The Betrothed and Divorced Maiden and Who Holds Her Fine

"Who is not betrothed" (Exodus 22:15) excludes a young woman who was betrothed and then divorced, who has no fine; the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says she does have a fine, and her fine goes to her father. And reason supports it: since her father is entitled to the money of her betrothal and her father is entitled to the money of her fine, just as the money of her betrothal goes to her father even though she was betrothed and divorced, so too the money of her fine. If so, what does Scripture teach by saying "who is not betrothed"? It is left available to derive from it a gezeira shava [a verbal analogy]. It says here "who is not betrothed," and it says there "who is not betrothed" (Deuteronomy 22:28); just as here the sum is fifty, so there it is fifty, and just as there the coin is shekels, so here it is shekels. And as for Rabbi Akiva: what did you see to make "who is not betrothed" the source of the analogy and "virgin" the term that excludes a non-virgin? Say rather that "virgin" is the source of the analogy and "who is not betrothed" excludes the young woman who was betrothed and divorced. The answer: this one had her body altered [the divorced woman], and that one did not have her body altered. And Rabbi Yose the Galilean derives the sum from "he shall weigh out silver," that this should be like the bride-price of virgins and the bride-price of virgins like this. Abaye said: if he came upon her and she died, he is exempt, for it is stated, "and he shall give to the father of the young woman" (Deuteronomy 22:29), and not to the father of a dead woman. Rava asked Abaye: if he came upon her and she then became betrothed, what is the law? He said to him: is it written, "and he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not betrothed"? But by your reasoning, what of the teaching that if he came upon her and she married, her fine goes to herself; is it written, "and he shall give to the father of the young woman who is not married"? It is different there: since reaching maturity removes her from her father's domain and marriage removes her from her father's domain, just as with maturity, if he came upon her and she matured, the fine goes to herself, so too with marriage, if he came upon her and she married, it goes to herself. But betrothal does not remove her entirely from her father's domain, as we learned: regarding the betrothed young woman, her father and her husband annul her vows. Whether in the case of the rapist or the seducer, both she and her father can withhold consent. Granted the seducer, for it is written, "if her father utterly refuse" (Exodus 22:16) - I have only her father; from where do I learn that she herself may refuse? Scripture states "refuse, he refuse," implying in any case. But as for the rapist, granted that she may withhold, for it is written, "and she shall be his wife" (Deuteronomy 22:29), by her consent; but from where do we learn that her father may withhold? Abaye said: so that the sinner not be rewarded. Rava said: by an a fortiori argument. If the seducer, who acted only against the father's will, can be blocked by both her and her father, then the rapist, who acted against both her father's will and her own, all the more so. Rava did not say as Abaye, because since the rapist pays, he is not a sinner who is rewarded. Abaye did not say as Rava, for in the case of the seducer, who himself may withhold, her father too may withhold; whereas the rapist, who himself may not withhold, perhaps her father too may not withhold. The rapist drinks from his cracked pot [must keep her]; but the seducer, if he wishes to send her away, may send her away. Rava of Pirzakya said to Rav Ashi: since they are derived one from another, let them be derived one from another for this matter too. He answered: the verse states, "he shall surely endow her to be his wife" (Exodus 22:15), by his own consent. How does he drink from his cracked pot? Even if she is lame, even if she is blind, even if she is stricken with boils. But if something indecent is found in her, or she is unfit to enter the congregation, [he does not keep her]. Where do we say a positive commandment comes and overrides a negative one? Such as circumcision in a case of leprosy, where it is impossible to fulfill the positive commandment otherwise. But here, if she says "I do not want him," is there any positive commandment at all?