The Gemara answers: If he proffers a claim that there was no blood after consummating the marriage, indeed he can cause her to lose her marriage contract with that claim. However, with what are we dealing here in the baraita? We are dealing with one who proffers a claim that he encountered an open entrance, i.e., there was no hymen. As the hymen of an adult woman is no longer completely intact, the claim is of no consequence.

The baraita continues: Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A blind woman does not have a claim concerning virginity. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the statement of Sumakhos? Rabbi Zeira said: Due to the fact that a blind woman is struck by falling onto the ground, causing her hymen to break. The Gemara asks: All girls tend to be struck by falling onto the ground as well; what is unique about blind girls? The Gemara answers: When all of the other girls fall, they see the blood flow and show it to their mother. The mother would then examine them and discover that her hymen was broken. This blind girl does not see the flow of blood and therefore does not show it too her mother. Due to that possibility, the man who married the blind woman must have considered the likelihood that her hymen is not intact, and therefore he cannot make a claim concerning virginity.

§ The previous baraita concluded: And one who leaves her husband due to a bad reputation has neither a fine for rape nor a fine for seduction. The initial understanding is that the baraita is referring to a young betrothed woman who leaves her husband because she committed adultery. The Gemara asks: One who leaves her husband due to a bad reputation is subject to stoning as an adulteress; clearly she is not entitled to the fine. Rav Sheshet said: This is what the baraita is saying: One about whom a bad reputation emerged in her youth that she engaged in sexual relations has neither a fine for rape nor a fine for seduction, as the assumption is that she is no longer a virgin.

Rav Pappa said: Conclude from it with regard to this tainted document whose authenticity was compromised that we do not collect a debt with it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If you say that a rumor emerged about it that it is a forged document, and in the corresponding case here, the case of a bad reputation, that a rumor emerged about her that she engaged in promiscuous sexual relations; but didn’t Rava say: If a rumor emerged about a woman in a town as one who engaged in promiscuous sexual relations, one need not be concerned about it? The assumption is that it is insubstantial, as a reputation based on rumor is disregarded.

Rather, it is that two witnesses came and said: She propositioned us to engage in forbidden relations, and in the corresponding case here with regard to a document, it is a case where two people came and said that he said to us: Forge a document for me. The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the case of the rumor of promiscuity, immoral men are common, and even if they refused her, presumably she found someone willing to engage in relations with her. However, here, with regard to forgery, even if he assumed presumptive status as one seeking a forgery, do all the Jewish people assume presumptive status as forgers? Why is the assumption that the document was forged? The Gemara answers: Here too, since he is actively seeking a forgery, say that he forged the document and wrote it. Even if others are not suspected of cooperating with him, there is suspicion with regard to the document. Therefore, the case of the tainted document and the woman with a bad reputation are comparable.

MISHNA: And these are the cases of young women who do not have a fine paid to their fathers when they are raped or seduced: One who has intercourse with a convert or with a captive woman or with a gentile maidservant, who were redeemed, converted, or emancipated when they were more than three years and one day old, as presumably they are no longer virgins. Rabbi Yehuda says: A captive woman who was redeemed remains in her state of sanctity even though she is an adult, as it cannot be stated that she certainly engaged in intercourse.

The mishna resumes its list of the cases of young women who are not entitled to a fine when raped or seduced by the following men: In the case of one who engages in intercourse with his daughter, with his daughter’s daughter, with his son’s daughter, with his wife’s daughter, with her son’s daughter, or with her daughter’s daughter; they do not receive payment of a fine. That is due to the fact that he is liable to receive the death penalty, and that their death penalty is administered by the court, and anyone who is liable to receive the death penalty does not pay money, as it is stated: “And yet no harm follow, he shall be punished” (Exodus 21:22). This verse indicates that if a woman dies and the one who struck her is liable to receive the death penalty, he is exempt from payment.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Dosa said one and the same thing with regard to a captive woman. The statement of Rabbi Yehuda is that which we said in the mishna. The statement of Rabbi Dosa is as it is taught in a baraita: A captive daughter or wife of a priest, who was redeemed, partakes of teruma; this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. In explanation, Rabbi Dosa said: And what did this Arab who took her captive do to her? And due to the fact that he lasciviously squeezed between her breasts, did he render her unfit to marry into the priesthood? Although he may have taken liberties with her, there is no concern that he had relations with her.

Rabba said: Perhaps that is not so, and their opinions differ. Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda states his opinion only here with regard to payment of a fine, so that the sinner will not profit through exemption from the fine because this girl was taken captive in her youth. However, there, with regard to teruma, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and she is unfit to marry a priest. Alternatively, there is another distinction between their opinions. Perhaps Rabbi Dosa stated his opinion only there, with regard to teruma whose legal status today is by rabbinic law, and therefore he rules leniently. However, with regard to payment of a fine, which is mandated by Torah law, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the rapist is exempt from payment based on the principle: The burden of proof is incumbent upon the claimant, and she cannot prove that her captors did not engage in intercourse with her and that she is a virgin.

Abaye said to Rabba: And is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda here, in the case of a fine, to ensure that the sinner will not profit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A captive woman who was taken captive remains in her state of sanctity with the presumptive status of a virgin? Even if she was in captivity when she was ten years old, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. And there, in that case, what relevance is there for the rationale: To ensure that the sinner will not profit? That baraita refers to a marriage contract and no transgression is involved. The Gemara answers: There too, Rabbi Yehuda issues the same ruling for a different reason. She receives the marriage contract of a virgin because if she didn’t, perhaps men would refrain and not marry her, due to their suspicion that her captors violated her.

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that a captive woman remains in her state of sanctity? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who redeems a captive may marry her, even if he is a priest, but if he testifies that she did not engage in sexual relations while in captivity, he may not marry her? Rabbi Yehuda says: Both in this case, where he redeemed her, and in that case, where he testified, he may not marry her, lest she was violated and rendered unfit to marry a priest. The Gemara comments: This baraita itself is difficult. On the one hand you said: One who redeems a captive may marry her, and then it was taught: If he testifies that she did not engage in sexual relations while in captivity, he may not marry her. Is that to say that due to the fact that he also testifies that she was not violated he may not marry her?

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this is what the baraita is saying: One who redeems a captive woman and testifies that she was not violated may marry her. However, if he only testifies that she was not violated he may not marry her.

With regard to the apparent contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara says: In any case, this baraita is difficult according to Rabbi Yehuda, as contrary to his earlier statement, he states that a captive woman does not retain the presumptive status of a virgin. Rav Pappa said: Emend the text and say that Rabbi Yehuda says: Both in this case and in that case he may marry her. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: Actually, do not emend the baraita and learn it as it was taught. In the baraita, Rabbi Yehuda spoke to them according to the statement of the Rabbis. According to my opinion, that the presumptive status of a redeemed captive woman is that of a virgin, both in this case and in that case he may marry her. However, according to your opinion that there is concern lest she was violated, the halakha should be that both in this case and in that case he may not marry her.

The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain their ruling? They explain: One who redeems a captive woman and testifies that she was not violated may marry her, as a person does not throw away money for nothing. If he paid the ransom to redeem her, he must be certain that she is a virgin. One who only testifies that she was not violated may not marry her, lest he had his eye on her to marry her and is prepared to lie to facilitate that marriage.

Rav Pappa bar Shmuel raised a contradiction before Rav Yosef: