Ketubot

the woman would ultimately have suffered the same pain from her husband, but they  said to him: One who is forced to intercourse cannot be compared to one who acts willingly'?2   — [The reference.] in fact,  said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha [is to the] pain of opening the feet, for so it is said in Scripture, And hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by.  But if so, the same applies to one who has been seduced?  R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The case of one who has been seduced may be compared to that of a person who said to his friend, 'Tear up my silk garments and you will be free from liability'.6   'My'? Are they THE VIOLATOR PAYS FORTHWITH BUT THE SEDUCER [PAYS ONLY] IF HE DISMISSES HER etc. WHEN HE DISMISSES HER! Is she then his wife?  Abaye replied: Read, 'If he does not marry her,  So it was also taught: Although it was laid down that the seducer pays [the statutory fine] only if he does not marry her, he must pay compensation for indignity and blemish forthwith. And [in the case of] the violator as well as [of] the seducer, she herself or her father may oppose. As regards one who has been seduced, this  may well be granted because it is written in Scripture. If her father will refuse,  [since from 'refusing']  I would only [have known that] her father [may refuse], whence [could it be deduced that] she herself [may also refuse]?  It was, therefore, explicitly stated 'will refuse', implying either of them.  But as regards a violator, though one may well grant that she [may refuse him since] it is written in Scripture. 'and onto him she shall be  [which implies]  only if she is so minded, whence, however, [it may be objected] is it deduced that her father [may also object to the marriage]? — Abaye replied: [Her father was given the right to object] in order that the sinner  might not gain an advantage.  Raba replied; It  is deduced a minori ad majus: If a seducer who has acted against the wish of her father alone may be rejected either by herself or by her father how much more so the violator who has acted both against the wish of her father and against the wish of herself. Raba did not give the same reply as Abaye, because, having paid the fine, [the offender can] no [longer be described as a] sinner gaining an advantage. Abaye does not give the same reply as Raba [because it may be argued:  In the case of] a seducer, since he himself may object [to the marriage], her father also may object to it; [but in the case of] a violator, since he himself may not object [to the marriage] her father also may have no right to object to it. Another Baraitha taught: Although it has been laid down that the violator pays forthwith  she has no claim upon him  when he divorces her.  ['When he divorces her'! Can he divorce her?  — Read: When she demands a divorce  she has no claim upon him].  If he died, the fine is regarded as a quittance for her kethubah.  R. Jose the son of R. Judah ruled: She is entitled  to a kethubah for one maneh. On what principle do they  differ? — The Rabbis hold the view that the only reason why  the Rabbis instituted a kethubah [for a wife was] in order that the man might not find it easy  to divorce her,  but [the violator,] surely, cannot divorce her.  R. Jose the son of R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that this man too might torment her until she says to him, 'I do not want you'.  THE VIOLATOR MUST DRINK OUT OF HIS POT. Said Raba of Parazika  to R. Ashi. Consider! [The fines of a violator and a seducer] are deduced from one another.