Ketubot

[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.