(Shila - Beraisa): There are three distinctions in the punishment of a girl that commits adultery:

If after Nisu'in witnesses testify that she was Mezanah during Eirusin, she is stoned at her father's door;

This publicizes that he raised an evil girl.

If before Nisu'in witnesses testify that she had adultery during Eirusin, she is stoned at the gate of the city.

If she sinned during Na'arus and became a Bogeres before the trial, she is strangled.

Inference: When she undergoes a physical change, her sentence changes.

Contradiction (Beraisa): If a Na'arah Me'orasah was Mezanah and after Bagrus her husband (made Nisu'in and) was Motzi Shem Ra on her, he is not lashed and does not pay 100 Shekalim. She and the Edim Zomemim (who testified falsely against her) are stoned.

Objection: We cannot kill her and the Edim Zomemim (if they lied, she is innocent)!

Correction: Rather, she or the Edim Zomemim are stoned.

Answer #1 (Rava): One cannot ask a contradiction from Motzi Shem Ra. Motzi Shem Ra is a Chidush;

Normally, if she had Nisu'in before the trial, her sentence changes to strangulation. Regarding Motzi Shem Ra, she is stoned.

Objection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Perhaps the Torah says so only when she did not change physically, but when her body changed, also her sentence changed!

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Tana'im argue about whether or not her sentence changes:

(Mishnah): If a man was Chayav Chatas for a sin and was then appointed (to be Nasi or Kohen Gadol), he brings the Chatas of a commoner;

R. Shimon says, if he found out about his sin before he was appointed, he brings a Korban. If not, he is exempt.

Objection: R. Shimon says that when he finds out affects the Korban. This does not show that he follows only the time he found out, and not the time of the sin!

If he did, he should now bring the Chatas of a Kohen Gadol (or Nasi), i.e. a bull (or a goat)!

Support: R. Yochanan said to correct the text of Shila's Beraisa to say that she is stoned (even if she is now a Bogeres. No Tana says that the Korban or death depends only on the new status.)

Question: The Torah says that a Na'arah Me'orasah is stoned, not a Bogeres!

Answer (R. Ila'a): "Ha'Na'arah" teaches that she was a Na'arah (when she sinned).

Question (R. Chananya): If so, a man should be lashed and pay a fine (for Motzi Shem Ra on a Bogeres if he says that she sinned when she was a Na'arah)!

R. Ila'a: Heaven forbid such reasoning!

R. Chananya: No, Heaven forbid your reasoning!

Question: What is R. Ila'a's reasoning?

Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Avin): Her adultery condemns her; she was a Na'arah when she sinned. His speech obligates him; she was a Bogeres when he sinned.

(Beraisa): If a Na'arah Me'orasah was Mezanah, she is stoned at her father's door. If there is none, she is stoned at the gate of the city;

If the majority of the city is Nochrim, she is stoned at the gate of Beis Din.

Similarly, one who serves idolatry is stoned at the gate of the city he sinned in;

If the city is mostly Nochrim, he is stoned at the gate of Beis Din.

Question: What is the source of this?

(Beraisa): "Your gates" refers to the gate where he served idolatry.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is the gate where he is judged!

Rejection: Above it says "Your gates", referring to where he sinned. Also here, "Your gates" refers to where he sinned.

Also, "Your gates" excludes the gates of Nochrim.

Question: We already expounded this word!

Answer: The Torah could have said "gate". Rather, it says "Your gates", so we can learn two laws.

Question: This teaches about idolatry. What is the source for a Na'arah Me'orasah?

Answer (R. Avahu): We learn "door" from "door" (regarding the Mishkan), and "door" from "gate", and "gate" from "Your gates" (regarding idolatry. Rashi - this is a mere Asmachta mid'Rabanan.)

(Beraisa #1): A Motzi Shem Ra is lashed and pays 100 Shekalim;

R. Yehudah says, he is lashed in every case. He pays 100 only if he had Bi'ah with his wife.

Version #1: They argue just like R. Eliezer ben Yakov and Chachamim do (on Daf 46a).

The first Tana says that whether or not he had Bi'ah, he is lashed and pays, like Chachamim. R. Yehudah says that he is always lashed, but he pays only if he had Bi'ah, like R. Eliezer ben Yakov.

Version #2: Both Tana'im hold like R. Eliezer ben Yakov.

The first Tana says that he is lashed and pays only if he had Bi'ah. R. Yehudah says that he is lashed in any case, but only pays if he had Bi'ah.

Question: R. Yehudah does not hold that he is always lashed!

(Beraisa #2 - R. Yehudah): He is Lokeh (lashed) only if he had Bi'ah.

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): If he did not have Bi'ah he is lashed only mid'Rabanan.