Question (against R. Avahu - Beraisa): "El Ziknei ha'Ir" - this is a Beis Din of three. "Ha'Sharah" - this is a Beis Din of 23. (This shows that a Beis Din of three applies, i.e. for the lashes and money!)

Answer: He explains it like R. Meir;

(Mishnah): Ones and Mefateh and Motzi Shem Ra are judged through three. R. Meir says so;

Chachamim say, Motzi Shem Ra is through 23, for it can have capital punishment.

(R. Mana): They argue about Na'arah Me'urasah (i.e. Motzi Shem Ra when the husband merely wanted to make her lose her Kesuvah, before he brought witnesses of Zenus). R. Meir holds that she loses her Kesuvah through three, and [if witnesses of Zenus come later] she is stoned through 23;

Chachamim say, the place (i.e. in a Beis Din of 23) where she is stoned, there she loses her Kesuvah.

However, Motzi Shem Ra (when he brought witnesses of Zenus), all agree that not in the place (i.e. in a Beis Din of 23) where the witnesses are stoned, there the husband is lashed and gives 100 Sela'im. (Rather, he is lashed and pays even in a Beis Din of three. His punishment is a separate judgment from the witnesses' punishment. They argue when both possible punishments are against the same party, e.g. she stands to lose her Kesuvah or be killed.)

Objection (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): How can you say that they argue about something that was not taught?! Rather, they argue about [Stam] Motzi Shem Ra [to obligate the husband lashes and 100 Sela'im];

R. Meir says that he is lashed and gives 100 Sela'im through three, and the witnesses are stoned through 23;

Rabanan say that in the place (i.e. in a Beis Din of 23) where the witnesses are stoned, there the husband is lashed and gives 100 Sela'im.

However, Na'arah Me'urasah, all agree that three suffices [to make her lose her Kesuvah].

R. Mana holds [that three can judge the husband,] like R. Ze'ira (who says that they are two judgments), and R. Yosi bei R. Bun holds [that Chachamim require 23 to punish the husband] like R. Avahu (who says that it is one judgment).

(Beraisa): We never find that the husband is lashed or gives 100 Sela'im, until the (his) witnesses are stoned.

Question: When is he is liable to pay the fine?

Answer #1 (R. Yonah): It is at the end (when the witnesses are sentenced to be stoned).

Answer #2 (R. Yosah): It is from the beginning (when his witnesses were Huzam. The Beraisa means 'until they are proper to be stoned.')

Question (R. Yosi, against R. Yonah): According to you, that you say at the end, [why does a Beraisa say that] he is lashed and gives 100 Sela'im through three, and the witnesses are stoned through 23? (This shows that he is liable before the witnesses are liable!)

Question (R. Mana): This is difficult even for R. Yosi [bei R. Bun], my Rebbi! According to the opinion that Edim Zomemin must be warned, if they were not warned, (it is not possible to kill them, so) he is lashed and gives 100 Sela'im through three, and the witnesses are not stoned through 23! (A Beraisa above said that the husband is never lashed or gives 100 Sela'im, until the witnesses are stoned!)

Answer (R. Avmari): Who said that it is so?! (According to the opinion that Edim Zomemin must be warned, if they were not warned, since we cannot kill them, also the husband is exempt! We explained this based on PNEI MOSHE and GILYON EFRAYIM.)

(R. Yosi bei R. Chaninah): If one was Motzi Shem Ra on an orphan, he is exempt.

(R. Ba bar Mamal): [Tana'im] argue about this. This is like R. Yosi ha'Gelili. However, according to R. Akiva, there is a fine for her, and the fine belongs to her.

Support (R. Yosi - Mishnah): [If a woman converted with her daughter], she has no [execution at her] father's doorway, and no [fine of] 100 Sela'im;

Is [a convert] not like an orphan?! (Since the Tana needed to teach that a convert has no fine, this implies that a real orphan has a fine. Above (3:1), R. Yosi inferred that our Mishnah is like R. Akiva. - SEFER NIR)

(R. Imi and R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One who was Motzi Shem Ra on a minor, he is exempt.

Support (R. Hoshayah): This is proper! An adult who was not warned, is this anything?! (Since she cannot be killed, the witnesses cannot be killed, therefore also the husband is exempt.) A minor who was warned is like an adult who was not warned.

Note: SEFER NIR asks why it is more obvious to exempt an adult who was not warned, than a minor. (If we hold that the husband is punished only if his witnesses are stoned, a minor is more obvious, for some hold that an adult expert is killed without warning (Bavli Sanhedrin 41a)! In the Bavli (40b), Chachamim of R. Meir hold that "Na'arah" normally includes a minor! - PF)

(R. Ze'ira citing Rav Hamnuna citing Rav Ada bar Achavah): She is not stoned unless she is a Na'arah at the time of Hotza'ah (when she is taken out to be killed).

Question: What is the source?

Answer: "V'Hotzi'u Es ha'Na'arah El Pesach Beis Aviha."

Question #1 (R. Chiyah's Beraisa): If she was Mezanah in her father's house, and after Bagrus he was Motzi Shem Ra on her, he is not lashed and does not give 100 Sela'im. However, she or her Zomemin (i.e. if the witnesses of her Zenus were Huzam) go promptly to the place of stoning.

Question #2 (against Rav Ada bar Achavah - Mishnah): If someone had a final verdict [to be killed for Ben Sorer u'Moreh], and he fled, and afterwards his lower beard filled out (after this, a Ben Sorer u'Moreh is exempt, even so, he is stoned).

Answer: There (Motzi Shem Ra), you can say that "v'Hotzi'u Es ha'Na'arah" (teaches that only a Na'arah is stoned, for it is extra. It could have said 'v'Hotzi'u Osah.' Here (Ben Sorer u'Moreh), can you say [so from] "v'Hotzi'u Oso"?! [It does not say] "Es ha'Ben" (to exclude one who passed the age)!