וְלָקַ֛ח אֲבִ֥י הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ה] וְאִמָּ֑הּ וְהוֹצִ֜יאוּ אֶת־בְּתוּלֵ֧י הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָ֛ה] אֶל־זִקְנֵ֥י הָעִ֖יר הַשָּֽׁעְרָה׃
maka ayah dan ibu gadis itu harus mengambil tanda-tanda keperawanan gadis itu dan membawanya kepada para tua-tua kota di pintu gerbang.
Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot
Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If the father brought witnesses to prove the perjury of the husband’s witnesses; but the father’s witnesses were proven perjurers, is he flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23107Money matters are adjudicated in a court of 3 judges (Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:1), capital cases by a court of 23 (Mishnah 1:4). The anonymous majority hold that potential cases of flogging are adjudicated by a court of 3 (Mishnah 1:2). Therefore, flogging and payment of a fine can be imposed by the same court.? He said to him, if the father’s witnesses are not proven perjurers, is not the husband flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23108It is not necessary to discuss the case that the witnesses to perjury are found to be themselves perjurers; the same result can be obtained assuming the husband’s witnesses are perjurers. Then also the husband’s case is one of flogging and fine, in the competence of a small court, but that of the witnesses is a capital case which requires the large court.
In the Babli, Sanhedrin 8b, this is reported as the opinion of R. Ḥiyya bar Abin and the Babylonian Rava.? Rebbi Ze‘ira is of the opinion that there are two different proceedings. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is only one proceeding109Since the husband can only be flogged and fined if the witnesses are stoned, the husband’s case is an appendix to that of the witnesses.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: “To the town’s Elders”, that is a court of three members; “to the gate”, that is a court of 23110This baraita is not found in other sources. The reference is to Deut. 22:15, where the girl’s father is instructed to go “to the town’s Elders, to the gate.” The double determination is read as instruction to appear before two different courts.. He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that he is flogged and pays111Cf. Chapter 3:1, Note 30. He will agree that the two punishments of the husband are in the competence of one court. The Sages, who hold that in general the culprit who is flogged does not pay, must agree that the husband can only be flogged by the court which sentences the witnesses for perjury.. There112Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:1., we have stated: “The seducer, the rapist, and the calumniator [are judged] by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, the calumniator by 23 since it is a potential capital case.113Since the wife has to be stoned if found to have committed adultery as a preliminarily married adolescent.” Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned by a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah114Since the husband can be freed from his obligations under the ketubah only if the wife is found guilty, a set-up in which two courts could come to contradictory conclusions is impossible.. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated115Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:1 states clearly that there is a disagreement in the case of the calumniator. If there were a disagreement in the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, it would have to be stated in the Mishnah.? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But by the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. [It turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Mana [follows] Rebbi Abbahu]116Text of the Constantinople edition. Text of the ms. and editio princeps: וְאַתְיָא דְרִבִּי מָנָא כְרִבִּי זְעִירָא וּדְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן כְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ “Rebbi Mana follows R. Ze‘ira and R. Yose bar Abun follows R. Abbahu.” It is possible to explain that version, in that R. Yose bar Abun was forced to invent the case that the witnesses for perjury were perjurers since in the case of the husband he follows R. Abbahu and that R. Mana, who in the main rule disagrees with R. Ze‘ira, accepts his explanation that the baraita is R. Meïr’s..
In the Babli, Sanhedrin 8b, this is reported as the opinion of R. Ḥiyya bar Abin and the Babylonian Rava.? Rebbi Ze‘ira is of the opinion that there are two different proceedings. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is only one proceeding109Since the husband can only be flogged and fined if the witnesses are stoned, the husband’s case is an appendix to that of the witnesses.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Abbahu: “To the town’s Elders”, that is a court of three members; “to the gate”, that is a court of 23110This baraita is not found in other sources. The reference is to Deut. 22:15, where the girl’s father is instructed to go “to the town’s Elders, to the gate.” The double determination is read as instruction to appear before two different courts.. He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says that he is flogged and pays111Cf. Chapter 3:1, Note 30. He will agree that the two punishments of the husband are in the competence of one court. The Sages, who hold that in general the culprit who is flogged does not pay, must agree that the husband can only be flogged by the court which sentences the witnesses for perjury.. There112Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:1., we have stated: “The seducer, the rapist, and the calumniator [are judged] by three [judges], the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, the calumniator by 23 since it is a potential capital case.113Since the wife has to be stoned if found to have committed adultery as a preliminarily married adolescent.” Rebbi Mana said, they disagree about the preliminarily married adolescent. Rebbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned by a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah114Since the husband can be freed from his obligations under the ketubah only if the wife is found guilty, a set-up in which two courts could come to contradictory conclusions is impossible.. But in the case of the calumniator, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated115Mishnah Sanhedrin 1:1 states clearly that there is a disagreement in the case of the calumniator. If there were a disagreement in the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, it would have to be stated in the Mishnah.? But they differ about the calumniator! Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But by the case of the preliminarily married adolescent, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. [It turns out that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun follows Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Mana [follows] Rebbi Abbahu]116Text of the Constantinople edition. Text of the ms. and editio princeps: וְאַתְיָא דְרִבִּי מָנָא כְרִבִּי זְעִירָא וּדְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן כְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ “Rebbi Mana follows R. Ze‘ira and R. Yose bar Abun follows R. Abbahu.” It is possible to explain that version, in that R. Yose bar Abun was forced to invent the case that the witnesses for perjury were perjurers since in the case of the husband he follows R. Abbahu and that R. Mana, who in the main rule disagrees with R. Ze‘ira, accepts his explanation that the baraita is R. Meïr’s..