Ketubot — Daf 37a

וסבר רבי יהודה בקדושתה קיימא והתניא הגיורת שנתגיירה וראתה דם ר' יהודה אומר דיה שעתה ר' יוסי אומר הרי היא ככל הנשים ומטמאה מעת לעת ומפקידה לפקידה

וצריכה להמתין ג' חדשים דברי ר' יהודה ר' יוסי מתיר ליארס ולינשא מיד א"ל גיורת אשבויה קא רמית גיורת לא מנטרא נפשה שבויה מנטרא נפשה

ורמי שבויה אשבויה דתניא הגיורת והשבויה והשפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו יתירות על בנות ג' שנים ויום אחד צריכות להמתין ג' חדשים דברי ר' יהודה ר' יוסי מתיר ליארס ולינשא מיד אשתיק

א"ל מידי שמיע לך בהא אמר ליה הכי אמר רב ששת שראוה שנבעלה א"ה מאי טעמא דר' יוסי אמר רבה קסבר ר' יוסי אשה מזנה משמשת במוך שלא תתעבר

בשלמא גיורת כיון דדעתה לאיגיורי מנטרא נפשה שבויה נמי דלא ידעה היכא ממטו לה שפחה נמי דשמעה מפי מרה אלא יוצאה בשן ועין מאי איכא למימר

וכי תימא כל ממילא לא א"ר יוסי הרי אנוסה ומפותה דממילא ותניא אנוסה ומפותה צריכות להמתין ג' חדשים דברי ר' יהודה ר' יוסי מתיר ליארס ולינשא מיד

אלא אמר רבה קסבר ר' יוסי אשה מזנה מתהפכת כדי שלא תתעבר ואידך חיישי' שמא לא נהפכה יפה יפה:

שנא' (שמות כא, כב) ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש וכו': והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (דברים כה, ב) כדי רשעתו משום רשעה אחת אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו משום שתי רשעיות

חדא במיתה וממון וחדא במלקות וממון וצריכא דאי אשמעינן מיתה וממון משום דאיכא איבוד נשמה אבל מלקות וממון דליכא איבוד נשמה אימא לא

ואי אשמעינן מלקות וממון משום דלא חמיר איסוריה אבל מיתה וממון דחמיר איסוריה אימא לא צריכא

ולרבי מאיר דאמר לוקה ומשלם תרתי למה לי חדא במיתה וממון

Could R. Judah hold the view that [a female captive] is deemed to have retained her virginity  when it was, in fact, taught. 'If a woman proselyte discovered [some menstrual] blood  on [the day of] her conversion it is sufficient, R. Judah ruled, [to reckon her Levitical uncleanness from] the time she [discovered it].  R. Jose ruled: She is subject to the same laws  as all other women  and, therefore, causes uncleanness [retrospectively] for twenty-four hours,  or [for the period] intervening between  [her last] examination and  [her previous] examination.  She must also wait  three months;  so R. Judah. but R. Jose permits her to be betrothed and married at once'?  — The other replied: You are pointing out a contradiction between a proselyte and a captive [who belong to totally different categories, since] a proselyte does not protect her honour while a captive does protect her honour. A contradiction, however, was also pointed out between two rulings in relation to a captive.  For it was taught: Proselytes,  captives  or slaves  who were ransomed, or proselytized. or were manumitted, must wait three months  if they were older than three years and one day; so R. Judah. R. Jose permits immediate betrothal and marriage.  [The other] remained silent. 'Have you'. he said to him, 'heard anything on the subject?' — 'Thus', the former replied. 'said R. Shesheth: [This is a case] where people saw that the captive was seduced'. If so  what could be R. Jose's reason? — Rabbah replied: R. Jose is of the opinion that a woman who plays the harlot makes use of an absorbent in order to prevent conception. This  is intelligible in the case of a proselyte, who, since her intention is to proselytize, is careful.  It  is likewise [intelligible in the case of] a captive [who is also careful]  since she does not know whither they would take her.  It  is similarly [intelligible in the case of] a bondwoman [who might also be careful]  when she hears from her master.  What, however, can be said in the case of one who is liberated on account of the loss of a tooth or an eye?  And were you to suggest that R. Jose did not speak  of an unexpected occurrence,  [it might be retorted,] there is the case of a woman who was outraged or seduced  which may happen unexpectedly and yet it was taught: A woman who has been outraged or seduced must wait three months; so R. Judah, but R. Jose permits immediate betrothal and marriage!  — The fact, however, is, said Rabbah,  that R. Jose is of the opinion that a woman who plays the harlot turns over in order to prevent conception.  And the other?  — There is the apprehension that she might not have turned over properly. FOR IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, AND YET NO HARM FOLLOW HE SHALL BE SURELY FINED etc. Is, however, the deduction  made from this text?  Is it not in fact made from the following text:  According to the measure of his crime,  [which implies]  you make him liable to a penalty  for one crime, but you cannot make him liable [at the same time] for two crimes?  — One [text  deals] with [the penalties of] death and money and the other  with [the penalties of] flogging and money. And [both texts  were] needed. For if we had been told [only of that which deals with the penalties of] death and money  it might have been assumed [that the restriction  applied only to the death penalty] because it involves loss of life,  but not [to the penalties of] flogging and money where no loss of life is involved. And if we had been told only of flogging and money  it might have been assumed [that the restriction  applied only to flogging] because the transgression for which flogging is inflicted  is not very grave,  but not [to the penalties of] death and money where the transgression for which the death penalty is imposed  is very grave.  [Hence it was] necessary [to have both texts]. According to R. Meir, however, who ruled: 'A man may be flogged and also ordered to pay'.  what need was there for the two texts?  — One  deals with the penalties of death and money