Ketubot 36A

עריות ממש, ״שניות״⁠ — מדברי סופרים, כיון דמדאורייתא חזיא ליה, אמאי אין להן קנס? אלא: ״עריות״⁠ — חייבי מיתות בית דין, ״שניות״⁠ — חייבי כריתות. אבל חייבי לאוין יש להן קנס, ומני שמעון התימני היא.

actual forbidden relatives prohibited by Torah law, and secondary relatives means, as it does in most cases, relatives prohibited by rabbinic law, that cannot be, for since those secondary relatives are suitable for him to marry and are not prohibited by Torah law, why do they not receive a fine if they are raped or seduced? Rather, the meaning of these terms in this context is different: Forbidden relatives are those for which one is liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty; secondary relatives are those for which one is liable to receive karet, which are relatively less severe than those for which one is executed. However, those liable for violating regular prohibitions receive payment of a fine if they are raped or seduced. And according to whose opinion is the baraita taught? It is the opinion of Shimon HaTimni, who exempts from paying a fine only one who rapes a woman with whom betrothal is ineffective.

איכא דאמרי ״עריות״⁠ — חייבי מיתות בית דין וחייבי כריתות, ״שניות״⁠ — חייבי לאוין. מני ⁠— רבי שמעון בן מנסיא היא.

Some say that we can explain that forbidden relatives refers to all relatives with whom sex are forbidden by severe prohibitions, both those for which one is liable to death by the court and those for which he is liable to karet, and secondary relatives refers to those relatives with whom one who has sex is liable for violating regular prohibitions. According to this approach, whose opinion does this follow? It is that of R' Shimon ben Menasya, who maintains that even a woman raped by a man forbidden to her by a regular prohibition is not entitled to the fine, despite the fact that betrothal is effective in that case.