(Mishnah): If a woman converted with her daughter and the daughter was Mezanah (while she was a Na'arah Me'orasah), she is strangled. There is no [execution at] her father's doorway, and there is no [fine for Motzi Shem Ra of] 100 Sela'im;

If her conception was not in Kedushah, but her birth was in Kedushah (her mother converted in between), she is stoned (for such Zenus), but there is no father's doorway, and there is no 100 Sela'im;

If her conception and her birth were in Kedushah, she is like a Bas Yisrael in all respects.

If she has a father but no doorway of her father, or her father's house has a doorway but she has no father, [even so] she is stoned;

Pesach Beis Aviha was said only for the Mitzvah (l'Chatchilah).

(Gemara): It says "Ki Hotzi Shem Ra Al Besulas Yisrael" - this excludes [a convert], who is not from Yisrael.

'Ki Hotzi Shem Ra Al Besulah' (i.e. it could have said 'Bas Yisrael.' Why did it say Besulah?) This includes a convert whose conception was not in Kedushah, but her birth was in Kedushah, for stoning.

Question: It should include her [even] for a fine!

Answer: This cannot be;

(Chizkiyah - Beraisa): Since it says "u'Skaluha", do we not know that she dies?! Why does it say "va'Mesah"?

Answer: There is another, that she is stoned, and he is exempt [from a fine if he lied]. Who is this? It is a convert whose conception was not in Kedushah, but her birth was in Kedushah, that she is stoned.

It says "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Va Aleha u'Sne'ah" - he is liable only if he entered [Chupah with her], had Bi'ah and claimed [that she had no] Besulim;

Suggestion: "V'Sam Lah Alilos Devarim" - perhaps even if [he accuses her that] she burned the food!

Rejection: It says here "Alilos Devarim", and it says Alilos Devarim below [in this Parshah]. Just like Alilos Devarim below is Zenus ("vLo Matzati Lah Besulim"), also above it is Zenus.

Question: Perhaps just like "Alilos Devarim" below is [a claim that she was Mezanah] in the place of Besulim, also here (it is only if her husband had Bi'ah with her k'Darkah)! What is the source [that Motzi Shem Ra applies] even if he had a different Bi'ah with her (Lo k'Darkah? R. MEIR SIMCHAH - such Bi'ah is not connected to Besulim at all. His claim is not based on his Bi'ah. This is like the opinion that the Parshah applies even if he did not have Bi'ah with her.)

Answer: "V'Hotzi Aleha Shem Ra" - in any case.

"V'Amar Es ha'Ishah ha'Zos Lakachti va'Ekrav Eleha" - this excludes Yi'ud (one who bought an Amah Ivriyah, and he or his son married her. Initially, she was not taken for a wife);

"Lakachti" excludes a Shomeres Yavam (he did not choose to marry her). "Lakachti" excludes an Arusah (if he had Bi'ah with her and accused her during Eirusin).

[We said that] "Lakachti" excludes Yi'ud. R. Yonah said, even according to the opinion that from the beginning, [the master] gives money for Yi'ud (if he will marry her later, the money was Kesef Kidushin. SEFER NIR - the one who holds that money was not given for Yi'ud, we already exclude Yi'ud from "Es Biti Nasati"; the father did not give her for marriage. He only sold her to be a slave.)

"Lakachti" excludes a Shomeres Yavam. This is not only like Mishnah Rishonah, which says that the Mitzvah of Yibum has precedence over Mitzvas Chalitzah (so it is as if Shamayim decreed that he marry her). Rather, it is even like Mishnah Acharonah, which says that Mitzvas Chalitzah has precedence over Mitzvas Yibum [and he himself decided to marry her].

"Lakachti" excludes an Arusah. We learn from "va'Ekrav Eleha" (this hints that he already came close, i.e. through Nisu'in).

Question: "V'Lo Matzati Lah Besulim" (why should he be believed)? We should be concerned lest he found, and got rid of [the Dam Besulim]!

Answer: He brought witnesses that she was Mezanah while still in her father's house.

"V'Eleh Besulei Viti" (why should he be believed)? We should be concerned lest it is blood of a bird (it resembles Dam Besulim)!

Answer: The father brought witnesses to be Mezim the husband's witnesses.

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): This Parshah has witnesses, and Zomemeihen (witnesses who testified that the witnesses were not where they claimed to see the testimony at the time) and Zomemin of Zomemeihen;

The husband says 'here are witnesses that she was Mezanah in her father's house.' The father brought witnesses to be Mezim the husband's witnesses, and the husband brought witnesses to be Mezim the father's witnesses. ("Im Emes Hayah ha'Davar" means that it was found like the husband initially claimed.)

Some teach "Im Emes Hayah ha'Davar ha'Zeh" when the father did not find witnesses to be Mezim the husband's witnesses.

(Beraisa - Sifri): "U'Farsu ha'Simlah" - it is all a parable (they will make the matter as clear as a sheet. It does not refer to the sheet on which they had Bi'ah.)

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): This is one of three verses said in the Torah as a parable. (We now bring the other two);

Question: "Im Yakum v'His'halech ba'Chutz Al Mish'anto v'Nikah ha'Makeh" - would you think that [the victim] is walking in the market, and this one is killed due to [striking] him?!

Answer: Rather, what is "Al Mish'anto"? In his health (like he walked before he was hit).

Question: "Im Zarchah ha'Shemesh Alav Damim Lo" - does the sun shine only on him?!

Answer: Rather, just like shining of the sun is Shalom for everyone in the world, also this [thief tunneling into the house], when [the Ba'al ha'Bayis] knows that there is Shalom from him and he killed him, he is liable.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): The matters should be said like they are written. (They are not merely a parable. This is the continuation of the Beraisa in Sifri cited above; the Gemara digressed in the middle - HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

Question: What does 'the matters should be said like they are written' mean?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Really, he is not liable until he enters [Chupah with her], has Bi'ah and claims [that she had no] Besulim.

"U'Farsu ha'Simlah" - it is not enough that they spread the sheet. Rather, it is until they make the matter as clear as a sheet. (R. Eliezer ben Yakov agrees that this is a parable for getting total clarity. He holds that the Torah used this parable due to the simple meaning, i.e. spreading the sheet on which they had Bi'ah, to teach that the Parshah applies only if he had Bi'ah with her. - DOROS RISHONIM, Tzedukim 15.)

(Rav Asi): The witnesses are not stoned, and the husband is not lashed and does not pay 100 Sela'im, until [the Mezimim] say 'they (the witnesses of Zenus) were with us in the place Ploni' (at the time that they claimed to see the Zenus elsewhere), and the husband hired them to give false testimony.

Note: Surely, Hazamah suffices to stone the witnesses, even if they were not hired. Rather, the husband is lashed and pays only if there was Hazamah and he hired the witnesses. (PF)

Question: If [the Mezimim] said 'you were with us in the place Ploni', but they did not say that the husband hired them to give false testimony [what is the law]?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun citing Reish Lakish): It says here Sumah ("v'Sam Lah Alilos Devarim"), and it says there Sumah ("Lo Sesimun Alav Neshech.") Just like Sumah there is money, also Sumah here is money (he hired them. If not, he is exempt.)

Question (Beraisa): If [the husband] did not say to the witnesses 'come and testify for me', rather, they came [and testified] by themselves, he is not lashed and he does not give 100 Sela'im. Rather, she or the witnesses who plotted against her (if they were Huzam) go promptly to the place of stoning;

Inference: [He is exempt] because he did not say - but if he said so, even if he did not hire them, it is as if he hired them (and he is liable)!

If the father brought two sets of witnesses - one says 'you were with us in the place Ploni', and one says 'the husband hired them to give false testimony' - obviously, the one that says 'you were with us in the place Ploni' are stoned (if they are Huzam), and the one that says 'the husband hired them to give false testimony' are lashed and give 100 Sela'im.

Rebuttal (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Is it not through these [witnesses] and through these that [the husband] is lashed and give 100 Sela'im? (We cannot obligate the latter, for their testimony alone would not suffice!) Rather, [the latter] are lashed due to "Lo Sa'aneh v'Re'acha Ed Shaker" (but they do not pay due to Hazamah.

Question (R. Bun bar Chiyah, to R. Ze'ira): If the father brought witnesses to be Mezim the husband's witnesses, and the father's witnesses were Huzam - are they lashed and give 100 Sela'im [even if the Hazamah was] through three judges, but the witnesses are stoned [only] through 23?

Answer #1 (R. Ze'ira): (Yes!) If the father's witnesses were not Huzam, would not the husband be lashed and give 100 Sela'im through three, and the [husband's] witnesses are stoned through 23?

R. Ze'ira holds that they are two [separate] judgments. (Therefore, three suffice for the lashes and money.)

Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah citing R. Avahu): It is all one judgment. (We need 23 for the lashes and money.)