אֵימָא בְּתוּלָה לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָסָה פְּרָט לְנַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה 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.
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 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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הַאי סְבָרָא מְנָא לֵיהּ נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּתַנְיָא כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקוֹל כְּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת שֶׁיְּהֵא זֶה כְּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת וּמוֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת כָּזֶה 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.
קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אַדְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא § 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין לָא אָתְיָא גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה וּמַפְּקָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא מִפְּשָׁטֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּבָרַיְיתָא אָתְיָא גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה וּמַפְּקָא מִפְּשָׁטֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי 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?
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 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.
וּלְרַבָּה דְּאָמַר חִידּוּשׁ הוּא שֶׁחִידְּשָׁה תּוֹרָה בִּקְנָס אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיקְּטִיל מְשַׁלֵּם מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין 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.
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 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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי בָּא עָלֶיהָ וּמֵתָה פָּטוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְנָתַן לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה וְלֹא לַאֲבִי מֵתָה מִלְּתָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְאַבָּיֵי מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא § 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.
דְּבָעֵי רָבָא יֵשׁ בֶּגֶר בַּקֶּבֶר אוֹ אֵין בֶּגֶר בַּקֶּבֶר יֵשׁ בֶּגֶר בַּקֶּבֶר וְדִבְנָהּ הָוֵי אוֹ דִלְמָא אֵין בֶּגֶר בַּקֶּבֶר וּדְאָבִיהָ הָוֵי 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.