Ketubot 45b — the Talmud in English

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

say that we have 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, while if we follow the time of knowledge, they must bring another offering; therefore, it is impossible to obligate them at all.

But to say that he holds like the baraita that Shila taught, that the law is determined according to the change in the body, and to say

that he follows

only

after

the time of

knowledge,

after his body has changed,

and does not follow after

the time of

the sin

at all, so that the nasi must bring a male goat and the High Priest must bring a bull, as their obligation would have been had they sinned now—

have you heard him say

that Rabbi Shimon holds this way?!

And necessarily he does not hold this way, for

if

he holds

so,

the difficulty is:

let them bring

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

an offering accordingly,

according to the law of the obligation

as it is now! The High Priest

who was

“anointed”

with anointing oil should bring

a bull, and the nasi

should bring

a goat!

And why did Rabbi Shimon say that they are entirely exempt?

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

Rabbi Yohanan said to the tanna

who recited before him that same baraita which Shila taught, that it must be emended, so that one should not read in it, “If witnesses came in her father's house, she is judged by strangulation,” but rather

teach: She is judged by stoning.

And should you say:

But why

should she be judged by stoning? The Merciful One said

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

Your answer is:

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

the

maiden,”

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

the maiden who had already been,

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

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

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

he too should be flogged

the husband,

and he too should pay one hundred sela!

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

he said to him,

Rabbi Ila'a to Rabbi Hanania:

May the Merciful One save us—

may He save us

from this view!

And he concealed from him the reason for the matter, because it depends upon understanding of the heart, as he explains below.

Rabbi Hanania said to him:

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

For there is no reason for your words.

And what is the reason?

What indeed is the reason behind Rabbi Ila'a's words?

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

the maiden,

her actions caused it for her. And

if

that one,

the husband,

the twisting of his lips caused it for him.

And the Gemara explains:

This one,

the maiden—if it was true that she committed adultery, then

her actions caused it for her,

that is, the sin was in her action; and

when she committed adultery,

she was

a maiden

and

committed adultery,

and therefore her law is stoning, as is the law of a betrothed maiden.

And

if

that one,

the husband—if it was found that he lied, then

the twisting of his lips caused it for him,

that is, his sin was in what he said and in bringing an evil report about her.

When does he become liable—

at that time

when he brought an evil report about her by twisting his lips;

and at that time

when he brought an evil report about her, she was already an adult,

she was,

and therefore the law of one who brings an evil report does not apply to him, for 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 of her father's house,

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

You say something similar: One who worships idolatry—they stone him at the gate at which 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 words,

that they stone one who worships idolatry at the gate at which he worshipped it?

For the Sages taught:

It is written concerning one who worshipped idolatry: “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 at which he worshipped it.”

You say

that this is

the gate at which he worshipped it, or is it only the gate at which he was sentenced?

“Your gates” is stated below,

at the end of the matter, that is, the verse above, which speaks of the stoning of one who worshipped idolatry,

and “your gates” is stated above,

at the beginning of the matter: “When there is found among you, within one of your gates, a man or a woman who goes and worships other gods.”

Just as “your gates” stated above—

necessarily, the reference is to the

gate at which he worshipped it, so too “your gates” stated below—

the gate at which he worshipped it

is what it refers to.

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”—

have you extracted it for that purpose!

For we have learned another matter from this verse!?

And we explain:

If so,

that the verse came to teach us only that they stone him at the gate at which he worshipped it,

let the verse say “gate”; what is

this that the verse wrote,

“your gates”? It teaches us two things

[we learn from this verse these two things].

We have found this with regard to idolatry.

A betrothed maiden—

from where do we know

that they stone her at the entrance of the city in which she committed adultery?

Rabbi Abbahu said: He derives

[learns]

“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 learn

“entrance” from “gate,”

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

And

afterward we learn

“gate” from “your gates”

mentioned with regard to idolatry. And this derivation is merely a rabbinic asmachta.

The Sages taught: One who brings an evil report—

is flogged and gives one hundred sela.

Rabbi Judah says: With regard to being flogged—

he is flogged in any event,

in every case in which he brought an evil report about a maiden.

But with regard to giving

one hundred sela

there is a distinction: If he

had intercourse with

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

he gives

one hundred sela.

But if he

had not had intercourse with

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

he does not give

one hundred sela.

And the Gemara explains:

They disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Rabbis

below.

And this is what

the tanna of the baraita

is saying: One who brings an evil report—

is flogged and gives one hundred sela, whether he had intercourse or had not had intercourse, according to

the method of

the Rabbis.

Rabbi Judah says: With regard to being flogged—

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to flogging—

he is flogged in any event.

But

one hundred sela,

only if he

had intercourse—

he gives.

But if he

had not had intercourse—

he does not give.

And this is

according to

the method of

Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov,

who holds that the passage concerning one who brings an evil report was stated specifically when he had intercourse. But the flogging is because of the prohibition “You shall not go about as a talebearer,” and this does not depend on whether he had intercourse or not, for in the end he went about as a talebearer. And although it is a prohibition that has no action, Rabbi Judah holds that one is flogged for a prohibition that has no action.

There are those who say: The entire [baraita],

the entire baraita—

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

the tanna of the baraita is saying:

One who brings an evil report—

One who disseminates a defamatory report—

is flogged and gives one hundred sela. And this is—

when he had intercourse.

For even the flogging applies specifically when he had intercourse, because the first tanna holds that one is not flogged for a prohibition that has no action; therefore, it is impossible to obligate him on account of “You shall not go about as a talebearer,” but only on account of what is written in the passage concerning one who brings an evil report: “They shall chastise him,” and this was stated specifically when he had intercourse.

Rabbi Judah says: With regard to being flogged—

he is flogged in any event,

because of “You shall not go about as a talebearer,” since he holds that one is flogged for a prohibition that has no action.

And we raise an objection:

And does Rabbi Judah hold

that

with regard to being flogged—

he is flogged in any event?

But it was taught: Rabbi Judah says: If he had intercourse—

he is flogged; if he had not had intercourse—

he is not flogged!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

What Rabbi Judah said, that he

is flogged

in any event, refers to

lashes of rebelliousness by rabbinic decree.

But by Torah law, in truth he is flogged only when he had intercourse.