Ketubot 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa said:

In truth, whether he had intercourse with her or whether he did not have intercourse with her, he is flogged. And

what does “had intercourse, he is flogged”

mean? If he did not have intercourse, he is not flogged.

As it is taught there—

the reference is to payment of

money,

the hundred sela, which he pays only if he had intercourse with her.

And we raise an objection:

And he calls money “flogging”?!

And we answer:

Yes.

Indeed, sometimes a tanna calls a monetary obligation “flogging.”

And

proof of this is that

we learned

in tractate Arakhin [20a]:

One who says, “Half my valuation is incumbent upon me”

—that is, half of the valuation prescribed for him by the Torah, since the Torah prescribes valuations for every person according to the number of his years—

gives half his valuation,

as he said.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged, and he gives the full valuation.

And this appears difficult:

He is flogged—

why?

For what reason should he receive flogging?!

And

Rav Pappa said:

The meaning is that

he is “flogged” with the full valuation,

for although he said, “Half my valuation is incumbent upon me,” he is obligated to give his entire valuation.

Thus it is demonstrated that sometimes a tanna calls a monetary obligation “flogging”!

And

what is the reason

of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda? Why must he give his entire valuation?

A decree concerning half his valuation—

on account of the valuation of half of him.

For if we were to say that one who says, “Half my valuation is incumbent upon me,” gives only the valuation of half of him, people might come to say that one who says, “The valuation of half of me is incumbent upon me” should likewise give the valuation of half of him.

And

in fact,

the valuation of half of him—

it would be

like one who assigns a valuation to

a limb upon which the soul depends,

for he cannot exist without half of his body. And with regard to valuations, it is stated, “according to the valuation of souls,” and from this we learn that one who assigns a valuation to a limb upon which the soul depends gives the person’s entire valuation.

The Sages taught:

Regarding what is written concerning one who disseminates an evil report:

“And they shall fine him

a hundred silver”—

this is money.

And regarding what is written:

“And they shall chastise

him”—

this is flogging.

And we analyze this:

Granted,

what we said, that

“and they shall fine him”

is money,

is understandable,

as

this is

written

explicitly:

“And they shall fine him a hundred silver, and give them to the father of the young woman.”

But

that

“and they shall chastise him” is flogging—

from where do we know this?

Rabbi Abbahu said: We derive “they shall chastise him,”

which is written here,

from “they shall chastise him”

which is written concerning the wayward and rebellious son.

And

we derive

“they shall chastise him”

which is written concerning the wayward and rebellious son

from “son”

which is written alongside it. This teaches us that here too, concerning one who disseminates an evil report, where “and they shall chastise him” is written, “son” is written alongside it.

And from this we now derive

“son”

from “son”

which is written with regard to flogging:

“And it shall be, if the wicked man is a son of flogging.”

And the Gemara cites the continuation of the beraita:

A warning concerning one who disseminates an evil report—

from where do we know it?

Rabbi Elazar said: From

what is written in the Torah:

“You shall not go about as a talebearer.”

Rabbi Natan says: From “And you shall guard yourself from every evil matter.”

And wherever the language “guard,” “lest,” or “do not” is stated, its meaning is: “You shall not do.”

And we analyze this:

And Rabbi Elazar—

what is the reason he did not say

that this should be derived

from this verse,

from the verse “And you shall guard yourself”?

Because

that

verse

is needed

for that which

Rabbi Pinhas ben Yair

taught:

As it is taught: “And you shall guard yourself from every evil matter.” And

Immediately following that verse it is written: “When there will be among you a man who is not pure, because of an occurrence at night.”

From here Rabbi Pinhas ben Yair said: A person should not entertain sinful thoughts during the day—

lest he come to impurity at night.

And Rabbi Natan—

what is the reason he did not say, “From this,”

from the verse “You shall not go about as a talebearer”?

Because he held that

that

verse comes to provide

a warning to the court, that it should not be lenient with one litigant and harsh with the other.

For they expound the word “talebearer” as an acronym: “Be soft toward me.”

And we also learned: If

he did not say

the husband

to the witnesses

who testify that she committed adultery,

“Come and testify for me,” and they testify against him on their own,

and the matter is found to be false,

he is not flogged

for disseminating an evil report

and he does not give a hundred sela.

But if the matter was true,

she and her conspiring witnesses proceed first to the place of stoning.

And we raise an objection: Is it conceivable that

she and her conspiring witnesses are killed,

for if the truth is that she did not commit adultery, she is not killed, while if the truth is that she did commit adultery, the witnesses are not killed!?

Rather, either she or her conspiring witnesses—

proceeds first to the place of stoning.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that he did not say to them

“Come and testify for me.”

But

if

he said to them

this, then

even though he did not hire them

[since he did not pay them money], he is flogged and pays money.

And this law is

to exclude the view of Rabbi Yehuda.

As it is taught, Rabbi Yehuda says:

One who disseminates an evil report

is not liable

for flogging and a hundred silver

until he hires witnesses .

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda?

Rabbi Abbahu said: It is derived

by means of a

“placing”—

“placing” analogy. It is written here,

concerning one who disseminates an evil report:

“And he places upon her charges of words.” And it is written there,

with regard to a loan:

“You shall not place upon him interest.” Just as there—

money, so too here—

money .

And likewise

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said, and Rav Yosef the Sidonian taught in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is derived through “placing”—

“placing.”

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

If

he hired them

the husband hired the witnesses and paid them

with land

rather than money,

what is the law?

Should we say that since his law is derived from interest, the hiring must be specifically with money or food, which are movable property, as with regard to the prohibition of interest, where money and food are mentioned and the prohibition of interest from a loan of land is not mentioned? Or perhaps only the fact that the hiring must be for money is derived from interest, and even if he hired them with land, he is liable.

Rabbi Yirmeya further raised a dilemma: He hired them

for less than the value of a pruta—what is the law?

He further raised a dilemma: If he hired

both of them for one pruta,

with each witness receiving half a pruta,

what is the law?

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma:

If the husband took her into his house but did not disseminate an evil report about her, divorced her, and then took her back, and at that point

disseminated an evil report concerning the first marriage,

saying that he had not found her to be a virgin at the time of the first marriage,

what is the law?

He further raised a dilemma: If the yavam disseminated an evil report

concerning his brother’s marriage, what is the law?

And we say:

Resolve at least one

[resolve at least one of the dilemmas].

For Rabbi Yona taught:

It is written in the passage concerning one who disseminates an evil report that the father says to the court,

“I gave my daughter to this man.”

And we expound:

to this man

specifically—

but not to a yavam,

for the law of one who disseminates an evil report does not apply to him if he disseminates the evil report concerning his brother’s marriage.

And now the Gemara returns to explain the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov concerning the dissemination of an evil report.

What is the opinion of the Rabbis, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

As it is taught: What constitutes the dissemination of an evil report?

The husband came

the husband

to the court and said

to the woman’s father:

So-and-so! I did not find your daughter to be a virgin!

If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while married to him—

she has a ketuba of one hundred dinars.

And we raise an objection:

If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while married to him—

does she have a ketuba of one hundred dinars?

But

she is liable to be stoned!

And we explain:

This is what it is saying: If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while married to him—

she is stoned.

But if

she committed adultery originally,

before he betrothed her—

she has a ketuba of one hundred dinars.

For this tanna holds that if he took her into marriage on the presumption that she was a virgin, and she was found to have had intercourse previously, she has a ketuba of one hundred dinars.

And if

it is found that the evil report is not an evil report,

that the husband lied in his statements ,

he is flogged and gives a hundred sela, whether

he

had intercourse

already

or

whether he still

had not had intercourse.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: These matters were stated—

only when he had intercourse with her.

But if he did not have intercourse with her, he is not flogged and does not give a hundred sela.

And we analyze this:

Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, this is why it is written

in the passage concerning one who disseminates an evil report,

“And he came to her

and hated her,”

“And I approached her

and did not find her to be a virgin.”

But according to the Rabbis, what do “and he came to her” and “and I approached her” mean?

And we explain:

“And he came to her”—

with charges. “And I approached her”—

with words.

And we analyze this:

Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, this is why it is written: “I did not find your daughter to be a virgin,”

for he had intercourse with her and could claim that he had not found her to be a virgin at that time.

But according to the Rabbis,

who hold that the law of one who disseminates an evil report applies even if he did not have intercourse with her,

what does “I did not find your daughter to be a virgin” mean?

And we explain: According to the Rabbis, the husband says: Here before us are witnesses who testify that she committed adultery, and

“I did not find your daughter’s ‘validators of virginity,’”

that is, witnesses who will disprove the witnesses and establish your daughter as a complete virgin.

Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, this is why it is written

that the father says, in order to refute the husband’s claim,

“And these are the signs of my daughter’s virginity.”

But according to the Rabbis, what does “and these are the signs of my daughter’s virginity” mean,

given that the husband did not claim at all that he had failed to find her to be a virgin, but rather brought witnesses that she had committed adultery?

And we explain:

“And these are the validators of my daughter’s virginity,”

for the father brings witnesses who disprove the husband’s witnesses.

Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, this is why it is written: “And they shall spread out the garment.”

But according to the Rabbis, what does “and they shall spread out the garment” mean?

Rabbi Abbahu said: “Spread out what he placed upon her”

[as it is written: “And he places upon her charges of words”] .

As it is taught: “And they shall spread out the garment”—this teaches that the witnesses of one side and the witnesses of the other side come, and they clarify the matter like a new garment.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: The matters are as they are written: an actual “garment.”

This is in accordance with his view, that the husband claimed that he had not found her to be a virgin, and her father and mother bring proof that she was indeed a virgin.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rav Yaakov bar Giyorei sent in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Although we do not find anywhere in the entire Torah that Scripture distinguishes between intercourse in the usual manner and intercourse in an unusual manner with regard to

the subject of

flogging and punishments,

because with regard to forbidden sexual relations it is written “the lyings of a woman,” implying two manners of lying, both intercourse in the usual manner and intercourse in an unusual manner,

but

with regard to

one who disseminates an evil report—

Scripture distinguished:

if he brought witnesses that his betrothed had intercourse in an unusual manner, and he was found to be a liar, he is not flogged and does not pay a hundred sela.

And

he is not liable until he has intercourse,

whether in the usual manner or

in an unusual manner, and disseminates an evil report in the usual manner,

that is, he claims that she committed adultery with him through intercourse in the usual manner.

And we raise an objection:

In accordance with whose view?

According to which opinion were these matters stated?

If it is in accordance with the Rabbis,

then

even though he did not have intercourse

at all, he is liable!

If it is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,