that she will ultimately suffer the same pain during intercourse when under the authority of her husband? They said to him: One who has intercourse against her will is not comparable to one who has intercourse willingly. Apparently, the pain associated with rape is a direct result of the forced intercourse and not of some associated cause. Rather, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It refers to the pain of spreading her legs during intercourse. And likewise, the verse says: “And you opened your legs to every passerby” (Ezekiel 16:25).

The Gemara asks: If so, a seduced woman should also be obligated to make that payment as well. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh stated a parable: To what can this matter of a seducer be compared? It can be compared to a person who said to another: Tear my silk and be exempt from payment. Since she engaged in relations of her own volition, she certainly absolved him of payment for the pain. The Gemara asks: Tear my silk? It is not her silk, and therefore she may not waive payment for damage to it; it is the silk of her father, as the fine and the other payments are paid to him. Rather, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that the clever women among them say that a seduced woman has no pain during intercourse, as she is a willing participant.

The Gemara asks: But don’t we see that even a married woman has pain when she engages in sexual relations for the first time? Abaye said: My foster mother told me that the pain is like hot water on the head of a bald man. Rava said: My wife, Rav Ḥisda’s daughter, told me that it is like the stab of a bloodletting knife. Rav Pappa said: My wife, Abba Sura’s daughter, told me that it is like the feeling of hard bread on the gums. When a woman engages in intercourse willingly, the pain is negligible. Therefore, the seducer is not obligated to pay for pain.

§ The mishna continues: The rapist gives payment immediately, and the seducer when he releases her, etc. The Gemara asks: When he releases her? Is she his wife? He did not yet marry her, so how can the mishna use the language of divorce? Abaye said: Say that he gives payment when he opts not to marry her. If he marries her he need not pay. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: Although they said that the seducer gives the fine when he opts not to marry her, the compensation for her humiliation and degradation he gives immediately. The baraita continues: Although both the rapist and the seducer are obligated to marry their victim, both she and her father are able to prevent the marriage.

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a woman who was seduced, it is written: “If her father refuses [maen yemaen] to give her to him” (Exodus 22:16), and the Sages interpreted: I have only derived that her father can prevent the marriage; from where do we derive that she herself can do so? The verse states: Maen yemaen, a double verb indicating that the marriage can be prevented in any case, i.e., she too may do so.

However, from where is it derived that they can prevent the marriage in the case of a rapist? Granted, she herself can prevent the marriage, as it is written: “And to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29), and the term “shall be” indicates with her consent. However, from where do we derive that her father can prevent the marriage?

Abaye said: No verse is necessary as it stands to reason that the father too can prevent the marriage so that a sinner will not profit. If her father could not prevent the marriage, the rapist would acquire the right to marry the young woman despite the father’s refusal, a right not accorded to one who seeks to betroth a young woman in a conventional manner. Rava said it is derived through an a fortiori inference: Just as in the case of a seducer, who contravened only her father’s will, as she acquiesced to his proposition, nevertheless both she and her father can prevent the marriage; in the case of a rapist, who contravened both her father’s will and her own will, all the more so is it not so that both she and her father can prevent the marriage?

The Gemara elaborates: Rava did not say in accordance with the explanation of Abaye, as since the rapist pays the fine he is not a sinner who profits, as he too must pay the dowry of a virgin even if he marries her. Likewise, Abaye did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rava because in the case of a seducer, where the seducer himself can prevent the marriage, her father can also prevent the marriage. In the case of a rapist, where the rapist himself cannot prevent the marriage, her father also cannot prevent the marriage.

It was taught in another baraita: Although the Sages said that the rapist gives payment immediately, when he releases her she has no claim upon him. The Gemara asks: When he releases her? Can he release her? It is prohibited by Torah law for him to do so. Rather, emend the baraita and say: When she leaves, if she seeks to divorce him and demands a bill of divorce, she has no monetary claim upon him. Similarly, if he died, the money of her fine offsets her marriage contract. The fine, which was the equivalent of the dowry of virgins, replaces her marriage contract. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even a rape victim has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, like the marriage contract of all non-virgin wives.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis maintain: What is the reason that the Sages instituted a marriage contract for the woman? They instituted it so that she will not be inconsequential in his eyes, enabling him to easily divorce her. Because divorcing her will cost money, he will not do so rashly. And this woman whom he raped, he cannot release her by Torah law, obviating the need for a marriage contract. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains: With regard to this woman too, although he cannot divorce her, he can torment her until she says: I do not want you. When she initiates the divorce, he can divorce her. Therefore, the Sages instituted that she receives the marriage contract of a non-virgin to prevent him from doing so.

The mishna continues: A rapist drinks from his vessel, and the seducer is not obligated to marry the woman he seduced. Rava from Parzakya said to Rav Ashi: Since the halakhot of a rapist and a seducer are derived from each other with regard to the sum of the fine,