are really forbidden relations1 and prohibitions of the second degree [are those relations which were forbidden] by the Rabbis?2 Why should the latter not receive the fine since they are fit for him Biblically? — But, forbidden relations are those with regard to which one is liable to the penalty of death at the hand of the Court,3 prohibitions of the second degree are those with regard to which there is kareth;4 but in the case of prohibitions with regard to which one trespasses a plain prohibitory law,5 they receive the fine. And whose opinion is it? [It is that of] Simeon the Temanite.5 Some say: 'Forbidden relations' are those with regard to which one is liable to the penalty of death at the hand of the Court or kareth, 'prohibitions of the second degree are those with regard to which one transgresses a plain prohibitory law. Whose opinion is this? That of R. Simeon b. Menassia.5
[It is said above:]6 A woman who refuses her husband by mi'un has no claim to fine [for outrage] or to indemnity for seduction. But any other minor has a claim [to the fine]. Whose opinion would this be? That of the Rabbis, who say: A minor receives the fine.7 Read now the other clause: 'A barren woman has no claim to fine [for outrage] or to indemnity for seduction'. This is according to R. Meir, who says: The minor does not receive the fine; and this one came from her state as minor into the state of womanhood.8 The first clause would then be according to the Rabbis and the last clause according to R. Meir? And if you would say that all of it is according to R. Meir, but in the case of the woman who refuses her husband by mi'un he holds like R. Judah9 — does he indeed hold the view [of R. Judah]? Has it not been taught: Until when can the daughter exercise the right of mi'un? Until she grows two hairs10 — [these are] the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says: Until the black is more than the white?11 — But it is according to R. Judah,12 and with regard to a minor he holds like R. Meir,13 But does he14 hold this view?15 Did not Rab Judah say [that] Rab said: 'These are the words of R. Meir'?16 Now if it had been so,17 he ought to have said: 'These are the words of R. Meir and R. Judah'? — This Tanna18 holds according to R. Meir in one thing19 and differs from him in one thing.20 Rafram said: What is meant by 'a woman who refuses her husband by mi'un'? One who is entitled to refuse.21 Let him then teach22 'a minor'? — This is indeed difficult.
[It is said above:] 'A barren woman has no claim to fine [for outrage] or to indemnity for seduction. A contradiction was raised against this: A woman who is a deaf-mute, or an idiot, or barren, has a claim to fine [for outrage], and a suit can be brought [by her husband] against her concerning her virginity. What contradiction is there? The one [Baraitha]23 is according to R. Meir24 and the other [Baraitha] is according to the Rabbis! But he who raised the questions how could he raise it at all?25 — He wanted to raise another contradiction: Against a woman who is a deaf-mute, or an idiot, or has reached maturity,26 or lost her virginity through an accident, no suit can be brought concerning her virginity; against a woman who is blind or barren, a suit can be brought concerning her virginity. Symmachus says in the name of R. Meir: Against a blind woman a suit cannot be brought concerning her virginity! — Said R. Shesheth: This is not difficult: the one [Baraitha] is according to R. Gamaliel and the other [Baraitha] is according to R. Joshua.27 [But] say when does R. Gamaliel hold this view?28 When she pleads;29 but does he hold this view when she does not plead — Yes, since R. Gamaliel holds that she is believed, [we apply], in a case like this, [the verse], Open thy mouth for the dumb.30
'And against a woman who has reached maturity, one cannot bring a suit concerning her virginity.' Did not Rab say: To a woman who has reached maturity one gives the [whole] first night?31
[It is said above:] 'Symmachus says in the name of R. Meir: Against a blind woman a suit cannot be brought concerning her virginity'. What is the reason of Symmachus? — R. Zera said: 'because she may have struck against the ground'.4 All the others5 may also have struck against the ground?6 All the others see it7 and show it to their mothers,8 this one does not see it and does not shew it to her mother.9
[It is said above]:10 'And a woman who goes out because of an evil name has no claim to fine [for outrage] and to indemnity for seduction'. A woman who goes out because of an evil name is liable to be stoned?11 — R. Shesheth said: He12 means it thus: if an evil name has gone out concerning her in her childhood13 she has no claim to fine [for outrage] or to indemnity for seduction. R. Papa said: Infer from this [that] one does not collect [a debt] with an unsound document. How shall we imagine this case? If to say that a rumour has gone out that the document is forged, and similarly here that a rumour has gone out that she has been unchaste? — Did not Raba say [that] if the rumour has gone out in the town [that] she is unchaste one does not pay any attention to it?14 — But [the case is that] two [persons] came and said [that] she asked them to commit with her a transgression15 and similarly here [that] two [persons] came and said [that] he16 said to them: Forge me [the document]. It is all right there,17 since there are many unrestrained men.18 But here19 — if he20 has been established,21 have [therefore] all Israelites been established?22 — Here also, since he23 was going round searching for a forgery, I can say [that] he [him. self] has forged it and written it.24
MISHNAH. AND25 IN THE FOLLOWING CASES NO FINE26 IS INVOLVED: IF A MAN HAD INTERCOURSE WITH A FEMALE PROSELYTE, A FEMALE CAPTIVE OR A BONDWOMAN, WHO WAS RANSOMED, PROSELYTIZED OR MANUMITTED AFTER THE AGE OF27 THREE YEARS AND A DAY.28 R. JUDAH RULED: IF A FEMALE CAPTIVE WAS RANSOMED SHE IS DEEMED TO BE IN HER VIRGINITY29 EVEN IF SHE BE OF AGE.
A MAN WHO HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS DAUGHTER. HIS DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER, HIS SON'S DAUGHTER. HIS WIFE'S DAUGHTER. HER SON'S DAUGHTER OR HER DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER INCURS NO FINE,30 BECAUSE HE FORFEITS HIS LIFE, THE DEATH PENALTIES OF SUCH TRANSGRESSORS BEING31 IN THE HANDS OF BETH DIN, AND HE WHO FORFEITS HIS LIFE PAYS NO MONETARY FINE FOR IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, AND YET NO HARM FOLLOW HE SHALL BE SURELY FINED.32
GEMARA. R. Johanan said: Both R. Judah and R. Dosa taught the same thing. As to R. Judah [we have the ruling] just mentioned. As to R. Dosa? — It was taught: A female captive33 may eat terumah;34 so R. Dosa. 'What after all is it', said R. Dosa, 'that that Arab35 has done to her? Has he rendered her unfit to be a priest's wife merely because he squeezed her between her breasts?'36
Said Raba:37 Is it not possible that there is really no [agreement between them]?38 R. Judah may have laid down his ruling39 here40 only in order that the sinner may gain no advantage,41 but there42 he may hold the same opinion as the Rabbis;43 or else: [May not] R. Dosa have laid down his ruling44 only there45 [where it concerns] terumah which [at the present time is only] a Rabbinical enactment,46 but in the case of a fine which is a Pentateuchal law47 he may well hold the same view as the Rabbis?48
Abaye answered him: Is R. Judah's reason here49 'that the sinner may gain no advantage'? Surely it was taught: R. Judah ruled, 'If a female captive was ransomed50 she is deemed to be in her virginity,51 and even if she is ten years old her kethubah is two hundred52 zuz'.53 Now how54 [could the reason] 'that the sinner shall gain no advantage' apply55 there?56 — There also [a good reason exists for R. Judah's ruling, since otherwise57 men]58 would abstain from marrying her.59
Could R. Judah, however, maintain the view [that a female captive] retains the status of a virgin60 when in fact, it was taught: A man who ransoms a female captive may marry her, but he who gives evidence on her behalf61 may not marry her,62 and R. Judah ruled: In either case he62 may not marry her!63
Is not this,64 however, self-contradictory? You said, 'A man who ransoms a female captive may marry her', and then it is stated, 'He65 who gives evidence on her behalf may not marry her'; shall he66 not marry her [it may well be asked] because he gives also evidence on her behalf? — This is no difficulty. It is this that was meant: A man who ransoms a female captive and gives evidence on her behalf may marry her,67 but he who merely gives evidence on her behalf may not marry her.68
In any case, however, does not the contradiction against R. Judah remain?69 — R. Papa replied: Read, 'R. Judah ruled: In either case he may marry her'.
R. Huna the son of R. Joshua replied: [The reading may] still be as it was originally given,70 but R. Judah was speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their own ruling. 'According to my view71 [he argued] the man may marry her in either case; but according to your view72 it should have been laid down that in either case he may not marry her'.
And the Rabbis?73 — 'A man who ransoms a captive and gives evidence on her behalf may marry her' because no one would throw money away for nothing,74 but 'he who merely gives evidence on her behalf may not marry her' because he may have fallen in love with her.75
R. Papa b. Samuel pointed out the following contradiction to R. Joseph:
- To Next Folio -