They said

<<to him:

<<did you say [it]?

<<He said

<<to them:

<<No.

<<Rabba said:

<<By God!

<<he said it,

<<and it is written,

<<and we learned it:

<<it is written:

<<‘and they shall send out

<<from

<<the camp’

<<[and so on];

<<‘and they shall not

<<defile

<<their camps.’

<<We learned it:

<<one who enters

<<the Temple

<<impure.

But

<<what is the reason

<<he retracted

<<from it?

<<Because

<<was difficult

<<for him

<<a rapist.

<<As it is taught:

<<a rapist

<<who divorced [her] —

<<if

<<a Jew

<<he is,

<<he takes her back

<<and is not

<<flogged;

<<if

<<a kohen

<<he is,

<<he is flogged

<<and does not

<<take her back.

‘If

<<a Jew

<<he is,

<<he takes her back

<<and is not

<<flogged’ —

<<why?

<<A prohibition

<<that was preceded by

<<a positive commandment

<<it is,

<<so let him be flogged!

Ulla said:

<<let not

<<be said

<<‘to him

<<she shall be

<<as a wife’

<<with a rapist,

<<and let it be derived

<<from a defamer:

<<if

<<a defamer,

<<who did not

<<do

<<a deed —

<<said

<<the Merciful One

<<‘and to him

<<she shall be

<<as a wife’ —

<<a rapist,

<<how much more so?

Why

<<is it said?

<<If

<<it is not

<<relevant

<<before it,

<<apply it

<<as relevant

<<after it:

<<that if

<<he divorced [her]

<<he must take her back.

And still,

<<a rapist

<<from a defamer

<<cannot

<<be derived,

<<for there is

<<to refute:

<<what of

<<a defamer —

<<for he

<<is flogged

<<and pays!

Rather:

<<let not

<<be said

<<‘to him

<<she shall be

<<as a wife’

<<with a defamer,

<<and let it be derived

<<from a rapist:

<<if

<<a rapist,

<<who is not

<<flogged

<<and does pay —

<<said

<<the Merciful One

<<‘and to him

<<she shall be

<<as a wife’ —

<<a defamer,

<<how much more so?

<<And why

<<is it said?

<<If

<<it is not

<<relevant

<<for the defamer,

<<apply it

<<as relevant

<<for the rapist;

<<if

<<it is not

<<relevant

<<before it,

<<apply it

<<as relevant

<<after it.

And a defamer

<<from a rapist

<<too

<<cannot

<<be derived,

<<for there is

<<to refute:

<<what of

<<a rapist —

<<for he

<<did

<<a deed!

Rather:

<<let not

<<be said

<<‘to him

<<she shall be

<<as a wife’

<<with a defamer,

<<for indeed

<<his wife

<<she is.

<<Why

<<is it said?

<<If

<<it is not

<<relevant

<<for the defamer,

<<apply it

<<as relevant

<<for the rapist;

<<and if

<<it is not

<<relevant

<<before it,

<<apply it

<<as relevant

<<after it.

But say:

<<and if

<<it is not

<<relevant

<<before it

<<of the defamer,

<<apply it

<<as relevant

<<after it

<<of his own —

<<that he is not

<<flogged!

Yes, so it is,

<<and comes

<<the rapist

<<and derives

<<from it.

<<With what

<<does it derive

<<from it?

<<Whether

<<by an a fortiori

<<or

<<by ‘what we find’ —

<<there is

<<to refute

<<as we refuted:

<<what of

<<a defamer —

<<for he

<<did not

<<do

<<a deed!

Rather,

<<Rava said:

<<all his days

<<it is ‘stand

<<and take her back.’

<<And so

<<when

<<came

<<Ravin,

<<he said

<<Rabbi Yochanan [said]:

<<all his days

<<it is ‘stand

<<and take her back.’

Said

<<to him

<<Rav Pappa

<<to Rava:

<<but

<<is not

<<similar

<<its prohibition

<<to the prohibition

<<of muzzling!

<<He said

<<to him:

<<because

<<wrote

<<about it

<<the Merciful One

<<a positive commandment

<<extra,

<<is it made weaker?

If so,

<<a prohibition

<<that is converted

<<into a positive commandment

<<too —

<<let us say:

<<because

<<wrote

<<about it

<<the Merciful One

<<a positive commandment

<<extra,

<<is it made weaker?

<<He said

<<to him:

<<that

<<to convert

<<the prohibition

<<is what it comes for.

This works well

<<according to the one who says

<<‘he nullified it

<<or did not

<<nullify it’;

but

<<according to the one who says

<<‘he fulfilled it

<<or did not

<<fulfill it’,

<<what

<<is there

<<to say?