Parallel
כתובות 44
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Here also [it may similarly be said:] This is the reason why she cannot distrain [for the additional jointure from the earlier date]: Since he did not write in her favour, 'I have added a hundred zuz to the two hundred' she [having accepted the deed] must have renounced her former lien. The Master has laid down that if she wishes she may distrain with the earlier kethubahs and if she prefers she may distrain with the later one. Is it then to be assumed [that this ruling] differs from that of R. Nahman who laid down that if two deeds were issued one after the other the latter cancels the former? — [No, for] has it not been stated in connection with this statement that R. Papa said: R. Nahman nevertheless admits that if the man has added one palm the insertion was intended as an additional privilege? And here also, Surely, [the husband] has added something. [To turn to] the original text. R. Nahman laid down that if two deeds were issued one after the other the latter cancels the former. Said R. Papa: R. Nahman nevertheless admits that if the man has added one palm the insertion was intended as an additional privilege. It is obvious [that the reason why both deeds are valid where] the first [was a deed] of sale and the second [a deed] of gift [is because the action of the owner] was intended to improve the other's rights, as a safeguard against the law of pre-emption; and much more [is this obvious where] the first was for a gift and the second for a sale, for it may then be presumed that the latter was written in that manner in order to safeguard the other against a creditor's rights. [What], however, [is the reason why] the second cancels the first where both deeds were for a sale or both for a gift? — Rafram replied: Because it may be presumed that [the holder of the deeds] has admitted to the other [the invalidity of the first deed]. R. Aha replied: Because it might be presumed that [the holder of the deeds] has surrendered his security of tenure. What is the practical issue between them? — The disqualification of the witnesses, payment of compensation for unsufruct and land tax. What is [the decision] in respect of the kethubah? — Come and hear what Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Eleazar the son of R. Simeon: [The statutory kethubah of] a maneh or two hundred zuz [may be distrained for] from [the date of] the betrothal but the additional jointure only from the date of the marriage. The Sages, however, ruled: The one as well as the other [may be distrained for only] from the date of the marriage. The law is that the one as well as the other [may be distrained only] from the date of the marriage. MISHNAH. THE DAUGHTER OF A PROSELYTE WOMAN WHO BECAME A PROSELYTE TOGETHER WITH HER MOTHER AND THEN PLAYED THE HARLOT IS SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY OF STRANGULATION, BUT NOT TO [STONING AT] THE DOOR OF HER FATHER'S HOUSE NOR [DOES HER HUSBAND PAY THE] HUNDRED SELA'. IF SHE WAS CONCEIVED IN UNHOLINESS BUT HER BIRTH WAS IN HOLINESS SHE IS SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY OF STONING BUT NOT TO [THAT OF BRINGING HER OUT TO 'THE DOOR OF HER FATHER'S HOUSE', NOR [DOES HER HUSBAND PAY THE] HUNDRED SELA'. IF SHE WAS BOTH CONCEIVED AND BORN IN HOLINESS SHE IS REGARDED AS A DAUGHTER OF ISRAEL IN ALL RESPECTS. ONE WHO HAD A FATHER BUT NO DOOR OF HER FATHER'S HOUSE', OR A 'DOOR OF HER FATHER'S HOUSE' BUT NO FATHER, IS NEVERTHELESS SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY OF STONING, [FOR THE REGULATION, 'TO] THE DOOR OF HER FATHER'S HOUSE', WAS ONLY INTENDED AS [AN INDEPENDENT] PRECEPT.
—
GEMARA. Whence is this deduced? — Resh Lakish replied: Since Scripture said, That she die it included also her who WAS CONCEIVED IN UNHOLINESS BUT HER BIRTH WAS IN HOLINESS: If so, [should not her wrongful accuser] also be flogged and [condemned] to pay the hundred sela'? Scripture stated, That she die [implying that she] was included in respect of death but not in respect of the fine. Might it not be suggested [that Scripture intended] to include one who was both conceived and born in holiness? — Such a person is a proper Israelite woman. But can it not be said that [Scripture intended] to include one conceived and born in unholiness? — If this were so what purpose would be served by the expression, 'In Israel'? R. Jose b. Hanina ruled: A man who brought an evil name upon an orphan girl is exempt, for it is said in Scripture, And give them unto the father of the damsel, Which excludes this girl who has no 'father'. R. Jose b. Abin, or it might be said, R. Jose b. Zebida, raised an objection: If her father utterly refuse [was meant] to include an orphan girl in respect of the fine; so R. Jose the Galilean. [Why then should the orphan in this case be excluded]? — He raised the objection and he himself supplied the answer: [This is a case of a girl] who became an orphan after the man had intercourse with her. Rabbah ruled: He is guilty. Whence [did he infer this]? — From that which Ammi taught: A virgin of Israel, but not a proselyte virgin. Now if you assume that in a case of this nature in Israel guilt is incurred, one can well see why it was necessary for a Scriptural text to exclude proselytes. If you, however, assume that in a case of this nature in Israel [the offender] is exempt [the difficulty would arise:] Now [that we know that the offender] is exempt [even if he sinned] against Israelites was it any longer necessary [to mention exemption if the offence was] against proselytes? Resh Lakish ruled: A man who has brought an evil name upon a minor is exempt, for it is said in Scripture, And give them unto the father of the damsel, Scripture expressed the term na'arah as plenum. To this R. Aha b. Abba demurred: Is the reason then because in this case 'the na'arah' was written [in Scripture], but otherwise it would have been said that even a minor [was included], surely, [it may be objected] it is written in Scripture, But if the things be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found in the damsel, then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house and [the men of the city] shall stone her, while a minor is not, is she, subject to punishment? — [The explanation,] however, [is that, since] na'arah [has been written] here [it may be inferred that only where na'arah is used is a minor excluded] but wherever Scripture uses the expression na'arah even a minor is included. Shila taught: There are three modes [of execution] in the case of a [betrothed] damsel [who played the harlot]. If witnesses appeared against her in the house of her father-in-law [testifying] that she had played the harlot in her father's house
—