There is a fine even in a place where there is sale. That is, not only can a minor girl from the age of three be sold until she matures, but she also receives payment of the fine.

§ The Gemara questions the basic halakha that one who rapes young women of flawed lineage is liable to pay the fine: And are these young women entitled to the fine? But why? I read here with regard to a rapist: “And to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which the Sages derived that only a wife who is suitable for him is eligible to receive payment of a fine from a rapist. Reish Lakish said that one verse states: “If a man finds a young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:28), and another states: “And he shall give to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:29). This is tantamount to three mentions: Young woman, young woman, the young woman, as the superfluous definite article is interpreted as a third mention of the term. One mention is required to teach the matter itself, that one who rapes a young woman is liable to pay a fine; and one is to include payment of a fine to those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions; and one is to include payment of a fine to those young women for whose rape one is liable to receive karet.

Rav Pappa said: This is derived from the halakha of the seducer, as the verses state: “And if a man seduce a virgin…he shall weigh money like the dowry of the virgins” (Exodus 22:15–16). This is tantamount to three mentions: Virgin, virgins, the virgins. One mention is required to teach the matter itself; and one is to include those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions; and one is to include those young women for whom one who rapes them is liable to receive karet.

The Gemara asks: And Rav Pappa, what is the reason that he did not cite the source as Reish Lakish did? The Gemara answers: That derivation from the three instances of the term young woman is required by him to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said, as Abaye said: If one engaged in forced intercourse with a young woman and she died before he stood trial, he is exempt from paying the fine, as it is stated: “And he shall give to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:29). From the fact that the verse does not simply say: To her father, it is inferred: To the father of the young woman and not to the father of a dead woman. He is liable only if the young woman is still alive.

The Gemara asks: And Reish Lakish, what is the reason that he did not cite the source as Rav Pappa did? The Gemara answers: That derivation from the three instances of the term virgin is required by him to derive a verbal analogy, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to a seducer: “He shall weigh [yishkol] money like the dowry of the virgins” (Exodus 22:16), from which it is derived that this fine of a seducer should be a sum of fifty sela like the dowry of the virgins specified in the case of a rapist; and the dowry of the virgins must be paid in sela like this fine of the seducer. Therefore, Reish Lakish holds that no additional matters may be derived from the term virgins. The Gemara asks: And for Reish Lakish too, isn’t it required by him to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said? And similarly, for Rav Pappa, isn’t it required by him to derive a verbal analogy?

Rather, there are six verses written, and both Reish Lakish and Rav Pappa derive matters from all of them. In the two passages discussing the rapist and the seducer, it is written: Young woman, young woman, the young woman; virgin, virgins, the virgins. Two mentions are required to teach the matters themselves, the basic halakhot of a rapist and a seducer; one mention is needed to teach in accordance with that which Abaye said; and one mention is necessary to derive a verbal analogy with regard to the dowry of virgins. Two mentions of the term remain for him; one is to include those young women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions, and one is to include those young women for whom one who rapes them is liable to receive karet. Reish Lakish and Rav Pappa do not disagree; the derivation of each complements that of the other.

§ The Gemara comments: And the mishna comes to exclude the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “And to him she shall be [tihye] as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29). Shimon HaTimni says: This is referring to a woman for whom there is betrothal [havaya]. If one betroths a woman with whom relations are punishable by karet, the betrothal does not take effect. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: This is referring to a woman who is suitable for him to sustain, whom he need not divorce due to her flawed lineage.

The Gemara begins its analysis of the baraita with the question: What is the practical difference between the statements of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Zeira said: The difference between their opinions is with regard to a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman, or any other woman who is forbidden but for whom betrothal takes effect. According to the one who said that the criterion is whether there is betrothal, for this woman there is also betrothal. If a Jewish man betroths a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman, although it is prohibited to do so, the betrothal takes effect. However, according to the one who said that the criterion is whether the woman is suitable for him to sustain, this woman is not suitable for him to sustain, since due to the prohibition he is obligated to divorce her.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, who said: Betrothal does not take effect for women for whose rape one is liable for violating prohibitions, what is the difference between them? According to his opinion, betrothal of a mamzeret does not take effect either. The Gemara answers: The difference between their statements is the case of a widow raped by a High Priest, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Simai, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: Rabbi Akiva deems children from all illicit relations mamzerim, except for a child born from a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah said: “A widow and a divorcée he shall not take…and he shall not profane [yeḥallel] his seed among his people” (Leviticus 21:14–15), from which it is derived: If he has a child with a widow he creates ḥillulin, i.e., the male offspring of those relations is a ḥalal, disqualified from the priesthood, and the female offspring is a ḥalala, unfit to marry a priest, but he does not create mamzerim. Apparently, in that case, the betrothal does take effect.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yeshevav, who said: Come, let us scream at Akiva ben Yosef, who is proliferating mamzerim, as he would say: With regard to anyone who does not have the possibility of permitted relations in the Jewish people, including a widow with a High Priest, the offspring is a mamzer, what is the difference between their opinions, between the one who said that a fine is paid to women with whom the betrothal takes effect and the one who said that a fine is paid to women suitable for one to sustain? Rabbi Yeshevav maintains that betrothal does not take effect even in the case of a widow to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to