Yerushalmi Ketubot 3:4 ירושלמי כתובות ג׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: If an adolescent girl had been preliminarily married but was divorced⁵¹If she was raped while still preliminarily married, it was a capital crime and she cannot collect the fine., Rebbi Yose the Galilean says she cannot collect the fine; Rebbi Aqiba says, she can collect the fine and it belongs to her.

HALAKHAH: “An adolescent girl who had been preliminarily married,” etc. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean? “Who was not preliminarily married.⁵²In both the rules about the seducer (Ex. 22:15) and the rapist (Deut. 22:28) it is emphasized that the fine is due only for “a virgin who was not preliminarily married.” Now the verse cannot mean “a virgin not currently preliminarily married” since it is obvious that seduction or rape of a preliminarily married girl is a capital crime and, therefore, free from paying the fine and the mention of her status would be superfluous. R. Aqiba also agrees with this analysis of the verse (Babli 38a), only he reads it that for “a virgin who was not preliminarily married” the fine is payable to her father; otherwise it is payable to the girl whose preliminary marriage emancipated her from her father’s power. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 38a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim, Neziqin 17; a similar argument is Sifry Deut. 244. An argument strictly following R. Yose the Galilean is in Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Ioḥai Mišpaṭim, pp. 207–208.”

Before she was preliminarily married, he gives to her father; after she had been preliminarily married, he gives to herself⁵³This is R. Aqiba’s opinion; a mention of R. Aqiba might have been omitted by the scribe; the statement is ascribed to R. Aqiba in the Mekhilta.. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose the Galilean⁵⁴As shown at the end of the paragraph, this should read “R. Aqiba”., if she is an adolescent, he gives to her father⁵⁵The rule for the rapist is formulated for “a virgin adolescent”, when the payment of 50 pieces of silver is due to her father; in the rule for the seducer, only “a virgin” is mentioned, and payment of “bride money”, due to the woman at the dissolution of the marriage. On the face of it, the rule for the seducer does not exclude an adult victim.; if she is an adult, does he give it to herself? If she is a virgin, he gives to her father; if she is injured by wood, does he give it to herself? It is different, because it is written “an adolescent”, adolescent but not adult. “A virgin,” a virgin not one injured by wood. Is it not written⁵²In both the rules about the seducer (Ex. 22:15) and the rapist (Deut. 22:28) it is emphasized that the fine is due only for “a virgin who was not preliminarily married.” Now the verse cannot mean “a virgin not currently preliminarily married” since it is obvious that seduction or rape of a preliminarily married girl is a capital crime and, therefore, free from paying the fine and the mention of her status would be superfluous. R. Aqiba also agrees with this analysis of the verse (Babli 38a), only he reads it that for “a virgin who was not preliminarily married” the fine is payable to her father; otherwise it is payable to the girl whose preliminary marriage emancipated her from her father’s power. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 38a, Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim, Neziqin 17; a similar argument is Sifry Deut. 244. An argument strictly following R. Yose the Galilean is in Mekhilta deR. Simeon ben Ioḥai Mišpaṭim, pp. 207–208. “who was not preliminarily married,” “who was not preliminarily married,” to infer from there by an equal cut⁵⁶The second hermeneutical rule, that equal expressions in two different paragraphs lets one transfer rules from one paragraph to the other. A condition for the applicability of that rule is that the expressions should be “free”, not needed to establish a rule. For R. Yose the Galilean, the expressions “who was not preliminarily married” are not free since they establish a nontrivial rule; they cannot be used to argue by “equal cut”. But for R. Aqiba the expressions are essentially superfluous and can be used.? Since in one case it is 50, so in the other case it is 50⁵⁷The amount of bride money is not stated in Ex. 22; it is taken from Deut. 22 to be 50 holy šeqel which in talmudic theory are 200 zuz.. Does Rebbi Yose⁵⁸Rebbi Yose the Galilean who cannot accept R. Aqiba’s “equal cut” as valid. not have “50”? He has “silver, silver”⁵⁹In Ex. 22:16, “he shall weigh silver”; in Deut. 22:29 “50 silver pieces”. The same argument is quoted in the Babli, 38b.. Since “silver” written at one place is 50, so “silver” [written at the other place]⁵⁷The amount of bride money is not stated in Ex. 22; it is taken from Deut. 22 to be 50 holy šeqel which in talmudic theory are 200 zuz. also is 50.

If he came to her before she was preliminarily married, then she was preliminarily married and divorced⁶⁰Does R. Yose the Galilean require the rapist to pay even after his victim was preliminarily married?. Does the statement of Rebbi Aḥai not imply that he pays? Did we not state: “For he had mistreated her,⁶¹Deut. 22:29. A reason is given for the punishment of the rapist; therefore, the punishment applies any time the reason applies.” to include the orphan for the fine, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean⁶²In Sifry Deut. 245, R. Eliezer holds that this refers only to the rapist, for whom the reason is given, but not to the seducer, for whom the rules do not extend to the orphan. In the Babli, 44b, R. Yose the Galilean applies the same rule to the orphaned victim of the seducer by an argument reproduced in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim, Neziqin 17.. Rebbi Aḥai said, explain it that he came to her before her father died; when subsequently her father died he already was obligated to give to her father⁶³R. Yose the Galilean is not contradicting himself; he only exempts the rapist or seducer of the preliminarily married girl if the sexual act happened while the girl was no longer in the father’s power. But if it happened earlier, even though the court proceedings had not started at the father’s death or the girl’s preliminary marriage, the obligation of rapist or seducer is not erased.. One came to her before her father died and subsequently her father died; one came to her before she was preliminarily married, subsequently she was divorced⁶⁴The two cases are parallel.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said that Rav Ḥisda asked: If one came to her before she was married and then she was married⁶⁵Who collects the fine if an adolescent was raped and then (both preliminarily and definitively) married before the rape was adjudicated in court?? Since you say there, she is under her husband but he has to pay to her father, so in this case she is under her husband but he has to pay to her father.