Parallel
כתובות 45
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
she is stoned at the door of her father's house, as if to say, 'See the plant that you have reared'. If witnesses came [to testify] against her in her father's house that she played the harlot in his house she is stoned at the entrance of the gate of the city. If having committed the offence she eventually attained adolescence she is condemned to strangulation. This then implies that wherever there occurred a change in one's person, one's mode of execution also must be changed. But is not this contradicted by the following: 'If a betrothed damsel played the harlot and [her husband] brought upon her an evil name after she had attained adolescence, he is neither to be flogged nor is he to pay the hundred sela', but she and the witnesses who testified falsely against her are hurried to the place of stoning'? 'She and the witnesses who testified falsely against her'! Can this be imagined? — But [this is the meaning:] 'She or her witnesses are hurried to the place of stoning'? — Raba replied: You speak [of the law relating to a husband] who brought up an evil name; but this law is different [from the others], because it is an anomaly. For, elsewhere, if a girl entered the bridal chamber, though no intercourse followed, she is condemned to strangulation if she committed adultery, but [a woman upon whom a husband] brought an evil name is condemned to Stoning. Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua to Raba: Is it not possible that the All-Merciful created the anomaly only where no constitutional change had taken place, but where a constitutional change had occurred the All-Merciful has created no anomaly? — The fact however is, explained R. Nahman b. Isaac, [that the question whether a change in status] involves, or does not involve a change [in the penalty] is [a point in dispute between] Tannaim. For we have learned: If they committed a sin before they were appointed [to their respective offices] and [then] were appointed, they are regarded as laymen. R. Simeon ruled: If their sin came to their knowledge before they were appointed they are liable, but if after they were appointed they are exempt.
—
[But] is it not to be maintained that R. Simeon was heard to be guided by [the time of] the awareness also, did you, how ever, hear that he Was guided by [the time of] awareness alone and not also by that of the commission of sin? For were that so, should they not have brought an offering in accordance with their present status, the High Priest a bullock, and the ruler a he-goat? — Surely R. Johanan said to the Tanna: Read, 'She is to be condemned to stoning.' But why? Did not the All-Merciful speak of a betrothed 'damsel' and this one is adolescent? — R. Elai replied: Scripture said, the damsel [implying] her who was a damsel before. Said R. Hanania to R. Elai: If so, should not [the husband] also be flogged and pay the hundred sela'? — 'May the All-Merciful', the other replied, 'save us from such an opinion'. 'On the contrary [the first retorted], may the All-Merciful save us from such an opinion as yours'. What, however, is the reason? — R. Isaac b. Abin, or, as some say, R. Isaac b. Abba, replied: In her case it was her behaviour that brought about her [punishment] but in his case it was is the inclination of his lips that brought about his [penalties]. 'In her case it was her behaviour that brought about her [punishment]' and when she played the harlot she was still a na'arah. 'But in his case it was the inclination of his lips that brought about his [penalty]'; and when does he incur his guilt? Obviously at that time, and at that time she Was already adolescent. Our Rabbis taught: A betrothed damsel who played the harlot is to be stoned at 'the door of her father's house'. If she had no 'door of her father's house' she is stoned at the entrance of the gate of that city. But in a town which is mostly inhabited by idolaters she is stoned at the door of the court. Similarly you may say: A man who worships idols is to be stoned at the gate [of the city] where he worshipped, and in a city the majority of whose inhabitants are idolaters he is stoned at the door of the court. Whence are these rulings derived? — From what our Rabbis have taught: [By the expression] thy gates [was meant] the gate [of the city] wherein the man has worshipped. You say, 'The gate [of the city] wherein the man has worshipped', might it not mean the gate where he is tried? — [Since the expression] 'thy gates' is used below and also above [an analogy is to be made:] As 'thy gates' mentioned above refers to the gate [of the city] wherein he worshipped so does 'thy bates' that was mentioned below refer to the gate [of the city] wherein the man had worshipped. Another interpretation: 'Thy gates', but not the gates of idolaters. [As to] that [expression of] 'thy gates', has not a deduction already been drawn from it? — If [the purpose of the expression were only] this deduction Scripture would have used the expression 'gate'; why thy gates'? Both deductions may, therefore, be made. Thus we obtain [rulings in respect of] idolatry, whence do we [derive the law in respect of] a betrothed girl? R. Abbahu replied: 'Door' is inferred from 'door', and door from 'gate', and 'gate' from 'thy gates'. Our Rabbis taught: [A husband] who brings up an evil name [upon his wife] is flogged and he must also pay a hundred sela'. R. Judah ruled: As to flogging, [the husband is] flogged in all circumstances; as to the hundred sela', however, where he had intercourse with her he pays them but if he did not have intercourse with her he does not pay. They differ on the same principles as those on which R. Eliezer b. Jacob and the Rabbis differed, and it is this that [each of the former group] meant: [A husband] who brought an evil name [upon his wife] is flogged and he must also pay a hundred sela', whether he had intercourse, or did not have intercourse with her, [this being] in agreement with the Rabbis. R. Judah ruled: As to flogging [the husband is] flogged in all circumstances; as to the hundred sela', however, where he had intercourse with her he pays them but if he did not have intercourse with her he does not pay; in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Another reading. All the statement is in agreement with the opinion of R. Eliezer b. Jacob and it is this that [each of the former group] meant: [A husband] who brought an evil name [upon his wife] is flogged and he must also pay the hundred sela' only where he had intercourse with her. R. Judah ruled: As to flogging, [the husband is] flogged in all circumstances. Can R. Judah, however, maintain that 'as to flogging, [the husband] is flogged in all circumstances' when it was taught: R. Judah ruled, If he had intercourse he is flogged but if he did not have intercourse he is not flogged? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: [By the ruling of R. Judah that the husband] 'is flogged' [was meant] chastisement which is a Rabbinical penalty.
—