Ketubot

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