Rava’s dilemma is based on the assumption that a rape victim is able to conceive before she is a grown woman. The Gemara asks: And can a minor conceive? But didn’t Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Naḥman: It is permitted for three women to engage in relations with a contraceptive resorbent. These are they: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman. The baraita elaborates: A minor may do so lest she conceive and die; a pregnant woman, lest her existing fetus be crushed by another fetus and assume the shape of a sandal fish if she conceives a second time; and a nursing woman, lest she conceive, causing her milk to spoil, which will lead her to wean her son prematurely, endangering his health.

And the baraita further states: What is a minor girl? A minor girl is a girl from eleven years and one day old until twelve years and one day old. If she was less than that age or more than that age, she proceeds and engages in relations in her usual manner; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Both this woman and that woman, i.e., in the cases of all these women, she proceeds and engages in relations in her usual manner, and from Heaven they will have mercy and prevent any mishap, due to the fact that it is stated: “The Lord preserves the simple” (Psalms 116:6). Apparently, a minor is unable to conceive.

And if you say that she conceived when she was a young woman, twelve years old, and gave birth when she was a young woman, and died before she reached the status of a grown woman, can a woman give birth in six months after conception? But didn’t Shmuel say: There are only six months between becoming a young woman and becoming a grown woman? And if you say that Shmuel is saying that it is less than six months that there is not transition from young woman to grown woman status; however, more than six months there is transition, as different women develop differently, and therefore she could conceive and give birth while she is a young woman, that is not so, as Shmuel said: Only, indicating that the period is neither less nor more than six months.

Rather, Rava’s dilemma is unrelated to whether or not her son inherits the fine payment. This is his dilemma: Is there achievement of grown-woman status in the grave and therefore the right of the father to receive payment of the fine lapsed; and since there is no one claiming the payment, the rapist need not pay? Or perhaps there is no achievement of grown-woman status in the grave, and the right of the father did not lapse. Mar bar Rav Ashi raised the dilemma in this manner: Does death effect grown-woman status or does it not effect grown-woman status? No resolution was found for this dilemma, and the Gemara concludes that the dilemma stands unresolved.

On a similar note, Rava inquired of Abaye: If he forcibly had intercourse with a young woman and she was later betrothed, what is the halakha? Abaye said to him: Is it written: And he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not betrothed? Actually it is written: “If a man finds a young woman…who was not betrothed” (Deuteronomy 22:28), which indicates that the determining factor is whether she was betrothed before the rape and not whether she is engaged at the moment of payment. Rava asked him: And according to your reasoning, that which was taught in a baraita: If he forcibly had intercourse with a young woman and she later married, the fine is paid to her, not to her father. There too, ask: Is it written: And he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not married? Even though the verse does not address the moment of payment, if she married the fine is paid to her.

Abaye retorted: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of marriage, there is reason to diverge from the plain meaning of the verse, as grown-woman status removes her from the authority of the father and marriage removes her from the authority of the father. Just as with regard to grown-woman status, if he forcibly had intercourse with her and she became a grown woman, the fine is paid to her, as it is written: “And he shall give to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:29); so too, with regard to marriage, if he forcibly had intercourse with her and she later married, the fine is paid to her. However, with regard to betrothal, does it remove her from the authority of the father entirely? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 66b): With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows? Apparently, betrothal does not remove her entirely from her father’s authority, and therefore, the halakha with regard to betrothal cannot be derived from the halakha with regard to grown-woman status. Therefore, Rava’s question is not difficult.

MISHNA: The seducer gives the father of his victim three things, and the rapist gives the father four. The mishna specifies: The seducer gives the father payments for humiliation, degradation, and the fine. A rapist adds an addition to his payments, as he also gives payment for the pain. What are the differences between the halakha of a rapist and that of a seducer? The rapist gives payment for the pain, and the seducer does not give payment for the pain. The rapist gives payment immediately, and the seducer does not pay those payments immediately but only when he releases her. The rapist drinks from his vessel [atzitzo], i.e., marries the woman he raped, perforce, and the seducer, if he wishes to release her, he releases her.

The mishna clarifies: How does the rapist drink from his vessel? Even if the woman he raped is lame, even if she is blind, and even if she is afflicted with boils, he is obligated to marry her and may not divorce her. However, if a matter of licentiousness is found in her, e.g., if she committed adultery, or if she is unfit to enter the Jewish people, e.g., if she is a mamzeret, he is not permitted to sustain her as his wife, as it is stated: “And to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred that she must be a woman who is legally suitable for him.

GEMARA: The mishna taught that a rapist pays for the pain that he caused. The Gemara asks: For what pain is he obligated to pay? Shmuel’s father said: It is for the pain that he caused when he slammed her onto the ground while raping her. Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: But if what you say is so, if he slammed her onto silk, so too is the halakha that he is exempt from payment for pain? And if you say indeed that it is so, but isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A rapist does not pay for the pain due to the fact