## Ketubot Daf 46a

###### Ketubot 46a:1
[Ketubot 46a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:1)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מַאי ״בָּעַל לוֹקֶה״ דְּקָתָנֵי הָתָם — מָמוֹן. וְקָרֵי לֵיהּ לְמָמוֹן מַלְקוֹת? אִין, וְהָא תְּנַן: ״הָאוֹמֵר חֲצִי עֶרְכִּי עָלַי״ — נוֹתֵן חֲצִי עֶרְכּוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן עֵרֶךְ שָׁלֵם. לוֹקֶה אַמַּאי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לוֹקֶה בְּעֵרֶךְ שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: What** of the statement **that is taught there,** in the *baraita*, that it is only if **he had intercourse** with her that he is **flogged?** It is referring to the **money** of the fine. The Gemara asks: **And** does one **call monetary** payment **flogging?** The Gemara answers: **Yes, and we learned** in a *baraita*: **One who says: Half my valuation is upon me, he gives half his valuation,** in accordance with the sum fixed by the Torah according to sex and age (see Leviticus 27:2–3). **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He is flogged and gives** his **full valuation.** The Sages inquired: **Why is he flogged?** What transgression did he commit? **Rav Pappa said: He is flogged by** having to pay **a full valuation.** This proves that monetary payment can be referred to as flogging.


###### Ketubot 46a:2
[Ketubot 46a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:2)

מַאי טַעְמָא — גְּזֵירָה ״חֲצִי עֶרְכּוֹ״ אַטּוּ ״עֵרֶךְ חֶצְיוֹ״. וְ״עֵרֶךְ חֶצְיוֹ״ הָוֵי לֵיהּ אֵבֶר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What is the reason** of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is a rabbinic **decree** in the case of one who vows to donate **half of his valuation, due to** a case where one vowed the **valuation of half of himself. And** one who vows to donate the **valuation of half of himself has** effectively vowed to donate the valuation of **a limb upon which** his **life depends,** e.g., his head or heart, in which case it is as though he vowed to donate his entire valuation. Consequently, even one who vows to donate half of his valuation must donate his entire valuation.


###### Ketubot 46a:3
[Ketubot 46a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְעָנְשׁוּ אוֹתוֹ״ — זֶה מָמוֹן, ״וְיִסְּרוּ״ — זֶה מַלְקוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the *halakhot* of the defamer. **The Sages taught** the following *baraita*, based upon the following verses: “And the Elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:18–19). **“And they shall fine [*ve’anshu*] him”; this** is referring to **money. “And chastise** him”; **this** is referring to **flogging.**


###### Ketubot 46a:4
[Ketubot 46a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:4)

בִּשְׁלָמָא ״וְעָנְשׁוּ״ זֶה מָמוֹן, דִּכְתִיב ״וְעָנְשׁוּ אוֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה״. אֶלָּא ״וְיִסְּרוּ״ זֶה מַלְקוֹת — מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** with regard to the phrase **“and they fine [*ve’anshu*] him,”** although the word *ve’anshu* can refer to any punishment, in **this** case it is referring to **money, as it is written: And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman. However,** with regard to the statement of the *baraita* that: **“And chastise** him”; **this** is referring to **flogging, from where do we** derive this?


###### Ketubot 46a:5
[Ketubot 46a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לָמַדְנוּ ״יִסְּרוּ״ מִ״יִּסְּרוּ״, וְ״יִסְּרוּ״ מִ״בֵּן״, וּ״בֵן״ מִ״בִּן״ — ״וְהָיָה אִם בִּן הַכּוֹת הָרָשָׁע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu said: We learned** the meaning of the word **chastise** in the case of a defamer by verbal analogy **from** the word **chastise** stated in the verse “if a man have a stubborn and rebellious son [*ben*], that will not listen to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and though they chastise him, will not listen to them” (Deuteronomy 21:18). **And** the implication of the word **chastise** in that verse is derived **from** the word **son** that appears in the same verse. **And** the implication of the word **son [*ben*]** with regard to a rebellious son is derived **from** the word ***bin*** in the verse **“Then it shall be if the wicked man deserve [*bin*] to be flogged”** (Deuteronomy 25:2).


###### Ketubot 46a:6
[Ketubot 46a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:6)

אַזְהָרָה לְמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע מְנָלַן? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: מִ״לֹּא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל״. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִ״וְּנִשְׁמַרְתָּ מִכֹּל דָּבָר רָע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive the **warning,** i.e., the prohibition that serves as the source for the flogging **for a defamer? Rabbi Elazar says** that the prohibition is derived **from** the verse **“You shall not go up and down as talebearer”** (Leviticus 19:16). **Rabbi Natan says** that it is derived **from: “Then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing [*davar ra*]”** (Deuteronomy 23:10), which is expounded to mean *dibbur ra*, evil speech.


###### Ketubot 46a:7
[Ketubot 46a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:7)

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מֵהַאי? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר. ״וְנִשְׁמַרְתָּ מִכֹּל דָּבָר רָע״, מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר: אַל יְהַרְהֵר אָדָם בַּיּוֹם וְיָבֹא לִידֵי טוּמְאָה בַּלַּיְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** that **Rabbi Elazar did not state** that it is derived from **this** verse quoted by Rabbi Natan? The Gemara answers: **He requires that** verse **for** the statement of **Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair,** as it was taught: **“Then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing”; from here Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair said: A person should not think** impure thoughts **by day and** thereby **come by night to** the **impurity** of an emission.


###### Ketubot 46a:8
[Ketubot 46a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:8)

וְרַבִּי נָתָן מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מֵהַאי? הָהוּא: אַזְהָרָה לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא רַךְ לָזֶה וְקָשֶׁה לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks the reverse question: **And what is the reason** that **Rabbi Natan did not state** that it is derived **from that** verse cited by Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Natan explains **that** verse, which includes the term talebearer [*rakhil*], as **a warning to the court that it should not be soft to [*rakh la*] this** litigant **and harsh to that** one, but it must treat both sides as equals.


###### Ketubot 46a:9
[Ketubot 46a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:9)

לֹא אָמַר לְעֵדִים ״בּוֹאוּ וְהַעִידוּנִי״, וְהֵן מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן — הוּא אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן מֵאָה סְלָעִים. הִיא וְזוֹמְמֶיהָ מַקְדִּימִין לְבֵית הַסְּקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another statement that deals with a defamer: If the husband **did not say to witnesses: Come and testify for me** that my wife committed adultery, **but they testify** for **him of their own accord** and are subsequently discovered to be liars, the husband **is not flogged and does not give** the **one hundred *sela*,** as he did not harm her. **She and her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning.**


###### Ketubot 46a:10
[Ketubot 46a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Does it enter your mind** to say that **she and her conspiring witnesses** are stoned? If she is liable to be stoned, they are not conspiring witnesses, and conversely, if they are conspiring witnesses, they are stoned and she is exempt. **Rather,** this must mean: **Either she or her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning.** If they were telling the truth, she is stoned. If they conspired and offered false testimony, they are liable to be stoned.


###### Ketubot 46a:11
[Ketubot 46a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:11)

טַעְמָא דְּלָא אֲמַר לְהוּ, הָא אֲמַר לְהוּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אַגְרִינְהוּ. לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכּוֹר עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from the *baraita* that the **reason** the husband is not flogged or fined is **that** the husband **did not tell them** to testify, **but** if **he told them** to testify, **although he did not hire them** but merely persuaded them to testify that his wife had committed adultery as a betrothed woman, he is flogged and must pay the fine. This serves **to exclude** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** The husband **is liable** to the punishments of a defamer **only if he hired witnesses.**


###### Ketubot 46a:12
[Ketubot 46a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:12)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אַתְיָא ״שִׂימָה״ ״שִׂימָה״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״לֹא תְשִׂימוּן עָלָיו נֶשֶׁךְ״, מָה לְהַלָּן מָמוֹן, אַף כָּאן מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** of **Rabbi Yehuda?** Nowhere does the Torah explicitly state that the husband hired false witnesses. The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Abbahu said:** It is **derived** by a verbal analogy between the term **placing,** written with regard to a defamer, and the term **placing,** written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest. **It is written here,** with regard to a defamer: **“And he place wanton charges against her”** (Deuteronomy 22:14), **and it is written there: “Neither shall you place upon him interest”** (Exodus 22:24). **Just as below,** with regard to interest, the verse is referring to **money, so too here,** in the case of a defamer, it is referring to **money,** thereby indicating that the husband paid money in order to substantiate his false accusation.


###### Ketubot 46a:13
[Ketubot 46a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:13)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וְכֵן תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף צִידוֹנִי בֵּי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: אָתְיָא ״שִׂימָה״ ״שִׂימָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Yosef Tzidoni likewise taught in the school of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:** It is **derived** from the verbal analogy between the term **placing,** written with regard to a defamer, and the term **placing,** written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest.


###### Ketubot 46a:14
[Ketubot 46a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:14)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שְׂכָרָן בְּקַרְקַע, מַהוּ? בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, מַהוּ? שְׁנֵיהֶם בִּפְרוּטָה, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:** According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if the husband **hired** the false witnesses **with land** instead of money, **what is** the *halakha*? If he hired them **with less than the value of a *peruta*, what is** the *halakha*? If he hired **both** witnesses **with a *peruta*, what is** the *halakha*? Since this *halakha* is derived from the case of interest, perhaps, like the prohibition against charging interest, it applies only with regard to money, rather than land, and only with money that is greater than the value of a *peruta*.


###### Ketubot 46a:15
[Ketubot 46a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:15)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: הוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע עַל הַנִּישּׂוּאִין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, מַהוּ? עַל נִשּׂוּאֵי אָחִיו, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Rav Ashi raised a dilemma** concerning a defamer: If **he defamed** his wife **with regard to** their **first marriage, what is** the *halakha*? In other words, if a man married a woman, divorced her, remarried her, and subsequently defamed her by claiming that she had committed adultery during the period of betrothal before their first marriage, what is the *halakha*? Similarly, if he performed levirate marriage and then defamed her **with regard to his brother’s marriage** to her, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Ketubot 46a:16
[Ketubot 46a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:16)

פְּשׁוֹט מִיהָא חֲדָא. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי יוֹנָה: ״אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה״. לְזֶה — וְלֹא לַיָּבָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Resolve at least one** of these dilemmas, **as Rabbi Yona taught** that the verse “And the father of the young woman shall say to the Elders: **I gave my daughter to this man”** (Deuteronomy 22:16) serves to emphasize: I gave her **to this** man **and not to the *yavam*,** i.e., the brother of the original husband. Consequently, if one defames his *yevama* with regard to her original marriage to his brother, the unique *halakhot* of defamation do not apply.


###### Ketubot 46a:17
[Ketubot 46a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:17)

מַאי רַבָּנַן וּמַאי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב? דְּתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד הוֹצָאַת שֵׁם רַע? בָּא לְבֵית דִּין, וְאָמַר: פְּלוֹנִי, לֹא מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ בְּתוּלִים. אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁזִּינְּתָה תַּחְתָּיו — יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מָנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In the course of the previous discussion, the Gemara mentioned a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. The Gemara asks: **What** is the opinion of **the Rabbis and what** is the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov,** referred to above (45b)? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **How** does the case of **defamation** proceed? It involves a situation where the husband **came to the court and said** to the father: **So-and-so, I have not found** indications of **your daughter’s virginity. If there are witnesses** who testify **that she committed adultery under his** authority, i.e., while betrothed to him, **she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.**


###### Ketubot 46a:18
[Ketubot 46a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:18)

אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁזִּינְּתָה תַּחְתָּיו יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מָנֶה?! בַּת סְקִילָה הִיא! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁזִּינְּתָה תַּחְתָּיו — בִּסְקִילָה. זִינְּתָה מֵעִיקָּרָא, יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מָנֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interrupts its citation of the *baraita*, as this last statement is very surprising: **If there are witnesses** who testify **that she committed adultery under his** authority, does **she have a marriage contract of one hundred dinars? She is** punished **by stoning.** The Gemara explains that **this is what** the *tanna* **said: If there are witnesses** who testify **that she committed adultery under his** authority, she is liable **to** receive the punishment of **stoning.** However, if **she engaged in licentious sexual relations at the outset,** before her betrothal, when she was still a single woman, she is merely guilty of deceiving her husband with regard to her virginity, and therefore **she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars,** which is the standard marriage contract of a non-virgin.


###### Ketubot 46a:19
[Ketubot 46a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:19)

נִמְצָא (שֶׁ)שֵּׁם רַע [שֶׁ]אֵינוֹ שֵׁם רַע — הוּא לוֹקֶה וְנוֹתֵן מֵאָה סֶלַע, בֵּין בָּעַל וּבֵין לֹא בָּעַל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁבָּעַל. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ״, ״וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resumes its quotation of the *baraita*: If it was **discovered that the bad name is not a bad name,** i.e., the husband’s accusation was false, **he is flogged and gives** her father **one hundred *sela*, whether he had intercourse with her** or **whether he had not had intercourse with her. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: These matters were stated only** in a case **where he had intercourse** with his wife before defaming her. The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written:** “If a man take a wife **and go in unto her”** (Deuteronomy 22:13), and: **“And when I came near to her,** I did not find in her the tokens of virginity” (Deuteronomy 22:14), as both expressions refer to sexual intercourse.


###### Ketubot 46a:20
[Ketubot 46a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:20)

אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי ״וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ״, ״וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ״? ״וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ״ — בַּעֲלִילוֹת, ״וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ״ — בִּדְבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, what is** the meaning of the phrases **“and go in unto her,”** and **“and when I came near to her,”** if the couple never engaged in intercourse? The Gemara explains that, according to the Rabbis, **“and go in unto her”** is referring **to** the **wanton charges** the husband leveled against his wife; **“and when I came near to her”** means that he came near **with words,** not intercourse.


###### Ketubot 46a:21
[Ketubot 46a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:21)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ בְּתוּלִים״. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי ״לֹא מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ בְּתוּלִים״! לֹא מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ כְּשֵׁרֵי בְתוּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written: “I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity”** (Deuteronomy 22:17), as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov claims that the husband had relations with her and discovered that she was not a virgin. **However, according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, what is** the meaning of **“I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,”** if they did not have intercourse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis explain that he means: **I did not find for your daughter the fitness of virginity,** i.e., I have discovered that she was unfaithful.


###### Ketubot 46a:22
[Ketubot 46a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:22)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וְאֵלֶּה בְּתוּלֵי בִתִּי״. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי ״וְאֵלֶּה בְּתוּלֵי בִתִּי״? וְאֵלֶּה כְּשֵׁרֵי בְּתוּלֵי בִתִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written** that the father replies: **“And these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity”** (Deuteronomy 22:17). He presents a cloth that proves she was a virgin, in opposition to the husband’s claim. **However, according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, what is** the meaning of **“And these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity”?** The Rabbis answer that the father means: **And these are the** proofs of the **fitness of my daughter’s virginity,** i.e., he either brings witnesses to counter the testimony of the husband’s witnesses or provides some other proof that his daughter was a virgin at the time of her marriage.


###### Ketubot 46a:23
[Ketubot 46a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:23)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה״. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, מַאי ״וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses yet another question on the same lines: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is at it is written: “And they shall spread the garment”** (Deuteronomy 22:17). The father brings the sheet on which the couple had intercourse and shows that it is stained with blood. **However, according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who claim that a husband can defame his wife even if they have not engaged in intercourse, **what is** the meaning of the phrase **“And they shall spread the garment [*hasimla*]”?**


###### Ketubot 46a:24
[Ketubot 46a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:24)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: פָּרְשׂוּ מַה שֶּׁשָּׂם לָהּ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבָּאִין עֵדִים שֶׁל זֶה וְעֵדִים שֶׁל זֶה, וּבוֹרְרִין אֶת הַדָּבָר כְּשִׂמְלָה חֲדָשָׁה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: דְּבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן, שִׂמְלָה מַמָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu said** that the Rabbis interpret this expression as follows: **They shall spread,** i.e., examine, **that which he placed against her [*sam la*].** In other words, they cross-examine the witnesses who testified against her, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“And they shall spread the garment”;** this **teaches that the witnesses of this** husband **come** forward, **and** likewise **the witnesses of that** father come forward, **and** the court **clarifies the matter like a new garment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The matters** are **as they are written,** i.e., the verse refers to **an actual cloth.**


###### Ketubot 46a:25
[Ketubot 46a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:25)

שָׁלַח רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר רַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר גִּיּוֹרֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל גַּב שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין בִּיאָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ לְבִיאָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ לְמַכּוֹת וְלָעוֹנָשִׁין, אֲבָל מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע חִלֵּק: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּבְעוֹל שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, וְיוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע כְּדַרְכָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rav Ya’akov bar Giyyorei sent** a message from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia **in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Although we have not found in the entire Torah that** any **verse distinguishes between sexual intercourse in a typical manner and sexual intercourse in an atypical manner,** i.e., anal intercourse, **with regard to flogging or** any other **punishment. However,** in the case of the **defamer,** the Torah **does distinguish** in this manner, as the husband **is obligated** to pay the fine **only** if **he had intercourse** with his wife, even it was **in an atypical manner, and** he **defames** her by claiming that she had previously had intercourse **in a typical manner** with someone else.


###### Ketubot 46a:26
[Ketubot 46a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/46a:26)

כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבָּנַן, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא בָּעַל. אִי כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In **accordance with whose** opinion is this ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan? **If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** the husband should be liable **even if he did not have intercourse** with his wife. **If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov,**