Ketubot 11b

Christians and anti-semites often bring up the following as a slur against the Jews:

• “An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done nothing,”

The section begins in Ketubot 11a which states “These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them”. It is a discussion over the law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Therefore, any notion that the Talmud endorses this is wrong. It is only a discussion of whether or not the rapist will be punished with additional fines or punishments such as financially supporting his victim for life.

In Halakha (God's Law) there is a concept that sex can be spiritually clean or spiritually unclean. This should come as no surprise; almost anything can have the status of clean or unclean depnding on various factors. Generally speaking, spiritually clean sex refers to sex which:

• a) occurs within the bounds of marriage
• b) produces children

For example, homosexual 'sex' is still sex, but it is considered unclean spiritually because it does not produce children. This means that homosexual marriage does not alter the status of homosexual sex as unclean.

So, in the case of Ketubot 11b, this sex is still sex, and therefore a crime has occurred, yet sex with a girl under 3 years of age cannot produce children. Likewise for a woman having sex with an underage boy, it is not sex of reproduction unless he is 9 years old. Again that is not to say that it is permitted! It simply categorizes the sex act itself as reproductive sex or non-reproductive sex. When the talmud says 'it is nothing' or 'no guilt' this is what it refers to. The other punishments are still applicable. It is not an endorsement of the activity. All of this relates to weather it is reproductive sex or not, not if it is abuse.

Because if the woman has had reproductive sex, she is spiritually unclean and may not marry again in the future without penalty, and in such a case the rapist must pay extra restitution on top of paying for his crime.

• Point 1: Regardless of the age the rapist is obligated to pay damages (mental and physical) to the victim (because it is a crime and it is not permitted).
• Point 2: Depending on the age of the victim the offender could either be forced into a lifetime marriage without possibility of divorce, with the attached legal responsibility of care, or he could be put to death in other situations.

The Torah tells us: “If a man encounters a virgin girl who is not betrothed and is caught raping her, then the rapist must give the girl's father 50 [shekels] of silver (the normal dowry price). He must then take the girl he violated as his wife (only if the girl consents (Yad, Naarah Bethulah 1:3), and he may not send her away as long as he lives.” D'varim / Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29.

Commentary from Aish: The demand is made to the rapist in order to to protect the daughter, her reputation and her dowry. The rapist is held accountable and is made to be responsible for his actions. Rape of a single woman carries a heavy monetary fine (depending on the age of the victim), plus the rapist has to pay reparation for damages, as well as for her suffering, embarrassment and emotional anguish. The rapist also incurs lashes. This is all intended as both a deterrent and a punishment (D'varim / Deuteronomy 22:28-29, see also Rambam Rotzai'ach 2:4-5).

“…it is true that the Torah states that the rapist must marry (and may never divorce) his victim (actually only if she is at a certain young age at the time), but both she and her father can refuse the “match” – which they are extremely likely to do. I believe the message of the Torah is not that the rapist can have whom he wants, but quite the opposite. If he wants to enjoy another human being, he cannot just do so and split. He becomes responsible for her – for the rest of his life.”

The Talmud then discusses what to do if a male child molests a female adult or if a male adult molests a young female child (Ketuvot 11b). Remember that virginity was highly prized in ancient times – is the raped 3 year old girl now considered a non-virgin for the purposes of a dowry later in her life? The Jewish judges wisely said that she is still considered a virgin for her sake and future. Jewish law does not condone sex with a 3 year old or children, the opposite is true.

The Talmud states (Kiddushin 41a):

האיש מקדש את בתו כשהיא נערה: כשהיא נערה אין כשהיא קטנה לא מסייע ליה לרב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואיתימא רבי אלעזר אסור לאדם שיקדש את בתו כשהיא קטנה עד שתגדל ותאמר בפלוני אני רוצה

Translation: “A man may marry off his daughter when she is a na’ara / נערה / young woman“ When she is a na’ara (young woman), yes. When she is a child, no. This supports the teaching of Rav, for Rav Y’huda said in the name of Rav, and there are those who say Rabbi El’azar, “It is forbidden for a man to marry off his daughter when she is a child, until she grows up and says, ‘I want to marry So-and-so.'” (Talmud, Kiddushin 41a).

Further, Niddah 13b says: ת”ר הגרים והמשחקין בתינוקות מעכבין את המשיח… דנסיבי קטנות דלאו בנות אולודי נינהו

Translation: “The Rabbis taught in a b’raita: Converts and those who play with little girls delay the coming of the Messiah… The latter refers to those who marry [and have sexual relations with] girls who are too young to [safely] bear children.”

Therefore, molesting a child, whether above or below the age of three, is forbidden as stated clearly in both Kiddushin 41a and Niddah 13b.

Further, the Rambam (Maimonides, 12th century) in Issurei Biah 21:18 writes: “A man should not marry a minor who is not fit to give birth.”

Jewish law strictly forbids not only child molestation but all kinds of non-marital sexual relations are prohibited. The Rambam wrote in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ishut 1:4 “a person who has relations with a woman for the sake of lust, without kiddushin (marriage), receives lashes as prescribed by the Torah.”

The Talmud strongly opposed formation of the marriage bond by sexual force (at any age) and punished those who acted in such manner (Kiddushin 12b).

Sanhedrin 55b says IF a girl is raped if she is younger than 3 she is still considered a virgin for the sake of later marriage. If she is older then 3 it is considered RAPE and one of the compensations is that her father may demand the perpetrator marry her as well as pay all the criminal penalties.

The man is not allowed to have sex with a 3 year old! It is only discussing the correct punishment if someone DOES. The Talmud goes on to say that the father's right to marry off his daughter was to be used for her benefit. The age and manner of marriage is to a large extent a societal variable but at Kiddushin 41a the rabbis taught: “It is forbidden for a man to betroth his daughter while she is young [but rather he should wait] till she has grown and says 'This is the one I want [to marry]” and this teaching is repeated elsewhere in the Talmud.

The Laws of Niddah pertain to family purity (think menstruation or giving birth and once again becoming ritually clean by immersing in a mikvah). This chapter is discussing how old a person (male or female) can be ritually impure.

“This mishnah teaches that in a legal sense, sexual relations with a girl over the age of three counts as sexual relations. I should emphasize that this mishnah in no way condones such an act (which is certainly rape) it just teaches that this counts as an act of intercourse. At the core of this notion is their understanding of the physical consequences of intercourse for the first time namely the breaking of the woman's hymen. As we can see at the end of the mishnah, if a girl has intercourse (i.e. is raped) before the age of three her hymen will repair itself. After the age of three, it will not. This, to the rabbis, means that after the age of three, intercourse “counts” in a legal sense. Before the age of three, it does not. Having taught this mishnah (and others like it) many times, I realize that this is a very sensitive issue. To talk about sex with young girls is very troubling. I certainly don't want people to read this and think that the rabbis thought that it was okay for men to have relations with little girls. As usual, the mishnah uses a clinical, emotionally distant tone. That's just the way the rabbis composed much of the mishnah.” Modern commentary from Sefaria on Niddah 5.4.1.

So if a young girl three years old (or older) is raped the rapist may be forced to marry her and take care of her – IF the father agrees, and the girl (when she is old enough) must also agree. Sex with a young child is not allowed in this situation – it is a legal requirement on the part of the rapist.

The Talmud is stating that a girl younger than 3 is still considered a virgin for the purposes of a later marriage dowry (dowries were monies paid by a prospective husband to the girl's parents). Dowries for a virgin were higher priced than dowries for a widow or other non-virginal woman… A girl older than 3 who was raped would thus be financially impacted, and this law states that the father can demand that the virginal dowry price be paid…

There is no real Talmud online unless you are reading it in Aramaic. The highly abridged ones online are very poor translations – and again, highly abridged. |

Arranged marriages with children was very common – particularly among Christians. In July 1543, Mary of Scotland was betrothed to be married to Edward, son of King Henry VIII of England. She was 6 months old.

SIX MONTHS OLD.

It doesn't mean they had sex – it was an arranged marriage.

There are many variations of this claim, but let us approach it from this verse. First let us look at the actual verse:

5 Rav Oshaya raised an objection to the opinion of Rav from the mishna: With regard to an adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old, or a minor boy less than nine years old who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman, or a woman who had her hymen ruptured by wood or any other foreign object, the marriage contract for each of these women is two hundred dinars.

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The marriage contract of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood is one hundred dinars. Contrary to Rav’s opinion, the Rabbis distinguish between the halakha in the case of the intercourse of a minor boy and the halakha in the case of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood.

6 Rava said that this is what the mishna is saying: An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done nothing, as intercourse with a girl less than three years old is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye. In the case of an eye, after a tear falls from it another tear forms to replace it. Similarly, the ruptured hymen of the girl younger than three is restored. And a young boy who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman renders her as one whose hymen was ruptured by wood. And with regard to the case of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood itself, there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rabbi Meir maintains that her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, and the Rabbis maintain that it is one hundred dinars.Ketubot 11b.5-6

What do we learn from the context that we did not see from the quote itself?

• In any such case, a marriage will be forced.
• They are quoting from the mishna in order to prove something else.
• The 'something else' is the minimum amount of dowry for a marriage contract.

This is clearly part of a much larger discussion in which the opinion of several rabbis are being presented. This is the manner of case law in the Talmud. In this discussion we see the context set much earlier; for example,

• Ketubot 11a.5 states:
  • Rava raised an objection from a mishna (29a): These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them: One who engages in intercourse with a mamzeret; or with a Gibeonite woman [netina], who are given [netunim] to the service of the people and the altar (see Joshua 9:27); or with a Samaritan woman [kutit]. In addition, the same applies to one who engages in intercourse with a female convert, or with a captive woman, or with a maidservant, provided that the captives were ransomed or that the converts converted, or that the maidservants were freed when they were less than three years and one day old, as only in that case do they maintain the presumptive status of a virgin. In all of these cases, there is a fine paid to their fathers if they are raped. And if you say that when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion, do we give her payment of the fine that she will go and consume in her gentile state?

Our initial conclusion then is that Ketubot 11b does not condone intercourse with a minor based on the context of the entire passage; 11a.5 states “These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them” and “In all of these cases, there is a fine paid to their fathers if they are raped.” The discussion is over the amount of the fine based on certain factors such as how the rape was comitted, etc.

How much was the fine? According to Jewish Coinage in the time of the Talmud ,

“An exemplary example is written in the section, Talmud Yerusahalmi Ketuba, where it written of a Ketubah (Jewish marriage contract) being worth twenty dinars and a house with the value of ten dinars. At that period the value of a Ketubah was two hundred 'zuzim' (denarii) for a virgin and a hundred 'zuzim' for a widow. Therefore, dinars in this section refer to gold dinarii, not silver.” therefore, the fine was approximately the value of twenty houses, or ten normal marriage contracts. If these amounts do not make sense in modern terms we may note the roman aureus dinar was 8 grams of gold.

2022 price: 1850 USD/oz. * 0.0321507466 grams per ounce * 8 grams = $475.80. Therefore, 100 dinar would be $47,580. (say, $50,000) while a 200 dinar contract would be worth $100,000. Entry level jobs in my area will go for $30,000 to $40,000 per year, and less in poorer countries. In Taiwan for example the salary is approx. $12,000 a year for your average tea shop, convenience store or waiter position. Also one may consider the value of silver and gold in ancient times; even in the US in the 1800s a silver dime could be considered a month's wages for many workers in the new world.

In any case we are not finished; for all that has been presented so far is the opinion of different judges in the sanhedrin; no conclusion has been reached; in the passage we read “there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rabbi Meir maintains…” so what is the final judgement?

The question is solely whether or not she is a minor. For example in Berakhot 24a.12 we read “Rav Ḥisda said: A girl until she is three years and one day old, and a boy until he is nine years and one day old, for these are the ages from which a sexual act in which they participate is considered a sexual act.”

What this means is that “Rav Ḥisda said…” from another source. Read the original passage and we see “Rava said that this is what the mishna is saying: An adult man who engaged in intercourse…” therefore, what we are seeing in Ketubot, Berakhot, and other such passages are secondary judgements which use previous judgements to arrive at, or inform, legal judgements over fines and punishments. Therefore the only way to understand whether or not the Talmud endorses such behavior is to go to the original judgement which is given over this situation. For example, what is written in the Mishna that Rava was quoting?

“their marriage contract is two hundred dinars, as their presumptive status is that of a virgin. Even if they were subject to intercourse when they were younger than that age, the hymen remains intact. And they are subject to a claim concerning their virginity.”

To the Rabbis’ credit, they treat a sexual assault victim the same as anyone else injured during an attack (Bava Kama 83b-84a), with the addition that the man who rapes a virgin also has to pay a huge fine ($50,000 to $100,000 US minimum). They did not hold the woman responsible for encouraging the assault by how she dressed or where she walked, for example. The rapist, like other assailants, also had to pay compensation for any permanent impairment (particularly loss of virginity as mentioned), the pain she suffered, and her shame. This assumes the rape victim was not injured so badly that there were medical expenses or time she was unable to work, otherwise she would receive that compensation as well.

All agreed that she could refuse to marry the rapist.

While deciding how much a rapist paid his victim as recompense for pain, one rabbi proposed no money at all since the maiden would ultimately have suffered the same pain on her wedding night. But his idea was angrily rejected because, the Talmud declared, “There is no comparison between losing her virginity under the bridal canopy and losing it on a dung heap.” (Ketubot 39b, Yevamot 34a). Thus we see the importance of not only cherrypicking an individual prosecutorial statement over the final judgement given by the sanhedrin – the Talmud is just a record of case law.

Unlike most societies, including some modern ones, the Rabbis prohibit marital rape. To clarify what constitutes forced sex, the Rabbis taught that a couple should use the bed only if the woman was willing. If she said yes she consented, and if she said no she didn’t. Silence was not consent. The verse from Proverbs 19:2, “Also without consent, an improper soul; he who is hasty with his feet is a sinner,” is interpreted to mean that it is forbidden to force one’s wife in marital relations, the result being children of bad character. (Eruvin 100b, Kiddushin 13a, Yevamot 53b-54a)

Another section of Talmud teaching that bad sex produces bad children condemns several sexual circumstances that the Rabbis believed resulted in offspring who rebel and transgress. These circumstances include: (1) the woman feared the man, (2) he forced her, (3) one of them hated the other, (4) they were fighting, (5) they were drunk, and (6) one of them was asleep. Note that the first two would be considered rape today, and the last two would preclude consent. (Nedarim 20b)

On the authority of three great medieval scholars — Rabbi Shmuel, Rabbenu Tam, and Rabbi Yitzhak — the sons of Rabbi Meir [and of Joheved, Rashi’s daughter], Jewish law puts one who assaults his wife in the same category as one who assaults a stranger. This rule can be traced back further than Rashi’s grandsons, back at least to the Mishnaic period when the Tosefta states: “One who injures his wife, whether he injures her himself or causes others to injure her, pays the five expenses.” (Bava Kama 8)

Thus, we see that the Talmudic rabbis were not only more progressive (and dare I say feminist) on the subject of rape than one would think for views promulgated 1,500 years ago, but also way ahead of many views still held today.