Ketubot 45b (מה:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from here for our matter. For

perhaps we heard Rabbi Shimon say that he follows

the time of the sin, and

even after

the time of

knowledge,

and therefore he holds that they are entirely exempt, since if we follow the time of the sin, they must bring a female lamb, whereas if we follow the time of knowledge, they require a different offering. Therefore, it is impossible to obligate them at all.

But can one say that he holds like the beraita taught by Shila, which establishes the law according to the change in the person's physical status, and that

he follows

only

after

the time of

knowledge,

after her body had changed,

and does not follow after

the time of

the sin

at all, so that the nasi would be obligated to bring a goat and the High Priest would be obligated to bring a bull, just as they would have been obligated had they sinned now?

Did you hear him say

that Rabbi Shimon holds this way!?

But necessarily he does not hold this way, for

if

he held

so,

the following difficulty would arise:

let

the nasi and the High Priest, who sinned before they were appointed and were then appointed,

bring an offering according to

the law of the obligation

as it is now!

The High Priest who was

“anointed”

with the anointing oil should bring

a bull, and the nasi

should bring

a goat!

Why, then, did Rabbi Shimon say that they are entirely exempt?

And we answer: Rabbi Shimon may indeed hold like this beraita, but in his view it must be emended. Just as

Rabbi Yohanan said to the tanna

who had taught before him that same beraita taught by Shila, that it must be emended, so that it should not read: If witnesses came to her father's house, she is judged by strangulation. Rather,

teach: She is judged by stoning.

And should you say:

Why

should she be judged by stoning? After all,

the Torah said, “the betrothed maiden,” and she is an adult!

The answer is:

Rav Ila'a said: The verse states: “And they shall bring out

the

maiden,” and

the fact that it does not say, “And they shall bring her out,” indicates that even

the maiden who was already

so, although she is now no longer a maiden but an adult, must nevertheless be brought out for stoning.

Rabbi Hananya said to Rabbi Ila'a: If so,

since this adult woman too was included by the verse, let us also say that the husband who disseminates a defamatory report about an adult woman who committed adultery during her maidenhood

should also be flogged

the husband,

and should also pay one hundred sela!

Rabbi Ila'a did not explain to him the reason for the matter. Rather,

he said to him,

Rabbi Ila'a said to Rabbi Hananya:

May the Merciful One save us

from

this opinion!

He concealed from him the reason for the matter, because it depends on understanding the intention of the heart, as the Gemara will explain below.

Rabbi Hananya said to him:

On the contrary! May the Merciful One save us from your opinion!

For there is no basis for your words.

But what is the reason?

What, in fact, is the reason underlying Rabbi Ila'a's words?

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Avin said, and some say Rabbi Yitzhak bar Abba: This one,

the maiden,

her actions caused her punishment. And

whereas

that one,

the husband,

the twisting of his lips caused his punishment.

And the Gemara explains:

This one,

the maiden: If it was true that she had committed adultery, then

her actions caused her punishment,

that is, the sin consisted of her own deed; and

when she committed adultery,

she was

a maiden,

and she

committed adultery

while she was a maiden. Therefore, her judgment is stoning, as is the law concerning a betrothed maiden.

And

whereas

that one,

the husband: If it turns out that he lied, then

the twisting of his lips caused his punishment,

that is, his sin was in what he said, by disseminating a defamatory report about her.

When is he liable—

at that time

when he disseminated the defamatory report through the twisting of his lips—and

at that time

when he disseminated the defamatory report, she was already an adult;

she was,

and therefore the law of one who disseminates a defamatory report does not apply to him, as it was stated only with regard to a betrothed maiden!

The Sages taught: A betrothed maiden who committed adultery—

they stone her at the entrance to her father's house,

if witnesses came forward after she married, so that everyone would know that her adultery had taken place in her father's house, and not after she married, in her father-in-law's house.

If she has no entrance to her father's house—

they stone her at the entrance of the gate of that city .

And in a city whose majority are idolaters—

they stone her at the entrance of the court .

Similarly, you can say: One who worships an idol—they stone him at the gate where he worshipped it, even if he was sentenced to death in another city.

And in a city whose majority are idolaters—

they stone him at the entrance of the court.

From where are these matters,

that they stone one who worships an idol at the gate where he worshipped it?

As the Sages taught:

It is written concerning one who worshipped an idol: “And you shall bring that man out to

your gates.

And you shall stone them with stones, and they shall die”—

this is the gate where he worshipped it.

You say

that this is

the gate where he worshipped it, or perhaps it is only the gate where he was judged?

“Your gates” is stated below,

at the end of the passage, that is, in the verse cited above, which speaks of the stoning of one who worshipped an idol,

and “your gates” is stated above,

at the beginning of the passage: “If there shall be found among you, within any of your gates, a man or woman who goes and worships other gods.”

Just as “your gates” stated above—

necessarily refers to

the gate where he worshipped it, so too “your gates” stated below—

is the gate where he worshipped it

.

Alternatively,

we learn from this verse:

“Your gates”

specifically—

and not the gates of idolaters.

That is, in a city whose majority are gentiles, they stone him at the entrance of the court.

And we raise an objection:

This

verse of

“your gates”—

has it not already been used for another derivation!

After all, we have learned another matter from this verse!?

And we explain:

If so,

if the verse came to teach us only that he is stoned at the gate where he worshipped the idol,

let the verse say “gate”; what is

the significance of the fact that the verse wrote

“your gates”? It teaches us two things

[we learn both matters from this verse].

We have found this with regard to idolatry.

With regard to a betrothed maiden—

from where do we derive

that she is stoned at the entrance of the city in which she committed adultery?

Rabbi Abbahu said: We derive

[this through a verbal analogy of]

“entrance” from “entrance”;

here it is written, “to the entrance of her father's house,” while concerning the Tabernacle it is written, “the screen of the entrance of the court.”

And

we derive

“entrance” from “gate”:

just as the entrance mentioned with regard to the Tabernacle has a gate alongside it, so too the entrance mentioned here has a gate alongside it.

And

afterward we derive

“gate” from “your gates,”

which is stated with regard to idolatry. This derivation is merely a rabbinic support.

The Sages taught: One who disseminates a defamatory report—

is flogged and gives one hundred sela.

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to flogging—

he is flogged in every case,

in every case in which he disseminated a defamatory report about a maiden.

But with regard to giving

one hundred sela,

there is a distinction: If he

had relations with

the maiden and came to court and falsely claimed that he had approached her but did not find her to be a virgin, he

gives

one hundred sela.

But if he

had not had relations with

her, but claimed that he had witnesses that she had committed adultery in her father's house, he

does not give

one hundred sela.

And the Gemara explains:

They disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Rabbis

mentioned below.

And this is what

the tanna of the beraita

says:

One who disseminates a defamatory report—

is flogged and gives one hundred sela, whether he had relations with her or had not had relations with her, according to

the view of

the Rabbis.

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to flogging—

he is flogged in every case.

But

one hundred sela

only if he

had relations with her—

he gives.

But if he

had not had relations with her—

he does not give.

And that is

according to

the view of

Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov,

who holds that the passage concerning one who disseminates a defamatory report was stated specifically when he had relations with her. But the flogging is because of the prohibition “You shall not go about as a talebearer,” and this is not dependent on whether he had relations with her, for in any event he went about as a talebearer. And although it is a prohibition whose violation does not involve an action, Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is flogged for violating a prohibition whose violation does not involve an action.

Some say: The entire beraita

—all of the beraita—

is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and this is what

the tanna of the beraita

says:

One who disseminates a defamatory report—

is flogged and gives one hundred sela. And this is

when he had relations with her.

For even the flogging applies specifically when he had relations with her, because the first tanna holds that one is not flogged for a prohibition whose violation does not involve an action. Therefore, he cannot be obligated on account of “You shall not go about as a talebearer,” but only because of what is written in the passage concerning one who disseminates a defamatory report: “They shall discipline him,” and this was stated specifically when he had relations with her.

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to flogging—

he is flogged in every case,

because of “You shall not go about as a talebearer,” since he holds that one is flogged for a prohibition whose violation does not involve an action.

And we raise an objection:

Does Rabbi Yehuda hold

that with regard to

flogging—

he is flogged in every case?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If he had relations with her—

he is flogged; if he had not had relations with her—

he is not flogged!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

What Rabbi Yehuda said, that he

is flogged

in every case, refers to

a rebellious flogging by rabbinic ordinance.

But by Torah law, he is indeed flogged only when he had relations with her.