Yerushalmi Ketubot 3:7 ירושלמי כתובות ג׳:ז׳

MISHNAH: About an orphan girl who had been preliminarily married and was divorced¹⁰⁰This Mishnah follows R. Aqiba (Mishnah 3) who holds that the underage girl who is emancipated from her father’s power either by her marriage arranged by the father or the father’s death has the status of an orphan and collects the fine for herself., Rebbi Eleazar says that the rapist has to pay but the seducer does not¹⁰¹What he has or does not have to pay is a matter of dispute in the Halakhah..

HALAKHAH: “About an orphan girl who had been preliminarily married and was divorced,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar¹⁰²Ben Shamua, the Tanna. follows the opinion of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said that she can collect the fine and it belongs to her, so Rebbi Eleazar said that she can collect the fine and it belongs to her. Then also for a seduced one? Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar¹⁰³Bar Pada, the Amora., explain it that she remitted it to him¹⁰⁴Rashi and all of his followers explain that, since she legally is an adult, she slept with him of her own free will and the law will assume that in doing so she forgave him all payments due. The Babli, 40a, simply states that practice follows R. Eleazar without discussing the reason.. Can anybody remit anthing that does not belong to him¹⁰⁵It seems that this Amora did not have “an orphan” in his Mishnah. He asks whether the consent of the minor has any legal consequences since the money is her father’s and she has no possibility of depriving him of his claim.? Explain it for an orphan; as it was stated in the House of Rebbi thus¹⁰⁶This is our Mishnah. The text seems to indicate that this is a later edition of the Mishnah and that in the first Mishnah the orphan was not mentioned.: The orphan, Rebbi Eleazar said that the rapist has to pay her but the seducer does not. Can anybody remit something which is not in his possession? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ura: The fine is not due from the first moment on¹⁰⁷The question is whether the fine is due because of the seducer’s illegal act, then it is due from the moment of the act and the seduced girl has the possibility to forgive all monetary claims to her lover, or whether it is due only upon sentence by the court. In the latter case, forgiveness would need a conscious act by the seduced and, by the time the case comes to court, she could well have changed her mind and go after the money. Then there is no reason that the law should assume that she remitted all money claims to her seducer.. As we have stated there¹⁰⁸Mishnah 4:1.: “If she came to court before her father died, [the payments due] belong to her father and if the father died they belong to the brothers.” If you say that the fine is due from the first moment, it would belong to the brothers from the first moment¹⁰⁹The Mishnah states that the heirs have claim to the money only if the father had a claim, i. e., if the case came before the court during the father’s lifetime. The Mishnah also asserts that the money belongs to the girl if the case came before the court after the father’s death. If a claim had existed from the moment of the seduction, it should have been part of the inheritance. Therefore, there is no claim before the case came to court.! Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The Mishnah deals with shame and diminution of value¹¹⁰Since the monetary value of these claims depends on the determination of the court, they certainly do not exist from the time of the seduction.. As Rebbi Mana said, how is it? The rapist is obligated for everything and the seducer is free from everything¹¹¹This is the ruling accepted by the Babli, 40a.. Rebbi Abin said, [Rebbi] Shammai asked: What does it mean that the rapist has to pay but the seducer does not? The rapist has to pay everything but the seducer is free [from paying] for shame and diminution of value but is obligated for the fine¹¹²Since she has no power to forgive the fine at the moment of the act, this claim still exists. But since she was a willing partner, she certainly will have forgiven him any payment for shame and diminution of value.. That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Or, the rapist is free [from paying] for shame and diminution of value but is obligated for the fine but the seducer is free from everything? That is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s¹¹³While it is difficult to understand why the rapist should not pay for the shame (since he will have to pay for the shame of an adult victim who has no fine), otherwise the ruling follows R. Yose the Galilean in Mishnah 4..