Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 19, 2015 | 讻状讞 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 45

Study Guide Ketubot 45


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讻诇讜诪专 专讗讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬诐 砖讙讬讚诇转诐 讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 驻转讞 砖注专 讛注讬专 住专讞讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘讙专讛 转讬讚讜谉 讘讞谞拽

one stones her at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house, as though to say: See what you have brought up. If witnesses came to testify about her when she was in her father鈥檚 house, i.e., when she was betrothed, and testified that she committed adultery in her father鈥檚 house, one stones her at the entrance to the gate of the city. If she went astray and sinned when she was a young woman and subsequently reached majority, i.e., she became a grown woman, she is sentenced to strangulation, which is the punishment for a grown woman who committed adultery.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 拽讟诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 讜诪砖讘讙专讛 讛讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 专注 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注 讛讬讗 讜讝讜诪诪讬讛 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara asks with regard to this halakha: Is that to say that in any case where her body has changed after her sin, the manner in which she is put to death changes as well? The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: If there is a betrothed young woman who allegedly committed adultery, and after she reached majority she married and her husband defamed her, accusing her of having committed adultery during the period of betrothal, he is not flogged and does not give the one hundred sela if she is proven innocent, as these punishments are limited to one who defames a young woman (Deuteronomy 22:19). However, if she is guilty, she and her conspiring witnesses are brought early in the morning to the place of stoning. This proves that although her body changed between the time of the sin and the time of her punishment, she is stoned nevertheless.

讛讬讗 讜讝讜诪诪讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讜 讛讬讗 讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬讛 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara digresses to analyze the last clause of this baraita: Can it enter your mind to say that both she and her conspiring witnesses, i.e., witnesses who falsely testified that she committed adultery, are executed? If the witnesses who testified against her were telling the truth and she sinned, only she is liable to be stoned, and if the court discovers that they were false, conspiring witnesses, then they are stoned and she is exempt. Rather, the text of the baraita should be emended so that it reads: Either she or her conspiring witnesses are brought early in the morning to the place of stoning.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讘注诇诪讗 讜讝讬谞转讛 讘讞谞拽 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讘住拽讬诇讛

In answer to the contradiction, Rava said: A defamer, you said? A defamer is different as it is a novel halakha. Certain aspects of this case do not apply to other halakhot as, generally, if a woman who entered the wedding canopy and did not yet have intercourse with her husband subsequently committed adultery, she is executed by strangulation, which is the punishment for a married woman who committed adultery. However, in the case of a defamer, if the woman is guilty she is executed by stoning, despite the fact that if she would commit the sin in her current state, as a married woman, she would be executed via strangulation. This proves that in the case of defamation, the method of execution is determined by the time when the sin was committed, although her status has since changed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讞讚讬转 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讗 诇讗 讞讚讬转 专讞诪谞讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Perhaps when the Merciful One introduced the novelty of the halakha of a defamer, it was applied only to a case where her body has not changed and she is still a young woman. However, in a case where her body has changed and she has become a grown woman, the Merciful One did not introduce the novelty of this halakha, and she is liable to strangulation just as she would be liable to strangulation if she had committed the sin as a grown woman.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬砖转谞讬 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讞讟讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转诪谞讜 讜谞转诪谞讜 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讛讚讬讜讟讜转

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This question of whether the method of her execution changes or does not change if her body has changed is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna (Horayot 10a), with regard to the special offering of a High Priest or a king who sinned unwittingly (see Leviticus 4:3鈥12, 22鈥26): If they sinned before they were appointed, and they were subsequently appointed, and they became aware of their transgression only after their appointment, they are like commoners. They must bring a female sheep or goat, like any ordinary individual who sinned, rather than the bull brought by a High Priest who has sinned or the male goat brought by a king who has sinned.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞讜讚注 诇讛诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转诪谞讜 讞讬讬讘讬诐 诪砖谞转诪谞讜 驻讟讜专讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says: If their sin became known to them before they were appointed, even if they did not bring their offering before they were appointed, they are liable to bring the offering of a commoner. However, if their sin became known to them after they were appointed, they are entirely exempt from bringing an offering as their change in status necessitates a corresponding change in their offering, and therefore their first obligation is entirely nullified. This shows that according to Rabbi Shimon, a change in status retroactively affects one鈥檚 liability for a transgression he committed in his previous status. A similar halakha should apply in the case of a betrothed young woman who committed adultery and reached majority before her sin became known.

讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讝讬诇 讗祝 讘转专 讬讚讬注讛 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讬讚讬注讛 讜诇讗 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讞讟讗讛 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 讻讬 讚讛砖转讗 诪砖讜讞 驻专 讜谞砖讬讗 砖注讬专

The Gemara questions this comparison: Say that we heard that Rabbi Shimon follows even the awareness, i.e., Rabbi Shimon takes into consideration the time when the sin became known to the High Priest or king, and maintains that he cannot bring the offering of a commoner. However, did you hear him say that he follows the time of the awareness and does not follow the time of the sin? If so, let him bring the offering that befits his current status: One anointed to be the High Priest brings a bullock, and a prince, i.e., a king, offers a goat. Consequently, there is no proof that, according to Rabbi Shimon, if the sin of a betrothed young woman became known after she reached majority, she is sentenced to strangulation like a grown woman.

讛讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇转谞讗 转谞讬 转讬讚讜谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讘讜讙专转 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛谞注专讛 讛谞注专讛 砖讛讬转讛 讻讘专

The Gemara responds: Nevertheless, this issue is subject to a dispute. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say to the tanna, i.e., the Sage who would recite statements of tanna鈥檌m before him and who recited Sheila鈥檚 ruling with regard to a betrothed young woman: Teach that she is sentenced to stoning rather than strangulation? The Gemara questions Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: But why? The Merciful One says: A betrothed young woman, but this one is a grown woman. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said: The verse states: The young woman, in reference to the young woman that she already was at the time of her sin, despite the fact that she now has a different status.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 诇专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讬诇拽讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诇拽讬 讜诪讗讛 住诇注 谞诪讬 诇讬砖诇诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬爪诇谉 诪讛讗讬 讚注转讗 讗讚专讘讛 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬爪诇谉 诪讚注转讗 讚讬讚讱

Rabbi 岣nina said to Rabbi Ile鈥檃: If so, if her status is determined according to the time of her transgression, let the husband who defames her also be flogged, and let him also pay the one hundred sela if his claim turns out to have been unfounded. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said to him: May the Merciful One save us from following this opinion, as your argument is illogical. Rabbi 岣nina replied: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion, as yours is the baseless opinion.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讗 讝讜 诪注砖讬讛 讙专诪讜 诇讛 讜讝讛 注拽讬诪转 砖驻转讬讜 讙专诪讜 诇讜 讝讜 诪注砖讬讛 讙专诪讜 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讝谞讗讬 谞注专讛 讝谞讗讬 讜讝讛 注拽讬诪转 砖驻转讬讜 讙专诪讜 诇讜 讗讬诪转 拽讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讜讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讘讜讙专转 讛讜讗讬

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that she is considered a young woman with regard to stoning but a grown woman when it comes to the fine? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avin said, and some say this answer was given by Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Abba: With regard to this one, i.e., the woman, who sinned, her act of adultery caused her punishment, whereas that one, i.e., the husband who wrongfully defamed his wife, the twisting of his lips caused his punishment, i.e., he sinned by speaking. He elaborates: This one, her action caused her punishment. When she committed adultery, she was a young woman who committed adultery, and she is sentenced accordingly. And that one, the twisting of his lips caused his punishment. When does he become liable? At that time when he defamed her, and at that time his wife was a grown woman.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 驻转讞 讘讬转 讛讗讘 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 驻转讞 砖注专 讛注讬专 讛讛讬讗 讜讘注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讙讜讬诐 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讛注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 砖注专 砖注讘讚 讘讜 讜讘注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讙讜讬诐 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a betrothed young woman who committed adultery, one stones her at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house. If she does not have an entrance to her father鈥檚 house, one stones her at the entrance to the gate of that city. And in a city that is mostly populated by gentiles, where she cannot be stoned at the city entrance, one stones her at the entrance to the court. In a similar manner, you say: With regard to one who engaged in idol worship, one stones him at the entrance to the gate where he worshipped, and in a city that is mostly inhabited by gentiles one stones him at the entrance to the court.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖注专讬讱 讝讛 砖注专 砖注讘讚 讘讜 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 砖注专 砖注讘讚 讘讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖注专 砖谞讬讚讜谉 讘讜

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that one stones an idol worshipper in the place where he worshipped? As the Sages taught: It states with regard to one who worshipped an idol: 鈥淭hen you shall bring forth that man or that women who have done this evil thing, to your gates鈥nd you shall stone them with stones that they die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:5). 鈥淵our gates,鈥 this is the gate where he worshipped idolatry. The offender is taken there to be stoned. Do you say it is the gate where he worshipped, or perhaps it is only the gate where he was sentenced, i.e., the gate of the court?

谞讗诪专 砖注专讬讱 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专 砖注专讬讱 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 砖注专讬讱 讛讗诪讜专 诇诪注诇讛 砖注专 砖注讘讚 讘讜 讗祝 砖注专讬讱 讛讗诪讜专 诇诪讟讛 砖注专 砖注讘讚 讘讜

The Gemara answers: It is stated 鈥測our gates鈥 below, in that verse, and is stated 鈥測our gates鈥 above, in this verse: 鈥淚f there is found in the midst of you, within any of your gates鈥 man or woman who does that which is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:2). Just as 鈥測our gates鈥 stated above is referring to the gate where he worshipped, so too the phrase 鈥測our gates鈥 stated below, with regard to execution, means the gate where he worshipped idols.

讚讘专 讗讞专 砖注专讬讱 讜诇讗 砖注专讬 讙讜讬诐 讛讗讬 砖注专讬讱 讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 砖注专 诪讗讬 砖注专讬讱 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

Alternatively, the idol worshipper is executed at 鈥測our gates,鈥 and not at the gates of gentiles. The Gemara asks: This term, 鈥測our gates,鈥 you have already used it to indicate that he is stoned at the gate of the city where he worshipped idols. How, then, can you derive another halakha from this expression? The Gemara answers: If so, if it teaches only one halakha, let the verse say only the word gate. For what reason does it state 鈥測our gates鈥? This indicates that the verse is referring to the gates of cities inhabited by Jews, and therefore one can conclude two conclusions from it.

讗砖讻讞谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诪谞讗 诇谉

The Gemara asks: We found a source that indicates that in a case of idolatrous worship, the perpetrator is stoned at the gate of the city where he committed his sin. From where do we derive that a betrothed young woman who is not stoned at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house is stoned at the gate of the city?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讙诪专 驻转讞 诪驻转讞 讜驻转讞 诪砖注专 讜砖注专 诪砖注专讬讱

Rabbi Abbahu said: One derives this by verbal analogy, as follows: The meaning of the term 鈥渆ntrance鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21), stated with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery, is derived from the term 鈥渆ntrance鈥 that appears with regard to the Tabernacle, in the verse 鈥淭he entrance of the gate of the courtyard鈥 (Numbers 4:26); and the meaning of this usage of the term entrance is derived from the term 鈥済ate,鈥 which appears in the same phrase; and the meaning of this usage of the term 鈥済ate鈥 is derived from the term 鈥測our gates鈥 stated with regard to idolatry. This teaches that a young woman who was betrothed and committed adultery is executed at the gate of the city, similar to one who engaged in idol worship.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讜拽讛 讜谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇诇拽讜转 诇讜拽讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讗讛 住诇注 讘注诇 谞讜转谉 诇讗 讘注诇 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who defames his wife is flogged and gives one hundred sela. Rabbi Yehuda says: As for flogging, he is flogged in any case. However, with regard to the one hundred sela, if he defamed her after he had intercourse with her, he gives the money. If he did not yet have intercourse with her, he does not give her this sum.

拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讜拽讛 讜谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注 讘讬谉 讘注诇 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘注诇 讻专讘谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇诇拽讜转 诇讜拽讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讗讛 住诇注 讘注诇 谞讜转谉 诇讗 讘注诇 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

The Gemara comments: These tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov and the Rabbis, and this is what the first tanna is saying: The defamer is flogged and gives one hundred sela, whether he had intercourse with his wife or whether he did not have intercourse with her, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda says: As for flogging, he is flogged in any case, but with regard to the one hundred sela, if he had intercourse he gives the money, whereas if he did not have intercourse he does not give it to her. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, that the halakha of a defamer applies only to a husband who had relations with his wife.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻讜诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讜拽讛 讜谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注 讜讛讜讗 砖讘注诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇诇拽讜转 诇讜拽讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

There are those who say that this entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, and this is what the baraita is saying: The defamer is flogged and gives one hundred sela, but this applies only if he previously had intercourse with his wife. Rabbi Yehuda says: As for flogging, he is flogged in any case, as only the fine is dependent on the couple having previously had intercourse.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诇拽讜转 诇讜拽讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘注诇 诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讘注诇 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讜拽讛 诪讻转 诪专讚讜转 诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that with regard to flogging, he is flogged in any case? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If he had intercourse with his wife before he defamed her, he is flogged; but if he did not have intercourse with his wife before he defamed her, he is not flogged? In answer to this question, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: When Rabbi Yehuda said that he is flogged even if he had not yet had intercourse with his wife, he was referring to lashes for rebelliousness [mardut], which apply by rabbinic law. Since he lied, defamed his wife, and endangered her life by accusing her of a sin that carries the death penalty, the court punishes him, but this punishment does not apply by Torah law.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 42-48 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The fourth chapter continues discussing the maiden who is seduced or raped. We will learn what payments are made and...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 45: Stoning at the Entrance to the City

The case of Motzi Shem Ra - defamation - from a husband against his wife. Namely, his accusation that she...
gates hazor madain project

Gated Community

The Gemara in Ketubot 45b brings a reference to the gates of the city as a place for punishment. What...

Ketubot 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 45

住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讻诇讜诪专 专讗讜 讙讬讚讜诇讬诐 砖讙讬讚诇转诐 讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 驻转讞 砖注专 讛注讬专 住专讞讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘讙专讛 转讬讚讜谉 讘讞谞拽

one stones her at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house, as though to say: See what you have brought up. If witnesses came to testify about her when she was in her father鈥檚 house, i.e., when she was betrothed, and testified that she committed adultery in her father鈥檚 house, one stones her at the entrance to the gate of the city. If she went astray and sinned when she was a young woman and subsequently reached majority, i.e., she became a grown woman, she is sentenced to strangulation, which is the punishment for a grown woman who committed adultery.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 拽讟诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 讜诪砖讘讙专讛 讛讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 专注 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注 讛讬讗 讜讝讜诪诪讬讛 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara asks with regard to this halakha: Is that to say that in any case where her body has changed after her sin, the manner in which she is put to death changes as well? The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: If there is a betrothed young woman who allegedly committed adultery, and after she reached majority she married and her husband defamed her, accusing her of having committed adultery during the period of betrothal, he is not flogged and does not give the one hundred sela if she is proven innocent, as these punishments are limited to one who defames a young woman (Deuteronomy 22:19). However, if she is guilty, she and her conspiring witnesses are brought early in the morning to the place of stoning. This proves that although her body changed between the time of the sin and the time of her punishment, she is stoned nevertheless.

讛讬讗 讜讝讜诪诪讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讜 讛讬讗 讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬讛 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara digresses to analyze the last clause of this baraita: Can it enter your mind to say that both she and her conspiring witnesses, i.e., witnesses who falsely testified that she committed adultery, are executed? If the witnesses who testified against her were telling the truth and she sinned, only she is liable to be stoned, and if the court discovers that they were false, conspiring witnesses, then they are stoned and she is exempt. Rather, the text of the baraita should be emended so that it reads: Either she or her conspiring witnesses are brought early in the morning to the place of stoning.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 拽讗诪专转 砖讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讘注诇诪讗 讜讝讬谞转讛 讘讞谞拽 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讘住拽讬诇讛

In answer to the contradiction, Rava said: A defamer, you said? A defamer is different as it is a novel halakha. Certain aspects of this case do not apply to other halakhot as, generally, if a woman who entered the wedding canopy and did not yet have intercourse with her husband subsequently committed adultery, she is executed by strangulation, which is the punishment for a married woman who committed adultery. However, in the case of a defamer, if the woman is guilty she is executed by stoning, despite the fact that if she would commit the sin in her current state, as a married woman, she would be executed via strangulation. This proves that in the case of defamation, the method of execution is determined by the time when the sin was committed, although her status has since changed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讞讚讬转 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬砖转谞讬 讙讜驻讗 诇讗 讞讚讬转 专讞诪谞讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Perhaps when the Merciful One introduced the novelty of the halakha of a defamer, it was applied only to a case where her body has not changed and she is still a young woman. However, in a case where her body has changed and she has become a grown woman, the Merciful One did not introduce the novelty of this halakha, and she is liable to strangulation just as she would be liable to strangulation if she had committed the sin as a grown woman.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬砖转谞讬 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转谞讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讞讟讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转诪谞讜 讜谞转诪谞讜 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讛讚讬讜讟讜转

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: This question of whether the method of her execution changes or does not change if her body has changed is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna (Horayot 10a), with regard to the special offering of a High Priest or a king who sinned unwittingly (see Leviticus 4:3鈥12, 22鈥26): If they sinned before they were appointed, and they were subsequently appointed, and they became aware of their transgression only after their appointment, they are like commoners. They must bring a female sheep or goat, like any ordinary individual who sinned, rather than the bull brought by a High Priest who has sinned or the male goat brought by a king who has sinned.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞讜讚注 诇讛诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转诪谞讜 讞讬讬讘讬诐 诪砖谞转诪谞讜 驻讟讜专讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says: If their sin became known to them before they were appointed, even if they did not bring their offering before they were appointed, they are liable to bring the offering of a commoner. However, if their sin became known to them after they were appointed, they are entirely exempt from bringing an offering as their change in status necessitates a corresponding change in their offering, and therefore their first obligation is entirely nullified. This shows that according to Rabbi Shimon, a change in status retroactively affects one鈥檚 liability for a transgression he committed in his previous status. A similar halakha should apply in the case of a betrothed young woman who committed adultery and reached majority before her sin became known.

讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讝讬诇 讗祝 讘转专 讬讚讬注讛 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讬讚讬注讛 讜诇讗 讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讞讟讗讛 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 讻讬 讚讛砖转讗 诪砖讜讞 驻专 讜谞砖讬讗 砖注讬专

The Gemara questions this comparison: Say that we heard that Rabbi Shimon follows even the awareness, i.e., Rabbi Shimon takes into consideration the time when the sin became known to the High Priest or king, and maintains that he cannot bring the offering of a commoner. However, did you hear him say that he follows the time of the awareness and does not follow the time of the sin? If so, let him bring the offering that befits his current status: One anointed to be the High Priest brings a bullock, and a prince, i.e., a king, offers a goat. Consequently, there is no proof that, according to Rabbi Shimon, if the sin of a betrothed young woman became known after she reached majority, she is sentenced to strangulation like a grown woman.

讛讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇转谞讗 转谞讬 转讬讚讜谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讗诪讗讬 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 讘讜讙专转 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛谞注专讛 讛谞注专讛 砖讛讬转讛 讻讘专

The Gemara responds: Nevertheless, this issue is subject to a dispute. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say to the tanna, i.e., the Sage who would recite statements of tanna鈥檌m before him and who recited Sheila鈥檚 ruling with regard to a betrothed young woman: Teach that she is sentenced to stoning rather than strangulation? The Gemara questions Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: But why? The Merciful One says: A betrothed young woman, but this one is a grown woman. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said: The verse states: The young woman, in reference to the young woman that she already was at the time of her sin, despite the fact that she now has a different status.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 诇专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讬诇拽讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诇拽讬 讜诪讗讛 住诇注 谞诪讬 诇讬砖诇诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬爪诇谉 诪讛讗讬 讚注转讗 讗讚专讘讛 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬爪诇谉 诪讚注转讗 讚讬讚讱

Rabbi 岣nina said to Rabbi Ile鈥檃: If so, if her status is determined according to the time of her transgression, let the husband who defames her also be flogged, and let him also pay the one hundred sela if his claim turns out to have been unfounded. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said to him: May the Merciful One save us from following this opinion, as your argument is illogical. Rabbi 岣nina replied: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion, as yours is the baseless opinion.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讗 讝讜 诪注砖讬讛 讙专诪讜 诇讛 讜讝讛 注拽讬诪转 砖驻转讬讜 讙专诪讜 诇讜 讝讜 诪注砖讬讛 讙专诪讜 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讝谞讗讬 谞注专讛 讝谞讗讬 讜讝讛 注拽讬诪转 砖驻转讬讜 讙专诪讜 诇讜 讗讬诪转 拽讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讜讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讘讜讙专转 讛讜讗讬

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that she is considered a young woman with regard to stoning but a grown woman when it comes to the fine? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avin said, and some say this answer was given by Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Abba: With regard to this one, i.e., the woman, who sinned, her act of adultery caused her punishment, whereas that one, i.e., the husband who wrongfully defamed his wife, the twisting of his lips caused his punishment, i.e., he sinned by speaking. He elaborates: This one, her action caused her punishment. When she committed adultery, she was a young woman who committed adultery, and she is sentenced accordingly. And that one, the twisting of his lips caused his punishment. When does he become liable? At that time when he defamed her, and at that time his wife was a grown woman.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 驻转讞 讘讬转 讛讗讘 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 驻转讞 砖注专 讛注讬专 讛讛讬讗 讜讘注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讙讜讬诐 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讛注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 砖注专 砖注讘讚 讘讜 讜讘注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 讙讜讬诐 住讜拽诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a betrothed young woman who committed adultery, one stones her at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house. If she does not have an entrance to her father鈥檚 house, one stones her at the entrance to the gate of that city. And in a city that is mostly populated by gentiles, where she cannot be stoned at the city entrance, one stones her at the entrance to the court. In a similar manner, you say: With regard to one who engaged in idol worship, one stones him at the entrance to the gate where he worshipped, and in a city that is mostly inhabited by gentiles one stones him at the entrance to the court.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖注专讬讱 讝讛 砖注专 砖注讘讚 讘讜 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 砖注专 砖注讘讚 讘讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖注专 砖谞讬讚讜谉 讘讜

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that one stones an idol worshipper in the place where he worshipped? As the Sages taught: It states with regard to one who worshipped an idol: 鈥淭hen you shall bring forth that man or that women who have done this evil thing, to your gates鈥nd you shall stone them with stones that they die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:5). 鈥淵our gates,鈥 this is the gate where he worshipped idolatry. The offender is taken there to be stoned. Do you say it is the gate where he worshipped, or perhaps it is only the gate where he was sentenced, i.e., the gate of the court?

谞讗诪专 砖注专讬讱 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专 砖注专讬讱 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 砖注专讬讱 讛讗诪讜专 诇诪注诇讛 砖注专 砖注讘讚 讘讜 讗祝 砖注专讬讱 讛讗诪讜专 诇诪讟讛 砖注专 砖注讘讚 讘讜

The Gemara answers: It is stated 鈥測our gates鈥 below, in that verse, and is stated 鈥測our gates鈥 above, in this verse: 鈥淚f there is found in the midst of you, within any of your gates鈥 man or woman who does that which is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:2). Just as 鈥測our gates鈥 stated above is referring to the gate where he worshipped, so too the phrase 鈥測our gates鈥 stated below, with regard to execution, means the gate where he worshipped idols.

讚讘专 讗讞专 砖注专讬讱 讜诇讗 砖注专讬 讙讜讬诐 讛讗讬 砖注专讬讱 讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 砖注专 诪讗讬 砖注专讬讱 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

Alternatively, the idol worshipper is executed at 鈥測our gates,鈥 and not at the gates of gentiles. The Gemara asks: This term, 鈥測our gates,鈥 you have already used it to indicate that he is stoned at the gate of the city where he worshipped idols. How, then, can you derive another halakha from this expression? The Gemara answers: If so, if it teaches only one halakha, let the verse say only the word gate. For what reason does it state 鈥測our gates鈥? This indicates that the verse is referring to the gates of cities inhabited by Jews, and therefore one can conclude two conclusions from it.

讗砖讻讞谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诪谞讗 诇谉

The Gemara asks: We found a source that indicates that in a case of idolatrous worship, the perpetrator is stoned at the gate of the city where he committed his sin. From where do we derive that a betrothed young woman who is not stoned at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house is stoned at the gate of the city?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讙诪专 驻转讞 诪驻转讞 讜驻转讞 诪砖注专 讜砖注专 诪砖注专讬讱

Rabbi Abbahu said: One derives this by verbal analogy, as follows: The meaning of the term 鈥渆ntrance鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21), stated with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery, is derived from the term 鈥渆ntrance鈥 that appears with regard to the Tabernacle, in the verse 鈥淭he entrance of the gate of the courtyard鈥 (Numbers 4:26); and the meaning of this usage of the term entrance is derived from the term 鈥済ate,鈥 which appears in the same phrase; and the meaning of this usage of the term 鈥済ate鈥 is derived from the term 鈥測our gates鈥 stated with regard to idolatry. This teaches that a young woman who was betrothed and committed adultery is executed at the gate of the city, similar to one who engaged in idol worship.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讜拽讛 讜谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇诇拽讜转 诇讜拽讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讗讛 住诇注 讘注诇 谞讜转谉 诇讗 讘注诇 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who defames his wife is flogged and gives one hundred sela. Rabbi Yehuda says: As for flogging, he is flogged in any case. However, with regard to the one hundred sela, if he defamed her after he had intercourse with her, he gives the money. If he did not yet have intercourse with her, he does not give her this sum.

拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讜拽讛 讜谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注 讘讬谉 讘注诇 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘注诇 讻专讘谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇诇拽讜转 诇讜拽讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讗讛 住诇注 讘注诇 谞讜转谉 诇讗 讘注诇 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

The Gemara comments: These tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov and the Rabbis, and this is what the first tanna is saying: The defamer is flogged and gives one hundred sela, whether he had intercourse with his wife or whether he did not have intercourse with her, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda says: As for flogging, he is flogged in any case, but with regard to the one hundred sela, if he had intercourse he gives the money, whereas if he did not have intercourse he does not give it to her. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, that the halakha of a defamer applies only to a husband who had relations with his wife.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻讜诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讜拽讛 讜谞讜转谉 诪讗讛 住诇注 讜讛讜讗 砖讘注诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇诇拽讜转 诇讜拽讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

There are those who say that this entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, and this is what the baraita is saying: The defamer is flogged and gives one hundred sela, but this applies only if he previously had intercourse with his wife. Rabbi Yehuda says: As for flogging, he is flogged in any case, as only the fine is dependent on the couple having previously had intercourse.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇诇拽讜转 诇讜拽讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘注诇 诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讘注诇 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讜拽讛 诪讻转 诪专讚讜转 诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that with regard to flogging, he is flogged in any case? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If he had intercourse with his wife before he defamed her, he is flogged; but if he did not have intercourse with his wife before he defamed her, he is not flogged? In answer to this question, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: When Rabbi Yehuda said that he is flogged even if he had not yet had intercourse with his wife, he was referring to lashes for rebelliousness [mardut], which apply by rabbinic law. Since he lied, defamed his wife, and endangered her life by accusing her of a sin that carries the death penalty, the court punishes him, but this punishment does not apply by Torah law.

Scroll To Top