Ketubot 46a — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa said:

in truth, whether he had intercourse or whether he had not had intercourse, he is flogged. And

what does “had intercourse, he is flogged” mean?

If he had not had intercourse, he is not flogged,

as it teaches there—

the reference is to payment of the

money,

the one hundred sela, which he pays specifically if he had intercourse.

And we wondered:

And does he call money “flogging”?!

And we said:

Yes.

Indeed, sometimes money is called “flogging.”

And

a proof of this is that

we learned

in tractate Arakhin [20a]:

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

that is, half his fixed valuation prescribed in the Torah, for every person has fixed valuations prescribed in the Torah according to the number of years—

he gives half his valuation,

as he said.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged, and he gives a full valuation.

And apparently this is difficult:

He is flogged—

why?

For what reason should he receive flogging?!

And

Rav Pappa said:

the meaning is that he

is flogged with a full valuation,

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

And it is proven that sometimes the tanna calls a monetary obligation “flogging”!

And

what is the reason

of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda—why must he give his entire valuation?

A decree concerning “half his valuation”—

lest one come to say “the valuation of half of him.”

For if we say that one who says, “Half my valuation is upon me,” gives only the valuation of half of him, people will come to say that also when one says, “The valuation of my half is upon me,” he should give the valuation of half of him,

and

in truth,

the valuation of half of him—

it is

like one who assigns a valuation to

a limb upon which the soul depends,

for he cannot exist without half his body; and concerning valuations it is said, “according to the valuation of souls,” and from this they learn that one who assigns a valuation to a limb upon which the soul depends gives his entire valuation.

The Sages taught:

That which is written concerning one who spreads an evil report:

“And they shall fine him

one hundred silver”

—this is money.

And that which is written:

“And they shall chastise

him”

—this is flogging.

And we considered it:

Granted,

what we said, that

“and they shall fine him”—

this is money,

is understandable,

for

so

it is written

explicitly:

“And they shall fine him one hundred silver, and they shall give it to the father of the girl.”

But

that

“and they shall chastise him” is flogging—

from where do we know this?

Rabbi Abbahu said: We learned “they shall chastise him”

which is written here—

from “they shall chastise him”

which is written concerning a wayward and rebellious son.

And

they learn

“they shall chastise him”

which is written concerning a wayward and rebellious son—

from “son”

which is written with it; and this teaches us that also here, concerning one who spreads an evil report, in whose case “and they shall chastise him” is written, there is “son” with it.

And from this they now learn

“son”—

from “son”

which is written concerning flogging:

“And it shall be, if the wicked man is worthy of being beaten.”

And the Gemara brings the continuation of the beraita:

A prohibition concerning one who spreads 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 thing.”

And everywhere that the language “guard,” or “lest,” or “do not” is stated, its meaning is “you shall not do.”

And we considered it:

And Rabbi Elazar—

for what reason did he not say

that it should be learned

from this,

from the verse “And you shall guard yourself”?

Because

that

verse—

is needed to teach

that which

Rabbi Pinhas ben Yair taught:

For it was taught:

“And you shall guard yourself from every evil thing.” And near that verse it is written: “When there will be in a man one who is not pure, a nocturnal occurrence.”

near that verse it is written: “When there is 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 thoughts during the day—

and come to impurity at night.

And Rabbi Natan—

for what reason did he not say, “from this,”

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

Because he held that

that

verse, that verse, comes for

a prohibition to the court, that it should not be lenient toward this one and harsh toward that one.

For they expound the word “talebearer” as an acrostic: “be lenient 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 spreading an evil report,

and he does not give one hundred sela.

But if the matter was true,

she and her conspiring witnesses hasten to the place of stoning.

And we wondered: Is it possible that

she and her conspiring witnesses, you might have thought, are killed,

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

Rather, either she or her conspiring witnesses—

hasten 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

so—

even though he did not hire them

not having hired them with money—he is flogged and pays money.

And this ruling is

to exclude the view of Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was taught, Rabbi Yehuda says:

One who spreads an evil report

is not obligated

to receive flogging and one hundred silver

until he hires witnesses.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda?

Rabbi Abbahu said: It is derived

by a gzera shava,

“placing—

placing.” It is written here,

concerning one who spreads an evil report:

“And he lays accusations against her.” And it is written there,

concerning a loan:

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

money, so here—

money.

And likewise

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

placing.”

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question:

If

he hired them

the husband hired the witnesses and paid them

with land

and not with money,

what is the law?

Should we say that since his law is learned from interest, the hiring must be specifically with money or food, which are movable property, as concerning the prohibition of interest, where silver and food are stated and the prohibition of interest was not stated with a loan of land; or perhaps from interest we learn only that the hiring must be with money, and even if he hired them with land, he is liable?

Rabbi Yirmeya further deliberated: He hired them

with less than the value of a peruta—what is the law?

He further deliberated: He hired

both of them with one peruta,

giving each witness half a peruta,

what is the law?

Rav Ashi raised a question:

If the husband married her and did not spread an evil report about her, and divorced her, and then married her again, and then

spread an evil report concerning the first marriage,

saying that he did not find her virginal signs at the first marriage,

what is the law?

He further deliberated: If the yavam spread an evil report

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

And we say:

Resolve at least one [A0192]]resolve at least one of the uncertainties.

[let us resolve at least one of the questions].

For Rabbi Yona taught:

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

“I gave my daughter to this man.”

And we expound:

to this one

specifically—

and not to a yavam,

for the law of one who spreads an evil report does not apply to him if he spreads 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 spreading an evil report.

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

For it was taught: What constitutes spreading an evil report?

The husband came

the husband

to the court and said

to the father of the woman:

“So-and-so! I did not find virginal signs in your daughter!”

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

she has a marriage settlement of one hundred dinars.

And we wondered:

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

does she have a marriage settlement of one hundred dinars?

For

she is liable to stoning!

And we explain:

This is what it says: 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 marriage settlement of one hundred dinars.

For this tanna holds that if he married her presuming her to be a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse, she has a marriage settlement of one hundred dinars.

And if

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

that the husband lied in his words,

he is flogged and gives one hundred sela, whether

if

he had intercourse

already,

or

if he had still

not had intercourse.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: These matters were stated—

only when he had intercourse.

But if he had not had intercourse, he is not flogged, and he does not give one hundred sela.

And we considered it:

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

in the section concerning one who spreads an evil report,

“And he came to her

and hated her,”

“And I approached her

and did not find virginal signs in her.”

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 accusations. “And I approached her”—

with words.

And we considered it:

Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, this is why it is written: “I did not find virginal signs in your daughter,”

for he had come upon her and could claim that he did not then find virginal signs.

But according to the Rabbis,

for the law of one who spreads an evil report applies even if he did not have intercourse with her,

what does “I did not find virginal signs in your daughter” mean?

And we explain: According to the view of the Rabbis, the husband says: Behold, we have before us witnesses who testify that she committed adultery, and

“I did not find in your daughter ‘validators of virginal signs,’”

that is, witnesses who would disqualify 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 virginal signs of my daughter.”

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

for the husband did not claim at all that he did not find virginal signs in her, but rather brought witnesses that she committed adultery?

And we explain:

“And these are the valid virginal signs of my daughter,”

for the father brings witnesses who render the husband’s witnesses conspiring witnesses.

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

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

Rabbi Abbahu said: They spread out what he placed upon her [A0271]]as it is written: “And he lays accusations against her” .

[as it is written: “And he attributes false charges to her”] .

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

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: The words are as they are written, “cloth” ממש.

And this is according to his view, that the husband claimed that he did not find virginal signs in her, and her father and mother bring proof that she indeed was a virgin.

Rabbi Yitzḥak son of Rav Yaakov bar Giyori sent in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even though we have not found anywhere in the entire Torah that Scripture distinguished between intercourse in the usual manner and intercourse not in the usual manner with regard to

the matter of

floggings and punishments,

because concerning forbidden relations it is written “the beds of a woman,” implying two beds, both intercourse in the usual manner and intercourse not in the usual manner.

But

concerning

one who spreads an evil report—

Scripture distinguished,

that if he brought witnesses that his betrothed had been penetrated not in the usual manner, and he was found to be a liar, he is not flogged and does not pay one hundred sela.

And

he is not liable until he has intercourse,

whether in the usual manner or

not in the usual manner, and spreads an evil report in the usual manner,

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

And we wondered:

According to whom?

According to which view were these words stated?

If according to the Rabbis,

for

even though he did not have intercourse

at all, he is liable!

If according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,