Ketubot

Might [not one equally well] suggest that 'Virgin' should be applied for the gezerah shawah  and 'That is not betrothed' [should serve the purpose of] excluding  a girl  that was betrothed and divorced? — It stands to reason [that the text of] 'That is not betrothed' should be employed for the gezerah shawah,  since such a girl  is still  designated. A damsel that is a virgin.  On the contrary; [should not the expression of] 'Virgin' be applied for the gezerah shawah, since [a non-virgin] may still be described as one 'That is not betrothed'?  — It stands to reason [that R. Akiba's first view  is to be preferred, since] the body of the one  had undergone a change while that of the other  had not. As to R. Jose the Galilean,  whence does he draw that logical inference?  — He derives it from the following where it was taught: He shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins  [implies] that this [payment] shall be the same sum as the dowry of the virgins and the dowry  of the virgins shall be the same as this. Does not a contradiction arise between the two statements of R. Akiba?  — [The respective statements represent the opinions of] two Tannaim who differ as to what was the ruling of R. Akiba. [The ruling of] R. Akiba in our Mishnah presents no difficulty since the gezerah shawah does not altogether deprive the Scriptural text of its ordinary meaning.  According to R. Akiba's ruling in the Baraitha, however, does not the gezerah shawah completely deprive the Scriptural text of its ordinary meaning?  — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied. Read in the text:  That is not a betrothed maiden.  [But] is not a betrothed maiden one [for the violation of whom] the penalty of stoning [but not fine] is incurred?  — It might have been assumed that, since it is an anomaly  that the Torah had introduced by the enactment of the law of a monetary fine, an offender  must, therefore, pay his fine even if he is also to be executed. According to Rabbah, however, who said that it was an anomaly  that the Torah had introduced by the' enactment of the law of a monetary fine and that an offender  must pay his fine even if he is also to be executed,  what can be said [in reply to the objection raised]?  — He  adopts the same view as that of R. Akiba in our Mishnah. Our Rabbis taught: To whom is the monetary fine [of an outraged virgin  to be given]? — To her father. Others say: To herself. But why 'to herself'?  — R. Hisda replied: We are dealing here with the case of a virgin who was once betrothed and is now divorced, and they  differ on the principles underlying the difference between the view of R. Akiba in our Mishnah and his view in the Baraitha. Abaye stated: If he  had intercourse with her and she died,  he is exempt [from the fine], for in Scripture it was stated, Then the man … shall give unto the damsel's father,  but not unto a dead woman's father. This ruling which was so obvious to Abaye formed the subject of an enquiry by Raba.  For Raba enquired: Is the state of adolescence legally attainable in the grave  or not? 'Is the state of adolescence attainable in the grave and [the fine,  therefore,] belongs to her son,  or is perhaps the age of adolescence not attainable in the grave and [the fine, therefore,] belongs to her father?