Ketubot 44b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

From where are these matters [derived]:

that if her conception was not in sanctity but her birth was in sanctity, her law is [that she is] stoned ?

Reish Lakish said: For the verse says

in the passage concerning the betrothed young woman who committed adultery: “And all the men of her city shall stone her with stones

and she shall die.”

The word “and she shall die” is superfluous, and it comes

to include

that they also stone one whose

conception was not in sanctity but whose birth was in sanctity.

And we challenge this:

if so,

let us learn from this inclusion that if it was clarified that the husband had brought out an evil name

— he too should be flogged

—he should be flogged [(

he should be flogged, as is the law concerning one who brings out an evil name)],

and he should also pay one hundred sela!

And we answer:

The verse says: “and she shall die.”

And it indicates that only

for the

law of

death was she included, and not for

the matter of

the fine.

And we challenge this:

But say

that the verse came

to include

only one whose

conception and birth were in sanctity!?

And we answer: For this one, an inclusion is not necessary, since

that one

whose conception and birth were in sanctity

— is a complete Israelite [(

she is a complete Israelite)], ואין צריך לרבותה ממקרא מיוחדand it is not necessary to include her by means of a special verse.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty from the opposite side:

But say

that the verse came

to include

even one whose

conception and birth were not in sanctity?

And we say:

If

you say

so,

that this one, too, was included, then what is written in the passage

“in Israel”—

what use is it—

what does this verse come to exclude?! And necessarily, it comes to exclude this one, whose neither conception nor birth was in sanctity.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: One who brings out an evil name concerning an orphan girl,

who said, “I did not find signs of virginity in her,” and was found to be a liar,

is exempt

from flogging and from giving one hundred silver pieces,

as it is stated

in that passage: “And they shall fine him one hundred silver pieces,

and they shall give them to the father of the young woman.”

And we expound:

to exclude this one,

the orphan girl

— who has no father.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin raised an objection, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida:

It is written concerning one who seduces:

“But if her father utterly refuses

to give her to him, money shall be weighed according to the dowry of virgins.” And it would have been sufficient for it to write, “But if he refuses.” And from the fact that it is written, “But if her father utterly refuses,” we learn that whether her father is alive and he refuses, or her father is not alive and the young woman refuses, he shall weigh money according to the dowry of virgins. And the verse came

to include an orphan girl for the fine; these are the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

And from here it is proven that although concerning rape it is written, “and he shall give to the father of the young woman,” and rape and seduction are learned from one another by means of a gzera shava, nevertheless, there is an obligation of a fine in the case of an orphan girl! [(

And if you will say: Here it is different, since the Torah included an orphan girl, but concerning one who brings out an evil name, an orphan girl was not included! It may be said that here, too, “an orphan girl” is not indicated by the inclusion; rather, only that both she and her father can prevent it, as we say in Elu Na’arot [above, page 39b]. And an orphan girl was not included here; rather, the tanna holds that what is written in the Torah, “her father” \-

does not come to exclude an orphan girl, but rather to say that the fine belongs to her father and not to her herself. And the same law applies to “her father” stated concerning one who brings out an evil name. Rashi)].

he,

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin,

raises the objection, and he

himself

resolves it:

What we include an orphan girl for the fine is

in

a case in which

he had intercourse with her—

and afterward she became an orphan.

But if he had intercourse with her when she was an orphan, she has no fine. An orphan girl was excluded from the law of the fine and from the law of one who brings out an evil name.

But

Rava

disagreed with Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina and

said:

one who brings out an evil name concerning an orphan girl

— is liable.

From where

did Rava learn this law?

From what Ami taught:

It is written concerning one who brings out an evil name: “For he brought out an evil name concerning a virgin of Israel,” and we expound:

“a virgin of Israel”

specifically

— and not a virgin of converts.

And a virgin of converts is like an orphan girl, for the Torah declared the offspring of a gentile ownerless like that of a donkey, as it is written: “And your flow was the flow of horses,” and she is not attributed to her father.

And Rava infers:

Granted, if you say

that

in such a case,

that is, an orphan girl,

there is liability in the case of an Israelite, this is why the verse was necessary

in order

to exclude converts.

But if you say

that even

in Israel, in such a case, there is exemption,

it is difficult: What need is there for a special verse to exclude a virgin of converts? For

now, if in the case of an Israelite there is exemption, in the case of converts is it necessary

to say that there is exemption?!

Rather, necessarily, it is proven from here that one who brings out an evil name concerning an orphan girl in Israel is liable,

And therefore the verse was necessary to exclude a virgin of converts.

Reish Lakish said: One who brings out an evil name concerning a minor girl—

is exempt, as it is stated: “And they shall give them to the father of the young woman.”

Since everywhere in the Torah “young woman” is written with the letter heh omitted [“young woman”], whereas here it is stated

“young woman” written in full,

since “young woman” is written here, we learn from the letter heh of “young woman” to exclude a minor girl.

Rav Aḥa bar Abba objected to this: The reason is that “the young woman” is written in it; but if not,

would I have said even a minor girl?

But it is written

in the passage concerning one who brings out an evil name:

“And if this matter was true, signs of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the entrance of her father’s house, and they shall stone her.”

And

after all,

a minor girl is not subject to punishment!

And necessarily, it is speaking here specifically of a young woman!

Rather,

it is proven that this which is written here, “young woman” in full, does not come to teach about itself and to exclude a minor girl, since certainly a minor girl was excluded from the law of one who brings out an evil name, since she is not subject to punishment.

Rather, this verse comes to teach concerning every “young woman” in the Torah in which “young woman” is written without the letter heh, to say that a minor girl is also included.

And this is how we learn:

Here

where it is impossible to establish the words of the verse as referring to a minor girl, it is written

“young woman”

in full.

This

teaches that

every place where “young woman”

is said defectively, such as concerning rape and seduction—even a minor girl is included.

Shila taught,

Shila the [amora] would teach a beraita:

Three measures,

distinct laws in three ways, there are

in a young woman

who was betrothed and committed adultery: