כתובות מה

כתובות מה

סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ, כְּלוֹמַר: רְאוּ גִּידּוּלִים שֶׁגִּידַּלְתֶּם. בָּאוּ לָהּ עֵדִים בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ שֶׁזִּינְּתָה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ — סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר הָעִיר. סָרְחָה וּלְבַסּוֹף בָּגְרָה — תִּידּוֹן בְּחֶנֶק.

one stones her at the entrance to her father’s house, as though to say: See what you have brought up. If witnesses came to testify about her when she was in her father’s house, i.e., when she was betrothed, and testified that she committed adultery in her father’s 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.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּכֹל הֵיכָא דְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי גּוּפָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי קְטָלָא? וּרְמִינְהִי: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁזִּינְּתָה, וּמִשֶּׁבָּגְרָה הוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רַע הוּא אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע, הִיא וְזוֹמְמֶיהָ מַקְדִּימִין לְבֵית הַסְּקִילָה.

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.

הִיא וְזוֹמְמֶיהָ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא: אוֹ הִיא אוֹ זוֹמְמֶיהָ מַקְדִּימִין לְבֵית הַסְּקִילָה.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע קָאָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא, דְּהָא נִכְנְסָה לְחוּפָּה וְלֹא נִבְעֲלָה, בְּעָלְמָא, וְזִינְּתָה — בְּחֶנֶק, וְאִילּוּ מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע — בִּסְקִילָה.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרָבָא: דִּלְמָא כִּי חַדֵּית רַחֲמָנָא הֵיכָא דְּלָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי גּוּפָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי גּוּפָא, לָא חַדֵּית רַחֲמָנָא!

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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אִישְׁתַּנִּי וְלָא אִישְׁתַּנִּי, תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: חָטְאוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ, וְנִתְמַנּוּ, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּהֶדְיוֹטוֹת.

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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’im, 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 4:3–12, 22–26): 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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם נוֹדַע לָהֶם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ — חַיָּיבִים, מִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנּוּ — פְּטוּרִים.

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’s 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.

אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָזֵיל אַף בָּתַר יְדִיעָה, דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר יְדִיעָה וְלָא אָזֵיל בָּתַר חֶטְאָה מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? אִם כֵּן — לַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן כִּי דְּהַשְׁתָּא: מָשׁוּחַ פַּר, וְנָשִׂיא שָׂעִיר!

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.

הָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְתַנָּא: תְּנִי, תִּידּוֹן בִּסְקִילָה. וְאַמַּאי? ״נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְהָא בּוֹגֶרֶת הִיא! אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הַנַּעֲרָה״ — הַנַּעֲרָה שֶׁהָיְתָה כְּבָר.

The Gemara responds: Nevertheless, this issue is subject to a dispute. Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say to the tanna, i.e., the Sage who would recite statements of tanna’im before him and who recited Sheila’s ruling with regard to a betrothed young woman: Teach that she is sentenced to stoning rather than strangulation? The Gemara questions Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: But why? The Merciful One says: A betrothed young woman, but this one is a grown woman. Rabbi Ile’a 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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא לְרַבִּי אִילְעָא: אִי הָכִי מִילְקָא נָמֵי לִילְקֵי, וּמֵאָה סֶלַע נָמֵי לִישַׁלֵּם! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַחֲמָנָא נַיצְּלַן מֵהַאי דַּעְתָּא: אַדְּרַבָּה, רַחֲמָנָא נַיצְּלַן מִדַּעְתָּא דִּידָךְ.

Rabbi Ḥanina said to Rabbi Ile’a: 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’a said to him: May the Merciful One save us from following this opinion, as your argument is illogical. Rabbi Ḥanina replied: On the contrary, may the Merciful One save us from your opinion, as yours is the baseless opinion.

וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אָבִין, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבָּא: זוֹ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ גָּרְמוּ לָהּ, וְזֶה עֲקִימַת שְׂפָתָיו גָּרְמוּ לוֹ. זוֹ מַעֲשֶׂיהָ גָּרְמוּ לָהּ, (כְּשֶׁהִיא) [כִּי] זַנַּאי — [כְּשֶׁהִיא] נַעֲרָה זַנַּאי. וְזֶה עֲקִימַת שְׂפָתָיו גָּרְמוּ לוֹ, אֵימַת קָא מִיחַיַּיב? הָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא, וְהָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא בּוֹגֶרֶת הֲוַאי.

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 Yitzḥak bar Avin said, and some say this answer was given by Rabbi Yitzḥak 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁזִּינְּתָה — סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ. אֵין לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאָב, סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר הָעִיר הַהִיא. וּבְעִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ גּוֹיִם — סוֹקְלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין. כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — סוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ עַל שַׁעַר שֶׁעָבַד בּוֹ, וּבְעִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ גּוֹיִם — סוֹקְלִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין.

§ 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’s house. If she does not have an entrance to her father’s 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.

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״, זֶה שַׁעַר שֶׁעָבַד בּוֹ. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שַׁעַר שֶׁעָבַד בּוֹ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא שַׁעַר שֶׁנִּידּוֹן בּוֹ?

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: “Then you shall bring forth that man or that women who have done this evil thing, to your gates…and you shall stone them with stones that they die” (Deuteronomy 17:5). “Your gates,” 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?

נֶאֱמַר ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״ לְמַטָּה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״ לְמַעְלָה. מָה ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה — שַׁעַר שֶׁעָבַד בּוֹ, אַף ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״ הָאָמוּר לְמַטָּה — שַׁעַר שֶׁעָבַד בּוֹ.

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

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״, וְלֹא שַׁעֲרֵי גוֹיִם. הַאי ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״, הָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ? אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״שַׁעַר״, מַאי ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

Alternatively, the idol worshipper is executed at “your gates,” and not at the gates of gentiles. The Gemara asks: This term, “your gates,” 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 “your gates”? This indicates that the verse is referring to the gates of cities inhabited by Jews, and therefore one can conclude two conclusions from it.

אַשְׁכְּחַן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה מְנָא לַן?

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’s house is stoned at the gate of the city?

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: גָּמַר ״פֶּתַח״ מִ״פֶּתַח״, וּ״פֶתַח״ מִ״שַּׁעַר״, וְ״שַׁעַר״ מִ״שְּׁעָרֶיךָ״.

Rabbi Abbahu said: One derives this by verbal analogy, as follows: The meaning of the term “entrance” (Deuteronomy 22:21), stated with regard to a betrothed woman who committed adultery, is derived from the term “entrance” that appears with regard to the Tabernacle, in the verse “The entrance of the gate of the courtyard” (Numbers 4:26); and the meaning of this usage of the term entrance is derived from the term “gate,” which appears in the same phrase; and the meaning of this usage of the term “gate” is derived from the term “your gates” 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לִלְקוֹת — לוֹקֶה מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, מֵאָה סֶלַע, בָּעַל — נוֹתֵן, לֹא בָּעַל — אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן.

§ 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.

קָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וְרַבָּנַן. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע — לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע, בֵּין בָּעַל בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בָּעַל, כְּרַבָּנַן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לִלְקוֹת — לוֹקֶה מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, מֵאָה סֶלַע, בָּעַל — נוֹתֵן, לֹא בָּעַל — אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן, כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.

The Gemara comments: These tanna’im disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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’akov, that the halakha of a defamer applies only to a husband who had relations with his wife.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: כּוּלַּהּ כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע — לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע, וְהוּא שֶׁבָּעַל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לִלְקוֹת — לוֹקֶה מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

There are those who say that this entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, 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.

וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לִלְקוֹת לוֹקֶה מִכׇּל מָקוֹם? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בָּעַל — לוֹקֶה, לֹא בָּעַל — אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לוֹקֶה מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that with regard to flogging, he is flogged in any case? But isn’t 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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.