Arakhin 15a — the Talmud in English

For

if two men had intercourse with her

with a virgin girl

, one unnaturally

and she is still a virgin and they are liable to pay her a fine, but nevertheless she is blemished

, and one

had intercourse with her afterward

in the usual manner

, and if you say that the humiliation is included in the fifty that the second one pays, it follows that not only have you failed to distinguish between the daughter of kings and the daughter of ordinary people, whose inferiority is due to family, which is an external matter, as in the case of one who performs the act of a needle. Rather, even in this case, where her inferiority is due to her body, there is no distinction, and

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

who had already been penetrated unnaturally

pays fifty

and also one who

had intercourse with

a

whole virgin

who had not even been penetrated unnaturally

pays fifty!

Where is the distinction between them?! Necessarily, with regard to humiliation there is a distinction between them, and he pays compensation for humiliation to the whole girl more than to the blemished one . And if so, it is compelled that humiliation is not included, and the same is true of blemish.

And we raise an objection:

Abaye said

And we raise an objection:

Abaye said

to Rav Zeira: Even concerning this it is possible to refute, for concerning the killing of a slave, he pays thirty whether [the slave is] healthy or afflicted with boils

[whose deficiency is in his body, as in the case of a blemished girl]. And if so

that it is as you say

, with regard to a slave as well 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 teaching is explained according to the Shita Mekubetzet, Ketubot 40a, in Rashi’s opinion, in the second explanation, see there.]

Rather, Abaye said

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

The verse says: “If a man finds a virgin girl, and he seizes her … and the man who lay with her shall give the girl’s father fifty silver [shekels], and she shall be his wife”

“in place of his having afflicted her”

and so on. And it implies that

these fifty silver [shekels] he shall give

in place of his having afflicted her, on account of the fine for the affliction. And from the fact that the verse needed to say this,

it follows that there are

also other matters for which he is liable, such as

humiliation and blemish, which are not on account of the affliction, since even without affliction there is humiliation and blemish. [See Rashi, Ketubot 40a.]

Rava said:

We learn it from here:

As the verse says: “And the man who lay with her”

shall give the girl’s father fifty silver [shekels], and it implies:

the benefit of

intercourse, fifty! Consequently, there is another matter

for which he is liable in addition to the benefit of intercourse,

and what is it? Humiliation and blemish!

Mishna: This is what we learned at the beginning of the chapter: There is with regard to one who gives his wife a bad name, to be lenient and stringent. How so:

And what is it? Shame and physical blemish!

One who gives a bad name to

his wife, and she is

the woman of highest priestly status, and

one [who gives a bad name]

to the least woman in Israel, pays

to her father

one hundred sela,

and we find that we are lenient with the woman of highest priestly status and stringent with the least woman in Israel.

It follows

from what the Torah said, that one who gives a bad name to 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 [Peirush HaMishnayot of Maimonides] is more severe

than one who performs

an act with a virgin

and blemishes her. (

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 thereby blemishes her. (

than one who performs an act:

that the decree was not sealed against our ancestors in the wilderness

that they would not enter the Land, even though several times they did not trust the Holy One, blessed be He [Rabbenu Gershom], but because of the language of

evil

that the spies spoke about the Land,

as it is said

with regard to the spies:

“They tested Me these ten times

[and the

Gemara explains what they were, the tenth being the act of the spies], and they did not heed My voice. [And it was decreed upon them:] If they will see the Land, and so on.’”

Gemara: And they raise a difficulty concerning what we said in the Mishna, “It follows that one who says something with his mouth is more severe,” and so on: It implies that because of the slander that he said with his mouth alone, one who gives a bad name is liable to a fine. From where is it that this is the reason?

and did not obey My voice. [And it was decreed against them:] They shall not see the Land …”

Perhaps because

this slander is severe

because it causes her

[that is, he sought to cause her]

death

through the slander that he spoke,

as it is written

with regard to one who gives a bad name:

“

And if the matter was true

that signs of virginity were not found in the girl,

then they shall bring out the girl

to the entrance of her father’s house, and stone her, and so on”?

And we answer:

Rava said, the verse says: “And they shall fine him one hundred silver [shekels] and give them to the girl’s father”

“because he gave a bad name”

and so on. It implies

because of the bad name that he gave!

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

‘because he defamed her’

and so on.” This implies that he is liable

for the name

We learned in the Mishna:

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

against our ancestors in the wilderness except because of slander, as it is said: “They tested Me these ten times,” and so on. And we consider this: It implies according to its plain meaning that we learn this from the fact that their judgment was not sealed during the other times when they performed acts, but rather because of the sin of the spies, who spoke slander; thus, slander is more severe than those acts. And concerning this they raise a difficulty: From where

is it that the reason it is more severe than them is this?

Perhaps

the reason they were not punished until the sin of the spies is

that still

until the sin of the spies

their measure was not yet full

[a vessel containing a se’a]

of the Israelites with many sins

?

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

[an expression of 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 says: “They tested Me ‘this’ ten times”

“This” is an extraneous word [Maharsha], to teach

that because of “this” the decree was sealed,

and not because of a combination of other sins!

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Peta said: Come and see how great is the power of slander! From where do we know it? From the spies! And if one who gives a bad name to wood and stones

[that is, to the Land of Israel]

was punished thus,

they were punished by dying in a plague,

one who gives a bad name to his fellow, all the more so!

And we raise a difficulty:

From where

is it that because they spoke evil of the Land of Israel they were punished?

Perhaps because of Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa?! For Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa said: The spies spoke

[a severe]

great thing at that time, as it is written: The men [the spies] who went up with him said, “We are unable to go up against the people,”

“for he is stronger than ‘us’”,

([A0205]]do not read “for he is stronger than us,” but “than Him”—Rashi, Sotah 35a; this is not his version) and they interpret this with reference to the One Above,

: “The men who had gone up with him said: We cannot go up against the people,

as though: Even the Master of the House

the Master of the world [Rashi, Sotah 35a]

cannot remove

His vessels from there

if He deposited them there [Rashi, there].

His vessels from there

if He had deposited them there [Rashi, there].

If so, one may ask: Perhaps they were punished for this sin?

And if so, it should be difficult: Perhaps it was for this sin that they were punished?

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, for

the verse says: “And the men who brought out the evil report of the Land died”

and it implies:

For the evil report of the Land that they brought out—

—

they died!

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

tests our ancestors tested

the Omnipresent in the wilderness

33, and these are they: Two at the Sea

of Reeds,

and two concerning water

over matters of water,

two concerning the manna

because they did not do as they were commanded,

and two concerning the quail,

because they desired meat and complained twice.

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

namely, the spies!

And we explain it:

Two at the Sea: One at the descent

to the Sea of Reeds

and one at the ascent

from the Sea of Reeds!

A.

At the descent

they tested [Him],

as it is written: “The Egyptians pursued after them and overtook them encamped by the sea, and so on. And they said to Moses:

‘Is it because there are no graves in Egypt

that you have taken us to die in the wilderness, and so on?’”

B.

At the ascent

they tested [Him]:

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

[which implies that the verse says “they rebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds,” rather than “they rebelled at the Sea of Reeds”: after they were at the Sea of Reeds, they rebelled against the Holy One, blessed be He, again, 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 from this side, so the Egyptians are ascending from the other side

. The Israelites did not cross the sea across its width, from one bank to the other; rather, they entered the sea and passed through it along one strip, and emerged from the side from which they entered and turned toward the wilderness from another direction. And they said: Just as we are ascending from this side and have come to the wilderness, so the Egyptians are ascending from another side, from the wilderness, and will pursue us—Tosafot. And this was their rebellion.

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

[the Egyptians]

onto the dry land! He said before Him

the ministering angel of the sea:

“Master of the world, does a slave ever have his master give him a gift

the bodies of the Egyptians, so that they will be food for the fish,

and his master then take it back from him?! He said to him

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

“I will give you

in their place, from the army of Sisera, one and

a half times their number!”

[For concerning Egypt it is written: “And he took six hundred choice chariots,” and he pursued after Israel. And concerning the war of Sisera it is written: “And Sisera summoned all his chariots, nine hundred iron chariots,” and in the end they were swept into the sea, as it is written afterward in the Song of Deborah: “The brook Kishon swept them away,” and they were cast into the sea; thus it is expounded in Pesahim 118a.]

The ministering angel of the sea said before Him:

“Master of the world, does a slave ever 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 brook Kishon shall be a guarantor

a contractor-guarantor,

and you will be able to demand from it

without demanding from the debtor [Maharsha, Pesahim 118a].

Immediately, the sea cast them onto the dry land, as it is written: “And Israel saw the Egyptians ‘dead on the shore of the sea’ ,” whereas it should have said: “And Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the shore of the sea.” Rather, it is proven that the Egyptians were cast out onto the shore of the sea. And afterward it is written: “And they believed in the Lord and in Moses His servant,” which implies that previously they had not believed; thus, the Israelites were of little faith! [Maharsha, there.]

“The brook Kishon will be a guarantor

—a direct guarantor— and you will be able to demand payment from it without demanding it from the debtor” [Maharsha on Pesachim 118a].

Immediately, He cast them out

from the sea

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

”. The verse should have said, “Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the shore of the sea”; rather, it is proven from the wording that the Egyptians were cast out onto the shore of the sea. It is written afterward: “They believed in the Lord and in Moses His servant,” implying that previously they had not believed. This demonstrates that the Israelites were of little faith! [Maharsha, there.]

Two

[times] Israel tested [Him]

with 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 to drink

for the people."

And it is written

afterward:

"And the people quarreled with Moses

and they said, Give us water and let us drink."

Two

[times] Israel tested [Him]

with manna: