִּיבָּגֵר – יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This halakha in the mishna is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis say: She is entitled to a fine even where there is a sale, as it is taught in a baraita : A minor girl, from one day old until she grows two pubic hairs, is subject to sale and is not entitled to a fine. From when she grows two pubic hairs and becomes a young woman until she matures into a grown woman, she is entitled to a fine and she is not subject to sale; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, as Rabbi Meir would state the principle: Any place where there is a sale there is no fine, and any place where there is a fine there is no sale. And the Rabbis say: A minor girl from the age of three years and one day until she matures into a grown woman is entitled to a fine.

קְנָס אִין, מֶכֶר לָא?! אֵימָא: אַף קְנָס בִּמְקוֹם מֶכֶר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – אָמַר קְרָא ״וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״ – בִּמְהַוָּה עַצְמָהּ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְרַבָּנַן? אֲמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמַר קְרָא ״נַעֲרָ״ – אֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה בְּמַשְׁמָע.

The Gemara questions the statement of the Rabbis in the baraita with regard to a girl more than three years of age: A fine, yes, but sale, no? Do the Rabbis maintain that a father cannot sell his minor daughter as a Hebrew maidservant? Rather, emend the text and say: She is even entitled to a fine where she is subject to sale. Rav Ḥisda said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as the verse says with regard to a rapist: “And the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty sela , and to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29). The verse is speaking with regard to one halakhically competent to marry by herself, which means she must be a young woman. The Gemara asks: And what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? Reish Lakish said that the verse says “young woman [ na’ara ]”; however, although the term is pronounced na’ara , it is written as na’ar , heh , and even a minor girl is indicated by that term.

שְׁמָעָהּ רַב פַּפָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנָן מִבֵּי כְּלוֹחִית, אֲזַל אֲמָרָהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אַשִׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתּוּן אַהָא מַתְנִיתוּ לָהּ, אֲנַן אַהָא מַתְנִינַן לָהּ: אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע עַל הַקְּטַנָּה – פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה״ – נַעֲרָה מָלֵא דִּיבֵּר הַכָּתוּב.

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanan, from a place called Bei Keloḥit, heard this halakha and went and said it before Rav Shimi bar Ashi. Rav Shimi said to him: You teach this statement concerning that matter. We, based on our traditions, teach it concerning this matter, as Reish Lakish said: One who slanders a minor girl, falsely claiming that she was not a virgin on the wedding night, is exempt from paying the fine, as it is stated: “And they shall give them to the father of the young woman [ na’ara ]” (Deuteronomy 22:19). The verse spoke of na’ara , not only pronounced but written in full, indicating that this payment is in effect only with regard to a young woman, not a minor girl. na’ar , even a minor girl would be included.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: טַעֲמָא דְּכָתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״נַעֲרָה״, הָא לָאו הָכִי – הֲוָה אָמִינָא אֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה? וְהָא כְּתִיב ״וְאִם אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא נִמְצְאוּ בְתוּלִים לַנַּעֲרָה וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ וּסְקָלוּהָ״ – וּקְטַנָּה לָאו בַּת עוֹנָשִׁין הִיא! אֶלָּא: כָּאן – נַעֲרָה, הָא כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״נַעֲרָ״ – אֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה בְּמַשְׁמָע.

Rav Adda bar Ahava strongly objects to this: The reason is that the Merciful One writes “ na’ara ” with a heh . Is that to say that if that were not the case I would have said that this halakha applies even to a minor girl? How is that possible? But isn’t it written: “And if this matter was true, that the hymen of this young woman was not found intact; then they shall remove the young woman to the entrance of her father’s house and stone her” (Deuteronomy 22:20–21). And this verse clearly refers to a young woman old enough to be punished, as a minor is not subject to punishment. Rather, here, with regard to the payment of a slanderer, the verse speaks of a na’ara , written with a heh , and a minor is excluded. This is a paradigm from which it may be inferred that in any place that it is stated “ na’ara ” without a heh , even a minor girl is indicated.