Arakhin 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

For

if two men had relations with her

[with a virgin girl],

one unnaturally

[so that she remains a virgin and they are liable to pay her a fine, but nevertheless she is blemished],

and one

had relations with her afterward

naturally

, and if you say that the humiliation is included in the fifty that the second man pays, it emerges that not only have you failed to distinguish between the daughter of kings and the daughter of commoners, whose inferiority is due to her family, which is an external matter, as in the case of one who performs a needlework act; rather, even here, where her inferiority is due to her own body, there is no distinction, and

they will say: One who had relations with a blemished girl

—who had already been penetrated unnaturally—

pays fifty

, and one who

had relations with

a

completely intact

—who had not been penetrated even unnaturally—

also pays fifty

! Where is the distinction between them? Necessarily, with regard to humiliation there is a distinction between them, and he pays a greater amount for the humiliation of the intact girl than for that of the blemished girl. And if so, it is necessary that humiliation is not included in the fine; and the same applies to blemish.

And we raise an objection:

Abaye said

to Rav Zeira: Even this comparison can be refuted, for with regard to the killing of a slave, one pays thirty whether the slave is healthy or afflicted with boils [whose deficiency is in his body, as with a blemished girl].

If so

, according to your statement,

with regard to a slave too they will say

: For

a healthy slave, he pays thirty

; for

a slave afflicted with boils, he pays thirty

! Where is the distinction between them? [This passage is explained according to the Shita Mekubbetzet, Ketubot 40a, in Rashi’s view, in a second explanation; see there.]

Rather, Abaye said

: From here we learn that he pays for humiliation and blemish in addition to the fine of fifty.

The verse states

: “If a man finds a virgin girl, etc., and he seizes her, etc., then the man who lay with her shall give the girl’s father fifty silver coins, and she shall be his wife,”

“in place of his having afflicted her,”

etc. It implies that

these

fifty silver coins shall be given

in place of his having afflicted her

, as payment for the fine for the affliction. Since the verse had to state this,

by inference, there are

also other matters for which he is liable, such as

humiliation and blemish

, which are not for the affliction, since even without affliction there would be humiliation and blemish [see Rashi, Ketubot 40a].

Rava said

: We derive it from here:

“Then the man who lay with her”

shall give the girl’s father fifty silver coins. This implies that

the benefit of

relations is fifty! By inference, there is another matter

for which he is liable in addition to the benefit of relations.

And what is it? Humiliation and blemish!

Mishna:

Regarding what we learned at the beginning of the chapter, that there is

with regard to one who defames his wife, being lenient and stringent, how so?

One who defamed

his wife, and she was

the most distinguished of the priestly families, and

one who defamed

the least distinguished Israelite girl, pays

her father

one hundred sela

. Thus, we are lenient with regard to the most distinguished of the priestly families and stringent with regard to the least distinguished Israelite girl.

It emerges

from what the Torah states: One who defames his wife who is not a virgin pays one hundred sela, whereas one who rapes or seduces a virgin pays only fifty sela:

one who says with his mouth

about a woman that she is not a virgin [in Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishna],

is more severe

For likewise) we find that one who says something with his mouth is more severe

than one who performs

an act with a virgin

and blemishes her. (

with a virgin and thereby blemishes her. (

For

we likewise find

that one who says something with his mouth is more severe than one who performs an act:

the decree was not sealed against our ancestors in the wilderness

—that they would not enter the Land—even though several times they failed to trust in the Holy One, blessed be He [Rabbenu Gershom],

but because of the speech of

evil

that the spies spoke about the Land,

as it is stated

regarding the spies:

“They tested Me these ten times

[the Gemara explains what these were, and the tenth was the act of the spies], and did not heed My voice. [And it was decreed upon them:] They shall not see the Land, etc.”)

Gemara:

We raise a difficulty concerning what we said in the Mishna, “It emerges that one who says something with his mouth is more severe,” etc.: This implies that it is because of the evil speech that he said with his mouth alone that one who defames his wife is liable to pay a fine.

From where

do we know that this is the reason?

Perhaps because

this evil speech is severe

because it causes her

[i.e., because he sought to cause her]

execution

[death] through the evil speech he uttered,

as it is written

concerning one who defames his wife:

“But if this matter was true

—that signs of virginity were not found for the girl—

then they shall take the girl

out to the entrance of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her, etc.”?

And we answer:

Rava said, the verse states

: “Then they shall fine him one hundred silver coins and give them to the girl’s father,”

“because he defamed her,”

etc. This implies:

for the defamation

that he uttered!

He is liable because of the evil speech alone, and not because he sought to cause her death.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And likewise we find that the decree was not sealed”

against our ancestors in the wilderness except because of evil speech, as it is stated: “They tested Me these ten times,” etc.

We inquire about this: According to its plain meaning, it seems that this is learned from the fact that their sentence was not sealed on account of the other times when they performed acts, but because of the sin of the spies, who spoke evil speech. Thus, evil speech is more severe than those acts. Concerning this we raise the difficulty:

From where

do we know that it is more severe than they were?

Perhaps

the reason they were not punished until the sin of the spies was that

still

until the sin of the spies

their measure had not been filled

[a vessel that holds a se’a] with the many sins of Israel?

For Rav Hamnuna said: The Holy One, blessed be He, does not exact punishment from a person until his measure is full, as it is stated: “When his sufficiency is filled

[an expression meaning “enough,” Rashi in Job]—when his measure is filled with many sins—then

He will trouble him,”

and distress will come upon him!

And we answer:

Rather, Reish Lakish said: The verse states: “They tested Me ‘this’ ten times,”

and the word “this” is superfluous [Maharsha], to teach

that “this” is what sealed the decree

, and not the combination of other sins!

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Perata said: Come and see how great is the power of evil speech! From where do we know this? From the spies! If one who defames wood and stones

[i.e., the Land of Israel]

was so

punished—that they died in a plague—

one who defames his fellow, all the more so!

And we raise a difficulty:

From where

do we know that they were punished because they spoke evil of the Land of Israel?

Perhaps it was because of the statement of Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa! For Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa said: The spies spoke a great

[severe]

thing at that time, as it is written

: “The men [the spies] who went up with him said: We cannot go up against the people,”

“for he is stronger than ‘us’,”

[do not read “stronger than us,” but “stronger than Him”—Rashi, Sotah 35a, does not have this version], and they interpreted this as referring above,

as though to say: Even the Master of the House

—the Lord of the world [Rashi, Sotah 35a]—

cannot remove

His vessels from there

if He had deposited them there [Rashi there].

If so, it should be difficult: Perhaps they were punished for this sin?

And we answer:

Rather, Rabbah said in the name of Reish Lakish

: There is proof that they were punished for the evil report about the Land,

as the verse states: “And the men who brought out the evil report of the Land died,”

and it implies:

For the evil report about the Land that they brought out

—

they died!

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: Ten

tests did

[some explain this according to its plain meaning—Ein Yaakov; others explain: They angered Him ten times, as the Aramaic translation of “and they were angry” is “nasissin”—Shita Mekubbetzet in the name of the Rosh]

our ancestors give the Omnipresent in the wilderness

33 , and these are: Two at the Sea

of Reeds,

and two concerning water

—over matters involving water,

two concerning the manna

—when they did not act as they had been commanded,

and two concerning the quail

—when they craved meat and complained twice.

One concerning the calf, and one in the wilderness of Paran

—that is, the spies!

And we explain it:

Two at the sea: One while descending

to the Sea of Reeds,

and one while ascending

from the Sea of Reeds!

a.

While descending

they tested Him,

as it is written

: “The Egyptians pursued them and overtook them encamped by the sea, etc. And they said to Moses:

‘Is it because there are no graves in Egypt

that you have taken us to die in the wilderness, etc.’”

b.

While ascending

they tested Him:

As Rav Huna said, for Rav Huna said: The Israelites of that generation were of little faith, in accordance with the statement of Rabbah bar Mari, who said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And they rebelled against Him at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds, yet He saved them for the sake of His name”?

[The wording “they rebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds,” rather than “they rebelled at the Sea of Reeds,” implies that after they were already at the Sea of Reeds they rebelled against the Holy One, blessed be He, in addition to the rebellion when they descended into the sea—Maharsha.]

It teaches that the Israelites rebelled at that time

when they ascended from the sea,

and said: Just as we are ascending on this side, so too the Egyptians are ascending on the other side.

The Israelites did not cross the sea across its width, from one shore to the other; rather, they entered the sea, traversed one strip of it along its length, and emerged on the same side from which they had entered, turning toward the wilderness from another direction. They said: Just as we are ascending on this side and came to the wilderness, so too the Egyptians will ascend from the other side of the wilderness and pursue us—Tosafot. This was their rebellion.

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the ministering angel of the sea: Cast them out

[the Egyptians]

onto dry land! He said before Him

—the ministering angel of the sea:

“Master of the Universe, does a servant who receives a gift from his master

—the bodies of the Egyptians, which would serve as food for the fish—

then

the

master return and take it from him?” He said to him

—the Holy One, blessed be He, to the ministering angel of the sea:

“I will give you

a gift in their place, from the army of Sisera, one and a half times

their number!”

[In Egypt it is written: “He took six hundred select chariots,” etc., and they pursued the Israelites. Regarding the war of Sisera it is written: “Sisera summoned all his chariots, nine hundred iron chariots,” and ultimately they were swept into the sea, as it is written afterward in Deborah’s song: “The Kishon River swept them away,” and they were cast into the sea; this is expounded in Pesachim 118a.]

The ministering angel of the sea said before Him

:

“Master of the Universe, does a servant demand from his master

that he fulfill his promise?”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him

—to the ministering angel of the sea:

“The Kishon River will be a guarantor,”

an obligated guarantor , and you will be able to demand payment from it without demanding it from the debtor [Maharsha, Pesachim 118a].

Immediately, it cast them

—the sea—

onto dry land, as it is written: “And Israel saw the Egyptians ‘dead on the shore of the sea.’”

It should have stated, “And Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the shore of the sea”; rather, it is demonstrated that the Egyptians were cast out onto the shore of the sea. It is written afterward: “And they believed in the Lord and in Moses His servant,” implying that previously they had not believed. Thus, the Israelites were of little faith! [Maharsha there.]

Two

times Israel tested

[God] concerning water: at Marah and at Rephidim.

a.

At Marah, as it is written: “And they came to Marah and could not drink

water from Marah, etc.’”

And it is written

afterward: (and he lodged) “

And the people complained against Moses

saying, ‘What shall we drink?’”

b.

At Rephidim, as it is written: “And they encamped at Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink

it.”

And it is written

afterward: “

And the people quarreled with Moses

and said, ‘Give us water, that we may drink.’”

Two

times Israel tested

[God] with the manna: