Daf Shevui to Ketubot 39a:11
Section one: The seducer pays three types of payment: 1) for having shamed her; 2) for having caused her to be “blemished”; 3) the fine. The first two of these types of payments will be described in greater detail in mishnah seven. The rapist must make an additional payment for the pain he has caused her. Since the women willingly had relations with the seducer, he does not pay for the pain.
Section two: The mishnah now relates three differences in the penalties of a seducer and those of a rapist. The first was already mentioned above. The second is that a rapist must pay immediately, whereas the seducer pays only if he decides not to marry her. This difference is derived from the fact that with regard to the seducer the verse states, “If her father refuses to give her to him, he must weigh out silver” (Ex. 22:16). By inference we can conclude that if the father does not refuse, then the seducer does not pay. In contrast, Deuteronomy 22:28 states, “The man who lay with her must pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver.” In this case the ruling is stated unconditionally. Hence he must pay whether or not the father allows the couple to remain married.
The final difference is that a rapist is not allowed to initiate divorce against the woman. This is derived from the Deut. 22:28, “Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her.” In contrast, the seducer is allowed to divorce his wife.
[I realize that the idea that the victim of a rape would somehow be rewarded by the rapist having to marry her and never being allowed to divorce her, sounds cruel to our modern sensibilities. However, if we understand that we are talking about a society where a woman may have been “ruined” and hence unable to get married after having been raped, we will realize that the intent of the law is to protect the woman. By forcing him to marry her, the Torah affords her the economic protection of a husband, economic protection that may have been quite necessary in ancient society.]
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot 3:1:1
Introduction Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states, “If a man comes upon a young girl, a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, the man who lay with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her.” The rabbis learn from these verses that if a man rapes a virgin he must pay her father a fine of 50 shekels, which is the equivalent of 200 dinars. Furthermore, he must marry her. Through a careful reading of the wording of these laws the rabbis concluded that this rule applies only to a virgin (betulah) who is also young (na’arah), which means any girl who has reached the age of 12 and has shown signs of pubery. A girl remains in this status for only six months. After that she is considered to have reached adulthood and one who rapes her does not pay the fine. Before we proceed, we should remember that the fine was only one payment made by the rapist to his victim. He also had to pay all of the damages that one pays for injuring another person. We should also remember that society’s attitude towards rape has changed drastically in the last century. Rape is a horrible crime and while we are discussing the technical aspects of who receives a fine and who doesn’t, we shouldn’t forget what we are talking about. Our mishnah teaches that a man must pay the fine to a woman even if he is not allowed to marry her.
English Explanation of Mishnah Shevuot 5:4:2
“You raped or seduced my daughter” and the other says, “I did not rape, nor seduce,” “I adjure you,” and he responds, “Amen!” he is liable. Rabbi Shimon exempts him, for he does not pay a fine on his own admission. They said to him: “Even though he does not pay a fine on his own admission, he still pays for the shame and blemish [to the girl], based on his own admission. According to the Exodus 22:15-16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if a man rapes or seduces a virgin, he must pay her father a fine of 50 shekels. The Rabbis added that besides the fine, he also has to pay other which penalties incumbent upon anyone who injures another person (see Bava Kamma, chapter eight). He must pay for having embarrassed her, and he must pay for having injured her, thereby decreasing her value. (We will learn the details of these laws in the third chapter of tractate Kethuboth.) In the scenario in our mishnah a man approaches another man and accuses him of having raped or seduced his daughter and therefore owing him the 50 shekels, plus the other penalties. The person responds that he didn’t do so, and then when the claimant adjures him, he affirms the adjuration. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, when he admits that he did in fact rape or seduce the other man’s daughter, he will be liable for a sacrifice for his false oath. Of course he will also be obligated to pay the fine and the other financial penalties. Rabbi Shimon disagrees. Since there is a rule in Jewish law, that one who admits to a crime does not have to pay the fine for having done so, even if this person had admitted to having raped or seduced the daughter, he would not have been obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, there was no denial of money, and the laws of the oath of deposit do not apply. The Sages respond to Rabbi Shimon that although one who admits to a crime does not have to pay a fine, he does have to pay compensatory damages, which in this case include the payment for embarrassment and the payment for having decreased her value. Since if he had admitted he would have had to pay, he did deny money, and is therefore liable for having sworn a false oath of deposit.
The Torah; A Women's Commentary, Exodus 22:15:1
Seduction of an Unbetrothed Woman (22:15–16) This case concerns a young woman of marriageable age, as young as eleven or twelve, who loses her virginity to a man who did not seek her father’s permission by entering into a formal engagement and paying a betrothal gift. While scholars generally differentiate between this case, which deals with the “persuasion” of the young girl, and Deuteronomy 22:28–29, which deals with rape, the distinction is not clear when dealing with young women who may be too naïve to offer real consent for sexual relations. This case is positioned after a series of laws regarding property loss (likewise remedied by monetary compensation), but before a series on disruptions to the social order; it seems to share aspects with both subjects. It may reflect an ancient Near Eastern view of a daughter’s virginity as the father’s or household’s asset.
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot 8:7:2
במנה צורי – that comes from the country of Tyre. But all of the silver coinage of the Torah, as for example, the five Selaim of the son (i.e., the redemption of the first-born son), and the thirty [Selaim] of the slave, and the fifty of the one who wrongs (see Deuteronomy 22:29) and seduces (see Exodus 22:16) , and the one-hundred for the one who slanders, all of them are in the Tyrian coinage which is refined silver. But all of the money which is from the Rabbinic legislation, such as the fines, and the Ketubah of a wife, according to the words of Maimonides, all of them are the money/coinage of the state, for one from eight parts which are in them is silver and seven parts are copper. But my Rabbis taught that the Ketubah/marriage contract of a virgin has the law of silver of the Torah, for it is written (Exodus 22:16): “[If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still weigh out silver in accordance] with the bride-price for virgins,” and the two-hundred clear Zuzim. And the weight of each Zuz is ninety-six barley-corns.
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot 3:4:3
לכיוציא – meaning to say that if he will not marry her/consummate a marriage by conducting a woman to his house, for if he does not marry [her], he doesn’t pay the fine, as it is written (Exodus 22:15): “[If a man seduces a virgin for whom the bride-price has not been paid, and lies with her] he must make her his wife by payment of the bride-price,” and “if her father refuses [to give her to him], he must weigh out the silver [in accordance with the bride-price for virgins]” (Exodus 22:16); but concerning the rape, it is written (Deuteronomy 22:29): “[the man who lay with her] shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver and she shall be his wife.”
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot 3:7:3
כאילו היא שפחה – we appraise how much a man wants to give whether for a virgin maidservant or for a maidservant who has had intercourse to marry her to his servant whose master has satisfaction from him. And in the Gemara (Tractate Ketubot 40b) raises a question: from where [in the Torah] do we learn that he pays for shame, and damage and pain? I would say that the All-Merciful said (Deuteronomy 22:29): “fifty [shekels of] silver,” to all the words and he answers, Scripture states (Deuteronomy 22:29): “The man who lay her shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver,[and she shall be his wife].” The pleasure of lying is separate, the fifty [shekels of] silver is outside of the shame and the damage and the pain.
English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:1:5
Claims against a rapist, a seducer and one who defames [a virgin are decided] by three, according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: “One who defames [a virgin is decided] by twenty-three, for there may arise from it a capital case. According to the Torah the rapist (Deut. 22:29) and the seducer (Ex. 22:16-17) pay fines of 50 shekel for having illegally taken the woman’s virginity. In addition, according to the Rabbis the rapist also pays for injuring the woman as would any person who causes another person injury (see Bava Kamma, chapter eight). The “one who defames a virgin” is referred to in Deut. 22:13-22. This is a case where a husband falsely claims that the wife was not a virgin. If the husband was found to be a liar he is beaten and must pay a fine of 100 shekels. If his accusation turned out to be true the woman is put to death. The Rabbinic understanding of this law greatly differs from its simple understanding in the Torah, but now is not the place for a detailed explanation.
Mishnah Bekhorot 8:7:3
The Fifty for Rape and Seduction The person who rapes or seduces a girl must pay a fine of 50 silver shekels to the girl’s father as a penalty if the father refuses to give her to him in marriage (Exodus 22:16, Deuteronomy 22:29).
Mishnah Ketubot 3:4:6
If He Does Not Marry Her
That is, if he does not wish to marry her. If he does marry her, he must immediately pay the penalty for shame and compensation for pain, but he is exempt from the fine (קנס). This is because Exodus 22:16 states: “[Only] if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money.” In contrast, Deuteronomy 22:29 states regarding the rapist: “He shall give the girl’s father 50 silver shekels, and she shall be his wife”; thus, the fine must be paid under all circumstances.
Mishnah Ketubot 3:7:6
The Fine Is the Same for All Namely, 50 silver shekels (Deuteronomy 22:29). That these 50 shekels do not cover all payments is proven in the Talmud (Ketubot 40b) as follows: It is stated (Deut. 22:29): “The man who has lain with her shall give the girl’s father 50 silver shekels.” This means that the 50 shekels are for the act of lying with her alone, but he must additionally pay a penalty for the shame and injury caused.
Mishnah Shevuot 4:6:3
My Daughter Was Raped For this, a fine of 50 shekels is imposed (Deuteronomy 22:29, Exodus 22:16), but an additional monetary compensation (ממון) must also be paid (see further in 5:4).
Mishnah Shevuot 4:6:4
That He Seduced My Daughter For this, a fine of 50 shekels is imposed (Deuteronomy 22:29, Exodus 22:16), but an additional monetary compensation (ממון) must also be paid (see further in 5:4).
Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Ketubot 3:4:13
The Rapist Pays Immediately The rapist must immediately pay the fifty silver shekels to the girl’s father, even if he marries her, as it is stated in the verse (Deuteronomy 22:29): “The man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she shall be his wife.” In contrast, the seducer pays only if he does not marry her, as it is stated regarding the seducer (Exodus 22:16): “If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” If he marries her, he is exempt from paying the fine.
Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Ketubot 3:4:14
The Rapist Drinks from His Pot “Drinks from his pot” (shoteh b’atzitzo) means he must marry the woman against his will and is forbidden to divorce her, as stated in the verse (Deuteronomy 22:29): “She shall be his wife because he has violated her; he cannot send her away all his days.” The “pot” (atzitz) is a clay vessel, sometimes broken, as described: “A barrel that was broken and retains half or a third of its capacity for planting” (Geonic commentary on Seder Taharot, Mikvaot 2:8, p. 117). It is also mentioned as a vessel used for sanitation purposes: “The outhouse pot” (atzitza d’veit hakise, Bava Batra 144b; Megillah 16a). The “pot” here is not just any vessel created by the man but a despised or defective one. However, the use of the term “pot” in this context does not appear in the literature of the Land of Israel.
Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Ketubot, Preface 9:15
The fixed amount for the ketubah is 200 dinars (zuz), equivalent to two maneh. For the sages, this is not only the customary amount but the minimum that the husband is obligated to provide (Mishnah Ketubot 5:1, see our discussion there). The Mishnah also mentions higher ketubah amounts, particularly for daughters of priests or distinguished families, where an amount of 400 zuz is recorded (see our commentary on Ketubot 5:1). It is unclear how this amount was determined or what its reasons are. The main question is whether this was indeed the realistic amount established as a financial safety net for the woman, based on the economic reality at the time of the ketubah’s enactment, or whether it represents a midrashic interpretation of the biblical text.
The Torah states that the fine for raping a woman is fifty silver shekels (Deuteronomy 22:29). In the sages’ view, this amount is a special fine, akin to compensation for the loss of virginity to the girl (and her father). Beyond this, the rapist is obligated to pay for damages and shame (see our commentary on Yevamot 9:1). Furthermore, the sages interpreted “silver” (kesef) as referring to shekels, meaning fifty silver shekels, equivalent to 200 dinars (zuz), based on the conversion rate between the biblical currency and that of the sages. The sages linked the law of the rapist with that of the seducer, about whom it is stated: “If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins” (Exodus 22:16). Thus, the dowry of virgins is 200 zuz. The derivation is as follows: “It says here ‘silver’ (kesef), and it says there (Deuteronomy 22:29, regarding the rapist) ‘silver’ (kesef). Just as there it is fifty, so too here it is fifty. ‘According to the dowry of virgins’—what do we learn from ‘the dowry of virgins’? It comes to teach and is itself taught: just as there it is fifty silver shekels, so too here it is fifty silver shekels” (Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael, Massekhta d’Nezikin, Parsha 17, p. 309). This is likely what the Babylonian Talmud means when it states: “‘He shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins’—this is like the dowry of virgins, and the dowry of virgins is like this; from here the sages derived the ketubah of a woman from the Torah” (Ketubot 10a). The baraita conveys a complex position: it does not claim that this verse is the source for the obligation or amount of the ketubah, but rather that the sages created a connection between the ketubah and the dowry mentioned in the verse. This opens two interpretive possibilities: either the baraita means that the sages tied the obligation of the ketubah to an obligation derived from the Torah, or the baraita describes the verse as an inspiration for setting the ketubah’s amount, regardless of the institution’s status. According to the latter possibility, the verse serves as a literary embellishment, and the amount was determined by the sages’ discretion. The understanding of the dowry as the ketubah is also evident in other rabbinic sources: “The dowry is none other than the ketubah…” (Mekhilta d’Rabbi Yishmael, Massekhta d’Nezikin, Parsha 17, p. 308).
Radak on Genesis 34:2:1
“And he saw” The reason the Torah uses the term va’ya’aneha (“and he afflicted her”) when describing what Shechem did to Dinah, which was more akin to seduction than violent rape, is that this term is used in connection with a virgin’s first intercourse, which is typically very painful for her. For this reason, the same term is also used in Deuteronomy 22:29.
Rambam on Mishnah Ketubot 3:1:1
“These are the maidens who are entitled to a fine: One who has relations with a mamzeret…” The structure of the Mishnah is as follows: These are the disqualified maidens who are entitled to a fine. By “fine” (kenas), it refers to what is stated in Deuteronomy 22:29: “The man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty silver shekels.” You already know that, according to our tradition, a Samaritan (Kuti) and an idolater are equivalent today, as we explained in Tractate Berakhot (end of chapter 8). The Mishnah mentions “his brother’s wife” or “his father’s brother’s wife,” referring to a case where, for example, his brother or his father’s brother betrothed a woman who is a virgin, and she was divorced from that betrothal. The condition for all these prohibitions is that they involve those liable to karet (excision), provided there was no formal warning (hatra’ah). If a warning was given, the violator would be liable to lashes, as the general principle is that all those liable to karet are subject to lashes, as will be explained. A fundamental principle relied upon here is that a person does not receive both lashes and a monetary penalty.
Rambam on Mishnah Ketubot 3:7:1
“What is shame? It depends on the one who shames and the one who is shamed. Damage…” It is stated (Deuteronomy 22:29), “The man who lay with her”—the pleasure of intercourse corresponds to the fifty silver shekels, but shame (boshet) and damage (pegam) are not included in this amount. Similarly, the pain (tza’ar) of a raped woman is separate from the fine, and this fixed amount is a known statute.
Ramban on Exodus 22:15:1
AND IF A MAN ‘Y’FATEH’ — “speaks to her emotions [until she submits to him]. And so did Onkelos render it arei y’shadeil, the term shidul in Aramaic being like pitui [persuasion, seduction], in the Sacred Language. ‘MAHOR YIMHARENAH’ (HE SHALL SURELY PAY A DOWRY FOR HER) TO BE HIS WIFE — he shall assign her a marriage portion as is the manner of a man to his wife by writing her a kethubah (marriage contract), and he shall marry her.” Thus far is Rashi’s language.
But this is not correct, for the term pitui [does not mean “speaking to her feelings,” as Rashi put it], but winning over another person’s will by falsehood. A similar usage of the term is found in these verses: ‘yifteh l’vavchem’ (your heart will be deceived); ‘vayift’ (and he seduced) my heart secretly; if my heart ‘niftah’ (have been enticed) unto a woman. This is why people whose minds are not adroit in discriminating matters, and whose hearts can be easily bent by a few words at the beginning of a discussion, are called p’ta’im (simple-minded ones), just as it is said, ‘peti’ (the simple-minded) believeth every word, and he who seduces a virgin in order to have sexual relations with her, bends her will to his desire by words of falsehood, and is therefore called m’fateh (seducer).
Onkelos, however, divided the term pitui into two meanings. Thus here he translated it: y’shadeil, which is an expression for cunning and effort that a person exercises towards another in order to do with him as he pleases, regardless of whether this effort is by means of words or deeds. Thus Onkelos translated: ‘vayei’aveik’ a man with him — v’ishtadeil (and a man ‘wrestled craftily’ with him). And Yonathan ben Uziel translated: ‘v’shovavticho’ (and I will turn thee about), and put hooks into thy jaws — ‘v’ishtadlinoch.’ And in the Targum of the Scroll of Ruth we find: Where hast thou gleaned to-day? ‘v’anah asit’ (and where wroughtest thou)? — ‘u’lan ishtadalt l’me’bad’ (and where have you ‘endeavored’ to work)? — And she said: The man’s name with whom ‘asithi’ (I wrought) to-day is Boaz, is translated in the Targum: ‘d’ishtadalith imei’ (with whom I ‘endeavored’). For all effort involving skill, with which a person attempts to achieve something, is called hishtadluth (endeavoring). Thus the Rabbis have said in the Mishnah: “And where there are no men, hishtadeil (strive) to be a man.” And in the Gemara we find: “A man should always yishtadeil (strive) to go out to welcome kings of Israel.” And in Scripture it is written: and he [i.e., the king] ‘mishtadar’ (labored) to rescue him, — employing every skill [to save Daniel].
In my opinion, associated with this term [hishtadluth — striving] is the expression, rebellion ‘v’eshtadur’ (and sedition) have been made therein, meaning, rebellion and “much striving.” For even in the Sacred Language these letters [the lamed and the reish of y’shadeil, y’shadeir] interchange. Thus we find: mazaloth (constellations) and mazaroth; niml’tzu (sweet), and nimr’tzu (forcible); ‘mifl’sei’ (the balancing of) the clouds, and ‘mifr’sei’ (the spreadings of) the clouds. Similarly in Aramaic: va’alu (and behold), and va’aru. Sharshereth (chain) is termed by the Sages shalsheleth. There are Mishnaic texts where it is written, “hishtadeir [instead of hishtadeil — both terms meaning ‘strive’] to be a man.” It is for this reason that Onkelos renders ki y’fateh — arei y’shadeil (he will endeavor); he will attempt by devious means to invest the virgin with a sense of trust in him, by many ruses, until she submits to him. And since seduction may be achieved in many ways — sometimes with words, sometimes with money, sometimes by falsehood to mislead her, and sometimes even by truth, as when he really wishes to marry her — therefore Onkelos did not use a precise term for it, but rendered it as an expression of “endeavor.” However, in the verse, lest your heart be ‘yifteh,’ he used the other meaning and translated it: ‘dilma yit’ei,’ for there it means, “perhaps you will be misled.”
And that which the Rabbi [Rashi] explained: “‘Mahor yimharenah’ (he shall surely pay a dowry for her) to be his wife — he shall assign her a marriage portion as is the manner of a man to his wife, by writing her a kethubah (marriage contract)” — this is not correct, for if the seducer marries her, he pays no penalty, and if he divorces her after the marriage, there is no monetary obligation upon him by law of the Torah, since a kethubah is a matter of Rabbinic ordinance. Rather, mohar means gifts — the gifts which a man sends to his betrothed, jewels of silver and jewels of gold and clothes for the wedding ceremony and marriage, these being called sivlonoth in the language of the Rabbis. Thus they said: “Mohari go back [upon the death of the wife].” And Onkelos rendered the verse, And Shechem said… Multiply upon me greatly ‘mohar’ and gift — “multiply upon me greatly moharin [in the plural] and gifts,” and Shechem would not have vowed to write Dinah many kethuboth. Instead, mohar means gifts, as I have explained. It is possible that the word is derived from the expression ‘m’heirah chushah’ (hasten, stay not), because the mohar is the first thing which hastens the wedding, as the groom hurries and sends these presents ahead of him in eager haste and then he comes to his father-in-law’s house to make the wedding or the feast, just as the Sages have spoken of “parties of sivlonoth” (when presents are presented to the betrothed). The meaning of ‘mahor yimharenah’ to be his wife is then, that the seducer should send her presents and necessities for the wedding in order to become his wife. There is thus a hint here that both the seducer and the seduced can prevent the marriage, since Scripture uses such language rather than saying expressly that he should take her to him as his wife; for there is no commandment upon him to marry her unless he so desires, and if he does not want her to begin with, he is to pay fifty shekels of silver. After that Scripture states that if the father refuses to give her unto him, he shall pay him money according to the ‘mohar’ which men give to virgins whom they marry. The reason for this fine is that the seducer has spoiled her reputation in the eyes of young men, thus the father will have to give her many presents and they will not give her any dowry, therefore it is right that the seducer should pay it. Our Rabbis have said that the amount of this mohar was determined by Scripture in the case of the violator to be fifty shekels of silver, the law of the violator and of the seducer being alike in this respect. Scripture, however, did differentiate between them in that in the case of the violator it says, and she shall be his wife… he may not put her away all his days, the reason [for this distinction between the violator, who must marry the maiden whom he has raped, and is forbidden to divorce her ever, and the seducer, who does not have to marry the seduced girl, but may instead pay the penalty mentioned in the Torah], is that usually it is handsome young men who seduce virgins, and the beautiful daughters of prominent families, [in the hope of marrying them]. But since it is not proper that he should gain from his sin, [i.e., that the girl should have to marry the seducer], therefore He explained that he cannot marry her against their will [hers and that of her father], but instead must pay them. Also, because she too sinned in this matter, He did not impose it on him to have to marry her against his will, but instead it is enough if he pays the penalty [of the fifty shekels of silver], and if he marries her with her consent and that of her father, she has the same status in relation to him as all women, having no claim to a kethubah from him by law of the Torah [but only by Rabbinic ordinance]. Similarly, it is usually the sons of prominent families who rape the daughters of those less-known families who have no power against them. Therefore He said in the case of the violator, and she shall be his wife — against his will. And in the opinion of our Rabbis, there too [in the case of the violator] the maiden and her father can withhold consent, as it would not be correct that he should marry her against her will, and thus do her two evils. Sometimes she may be of a more honorable family than he, and it is inconceivable that she should be further disgraced by his sinful act. The fair law is thus that the decision as to the marriage of the raped maiden be left to her discretion and that of her father, and not to the violator; instead, [if she desires it] he must marry her against his will, in order that violent men should not take liberties with the daughters of Israel.
Now this law of seduction only applies to a na’arah, as does the law of violation [which applies only to a girl between the ages of twelve years and a day, and twelve and a half], for there Scripture expressly stated, if a man find a ‘n’arah’ that is a virgin, but here He did not mention na’arah. The reason for this is that the term na’arah mentioned there [in the case of a violator], is used in order to exclude the bogereth [a woman who has passed the stage of maidenhood], who is considered an adult woman, whereas a girl who is a minor [between the ages of three years and a day and twelve years and a day], is also included under the terms of the law of violation. But here [in the case of seduction], it was not necessary to exclude a bogereth, for it is self-understood that one who seduces a bogereth pays nothing, as he did it with her mature consent. Besides, a father has no rights at all in his daughter after the days of her maidenhood, as it is written, ‘bin’ureihah’ (in her maidenhood) in her father’s house, and here He said, If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, thus indicating that he [the father] can give her to him as a wife, seeing that he has the authority to take her betrothal-money, and this applies only when she is a minor or a na’arah, just as the Rabbis interpreted: “All benefits which accrue during maidenhood belong to her father.” But in the case of a violation it was necessary to write na’arah, in order to exclude a bogereth from that law, because we might have thought that if she were a bogereth he should pay the fifty shekels of silver to her, [instead of to her father; it was therefore necessary to state] that it is a Scriptural decree [that if she is a bogereth he is free from that penalty], the reason being that since she is in full control of herself, she should guard herself against such a mishap.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained mohar as being an expression of “binding” [that he should bind her to him as a wife], similar in usage to the verse, Let the idols of them be multiplied ‘acheir maharu’ (who bind themselves to another god). But this is not correct; instead, the meaning of mohar is as I have explained it on the basis of the words of our Rabbis, of blessed memory. And in my opinion acheir maharu means, “those who are ‘hasty’ in thought, [from the root maheir — fast] and follow another god precipitately, without consideration and without knowledge.” In the writings of the grammarians [acheir maharu is explained as meaning]: “those who give mohar (gifts) to another god,” meaning that they bring him sacrifice and offering.
Rashba on Ketubot 41b:6
“And it is taught: They belong to herself”
This refers specifically to the primary fine (kenas), but shame (boshet) and damage (pegam), which are monetary (mammon), belong to the brothers. Rashi explains that even though the Mishnah states “they” (hen) in the plural and not “it” (hu) in the singular, it could refer to fines generally. If you ask, if so, why does it distinguish and state that her handiwork (ma’aseh yadeha) and findings (metzi’ata), even if not collected before the father’s death, belong to the brothers, but does not similarly distinguish and teach that her shame and damage belong to the brothers? It can be said that it was necessary to equate her handiwork to her findings in the Gemara.
Our teachers, the Tosafot (see also above, Ketubot 38b, s.v. Yesh), said that even her shame and damage belong to her, as wherever the fine belongs to someone, the shame and damage also belong to them, since they are interconnected and written together. It is written (Deuteronomy 22:29), “because he has violated her” (tachat asher inah), from which we derive (Ketubot 33a, 40b) shame and damage. This is not compelling, because “because he has violated her” does not directly teach shame and damage; rather, it implies that there is something else not included in the fifty shekels. However, shame and damage themselves are derived from the concept of injury (chovel), and without the principle of injury to another, we would not derive shame and damage for a raped or seduced woman from “because he has violated her.” Proof of this is that it is stated in Ketubot (39a) regarding shame and damage, “And say it belongs to her,” indicating that they are not inherently interconnected. The Rambam (Laws of the Virgin Maiden, chapter 2, halacha 14) wrote in accordance with the Tosafot, that her shame and damage belong to her.
Rereading the Rabbis; A Woman's Voice, 4 Rape and Seduction 17
… The seducer pays for shame and injury [בשת ופגם], and a fine; in addition to these, the rapist pays for pain; the rapist must pay [all] immediately; as for the seducer: when he divorces her, he pays her for shame, injury, etc.; the rapist must drink from his flowerpot [that he “watered” with his seed, i.e., marry her]; the seducer may choose to divorce her. (M Ketubot 3:4)
The same is true for the rapist and the same is true for the seducer: Either she or her father can withhold consent, as it says, “if her father refuses” [Exodus 22:16], “… and she will become his wife” [Deuteronomy 22:29]—only with her consent [מדעתה]. (Tosefta Ketubot 3:7)
Tur HaArokh, Deuteronomy 21:14:1
ושלחתה לנפשה, “you will send her away on her own, etc.” Nachmanides views this instruction as indicating that the husband does not have to give that woman a formal decree of divorce. This is why the Torah has to warn him not to sell her as a slave, nor treat her as one treats a maidservant. As long as she is his wife she enjoys all the privileges a wife is entitled to. If he has started to hate her, he must release her to fend on her own as if he had raped her, [the victim of a rape cannot be forced to live with her rapist unless she consents as his wife, who is then protected by her husband not being allowed to divorce her, ever. Deut. 22. 28-29 Ed.] It is possible that the message of this verse is that if, when this captor sleeps with this woman as an expression of his wanting to marry her, all well and good. However, if he sleeps with her without commitment and she is no longer desirable for him, he must release her unconditionally. Her future relationship to her captor depends entirely on the nature of his sleeping with her once this had been permitted according to Torah law. If the relationship turns sour after she had become his wife, she is entitled to a decree of divorce just like any married woman.
Tur HaArokh, Exodus 22:15:1
מהר ימהרנו לו לאשה, “he shall make all the preparations required to marry her.” Nachmanides understands this as the seducer (groom) sending the girl the customary gifts סבלונות, a groom sends prior to the wedding. These are expensive gifts, not boxes of chocolate or a bunch of flowers. They are items that the bride needs as part of her outfits to prepare her for a dignified wedding ceremony. The wedding canopy would usually be erected after the bride had received these gifts from her husband to be. The reason why the Torah phrased this procedure in the way it did, instead of writing: “he must marry her forthwith,” is because it is not the seducer’s duty to marry her unless she has indicated her willingness to become his wife. If she does not agree to marry her seducer, the latter must still send her these gifts, as by seducing her he has greatly diminished the chances that another young man would want to marry this girl whose virginity has been jeopardized. Such a girl‘s father would have to tempt prospective suitors with a much larger dowry in order to make them consent to marry his daughter. Our sages say that the value of the mohar described in our verse is 50 shekel (Ketuvot 38), similar to the amount payable by a rapist to the father of the girl whom he had raped. The difference in law between the rapist and the seducer is merely that the former cannot ever divorce his wife (whom he had raped before she became his wife) against her will The seducer has a choice both in marrying his “victim” and eventually divorcing her if he so desires. The reason suggested for this rule is that it is not uncommon for young men to seduce girls who are of marriageable age. It would not be appropriate that the sinner should benefit by his deed in forcing marriage of his “victim” against her will. We must not forget that the girl who allowed herself to be seduced had been guilty of frivolous conduct also. This is why the Torah did not apply the same harsh rules to him that it applied to the rapist who forced himself on his victim. It suffices that he is made to pay a hefty financial fine. Moreover, rapists, as a rule, force their attentions on girls who are minors, and it would not be fair to force such a victim to be married to her violator against her will. If we were to do this she would become a victim of the same person a second time. Both she and her father can object to the rapist marrying her, whereas the rapist himself has no choice in the matter. In both situations the Torah limits these rules to when the girl in question is not yet older than 12 and a half years. In the verses dealing with rape this is spelled out in detail, i.e. הנערה (Deut. 22,28) Fully adult girls, (12 and a half+ receive the compensation themselves, not their father). In our verse here the Torah does not need to write the word נערה to indicate that this is the oldest girl to whom this legislation applies, seeing that if she were older the father would not be in the picture as the recipient of the fine stipulated by the Torah. She would not herself qualify as a potential recipient of a fine, seeing no crime had been committed against her interests. All she had had to do was to decline the invitation to engage in intimacies with the man in question.
