Ketubot 44b (מד:) — 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 status is that she is stoned ?

Reish Lakish said: As the verse states

in the passage concerning a 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

also one whose

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

And we raise an objection:

If so,

let us learn from this inclusion that if it became clear that the husband had fabricated the bad report—

he too should be flogged

as well, [

he should be flogged, as is the law concerning one who fabricates a bad report],

and he should also pay one hundred sela!

And we answer:

The verse states: “And she shall die.”

And this indicates that only

the

law of

death was included, and not the

matter of the

fine.

And we raise an objection:

Perhaps

the verse came

to include

only one whose

conception and birth were in sanctity!?

And we answer: There is no need for an inclusion for that case, since

that woman

whose conception and birth were in sanctity—

she is a fully-fledged Israelite [

she is a complete Israelite], and there is no need to include her through a special verse.

And the Gemara raises the opposite objection:

Perhaps

the verse came

to include

even one whose

conception and birth were not in sanctity?

And we say:

If

you will say

so,

that this woman too was included, then what purpose does the wording

“in Israel”

serve? What does this verse come to exclude? Necessarily, it comes to exclude this woman, whose conception and birth were both not in sanctity.

what does this verse come to exclude?! Necessarily, it comes to exclude a woman who was neither conceived nor born after her mother converted.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: One who fabricates a bad report concerning an orphan,

saying, “I did not find signs of virginity in her,” and is found to have lied—

is exempt

from flogging and from giving one hundred silver coins,

as it is stated

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

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

And we interpret this:

excluding this one,

the orphan—

who has no father.

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

It is written concerning the seducer:

“And if her father absolutely refuses

to give her to him, he shall weigh out money according to the bride-price of virgins.” It would have been sufficient for the verse to write, “And if he refuses.” From the fact that it says, “And if her father absolutely refuses,” we learn that whether her father is alive and refuses, or her father is not alive and the young woman refuses, he shall weigh out money according to the bride-price of virgins. And the verse comes

to include an orphan with regard to the fine; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

And from here it is proven that although concerning rape it is written, “and he shall give it to the father of the young woman,” and rape and seduction are derived from one another through a gzera shava, nevertheless, one is liable for the fine in the case of an orphan! [

And if you would say that here is different, because the Torah included an orphan, whereas with regard to one who fabricates a bad report, an orphan was not included: One can say that here too, the inclusion does not indicate an orphan; rather, it indicates only that both she and her father can prevent the marriage, as we said in the chapter “These Young Women” [above, page 39b]. And an orphan was not included here; rather, the tanna holds that what is written in the Torah, “her father,”

does not come to exclude an orphan, but to say that the fine is given to her father and not to her herself. The same applies to “her father” stated with regard to one who fabricates a bad report. Rashi].

He,

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin,

raised the objection, and he

himself

resolved it:

The inclusion of an orphan with regard to the fine applies

to

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 already an orphan, she has no fine. An orphan was excluded both from the law of the fine and from the law of one who fabricates a bad report.

But

Rava

disagreed with Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina and

said:

One who fabricates a bad report concerning an orphan—

is liable.

From where

did Rava derive this law?

From what Ami taught:

It is written concerning one who fabricates a bad report: “For he has fabricated a bad report concerning a virgin of Israel,” and we interpret this:

a virgin of Israel

specifically—

and not a virgin of converts.

And a virgin of converts is like an orphan, since the Torah declared the offspring of a gentile ownerless, like that of a donkey, as it is written: “And their emission was like the emission of horses”; she is not considered related to her father.

Rava infers:

Granted, if you say

that

in a case such as this,

that is, an orphan,

one is liable in Israel, this is why the verse was necessary

in order

to exclude converts.

But if you say

that even

in Israel, in a case such as this, one is exempt,

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

now, if in Israel one is exempt, with regard to converts is it necessary

to say that one is exempt?!

Rather, it necessarily follows from here that one who fabricates a bad report concerning an orphan in Israel is liable,

and therefore the verse was required to exclude a virgin of converts.

Reish Lakish said: One who fabricates a bad report concerning a minor—

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

Since everywhere the Torah writes “young woman” with the letter heh omitted [“young woman”], whereas here it says

“young woman” with the word written in full,

we learn from the letter heh in the full spelling of “young woman” to exclude a minor.

Rav Aḥa bar Abba challenged this: Is the reason only because it is written “the young woman”; if not for this—

would I have thought that even a minor is included?

But it is written

in the passage concerning one who fabricates a bad report:

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

And

after all,

a minor is not subject to punishment!

It necessarily follows that here the verse is speaking specifically of a young woman!

Rather,

it is proven that the fact that “young woman” is written here in full does not come to teach about this case itself, to exclude a minor, since a minor was certainly excluded from the law of one who fabricates a bad report, as she is not subject to punishment.

Rather, this verse comes to teach about every young woman in the Torah where the word is written without the letter heh, indicating that even a minor is included.

And this is how we learn it:

Here,

where it is impossible to understand the verse as referring to a minor, it is written

“young woman”

in full.

From this

you learn that

wherever “young woman” is stated in the defective spelling

—for example, with regard to rape and seduction—even a minor is included.

Shila taught

the following beraita:

There are three categories,

three distinct sets of laws, that apply

to a

betrothed young woman who committed adultery: