Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 4, 2015 | 讬状讙 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 30

讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 诪爪专讬 讜讗讚讜诪讬

intercourse with women for which one is liable for violating a positive mitzva, e.g., an Egyptian convert and an Edomite convert (see Deuteronomy 23:8鈥9). If he raped a first- or second-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert, even Rabbi Yeshevav agrees that the child is not a mamzer, as the betrothal takes effect. On the other hand, it is prohibited for him to sustain her as a wife.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讗讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 拽讗转讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讬讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Yeshevav if he is coming to reject the opinion of Rabbi Simai. If Rabbi Yeshevav merely takes issue with Rabbi Simai, who said that all offspring of forbidden relations are mamzerim according to Rabbi Akiva except for those resulting from relations between a widow and a High Priest, then it may well be explained that Rabbi Yeshevav holds that Rabbi Akiva rules that betrothal does not take effect and that there is mamzerut when one violates the prohibitions of the priesthood. However, if he is stating his own opinion, independent of Rabbi Simai鈥檚 statement, his ruling is more comprehensive and leads to the conclusion that in the case of relations with anyone who does not have the possibility of permitted relations among the Jewish people, the child is a mamzer, and this is true even of women for relations with whom one is liable for violating positive mitzvot, e.g., Egyptian or Edomite converts. In that case, what is the difference between the opinions of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘注讜诇讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注砖讛 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讘讻诇

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in the case of a non-virgin raped by a High Priest. And the Gemara asks: Here, too, she is a woman for relations with whom one is liable for violating a positive mitzva, as the High Priest fails to fulfill the mitzva 鈥淏ut a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife鈥 (Leviticus 21:14). If Rabbi Akiva rules that betrothal does not take effect when a positive mitzva is violated, what is different about this case? The Gemara answers: It is different because it is a positive mitzva whose application is not equal for all. There are two lenient aspects to this mitzva: It is a positive mitzva and not a prohibition, and it applies only to the High Priest and not to all Jews. Even Rabbi Yeshevav would agree that according to Rabbi Akiva, a child born from relations between a High Priest and a non-virgin is not a mamzer. However, the High Priest may not sustain the woman as his wife. Therefore, this case is the practical difference between the statements of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讗 注诇 讛谞讚讛 砖诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 讬砖 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讬讬诪讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讬讬诪讛

Rav 岣sda said: Everyone agrees with regard to one who engaged in forced intercourse with a menstruating woman that he pays the fine. He elaborates: According to the one who says that the criterion is whether there is betrothal, for this woman too there is betrothal. According to the one who says that the criterion is whether the woman is suitable for him to sustain, this woman is suitable for him to sustain.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻砖讘转 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪讛 砖讘转 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉

搂 The Gemara comments: And the mishna鈥檚 ruling that one who has relations with his sister is liable to pay the fine comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment for damages. Just as one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment for damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment for damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讗诪专 讗住讜谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜谞讗诪专 讗住讜谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讛 讗住讜谉 讛讗诪讜专 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讗住讜谉 讛讗诪讜专 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana? Abaye said: It states the word harm at the hands of man, in the verse 鈥淏ut if any harm follow, then you shall give a soul for a soul鈥 (Exodus 21:23) and it states the word harm at the hand of Heaven, in the verse in which Jacob states: 鈥淢y son shall not descend with you鈥nd harm befalls him on the way鈥 (Genesis 42:38). Just as with regard to harm that is stated at the hands of man, e.g., one who kills and is liable to be executed, one is exempt from the associated payment, so too, with regard to harm that is stated at the hand of Heaven, one is exempt from the associated payment.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪诪讗讬 讚讻讬 拽讗 诪讝讛专 诇讛讜 讬注拽讘 诇讘谞讬讛 注诇 爪讬谞讬诐 讜驻讞讬诐 讚讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讚诇诪讗 注诇 讗专讬讗 讜讙谞讘讬 讚讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讟讜 讬注拽讘 讗讛讗 讗讝讛专 讗讛讗 诇讗 讗讝讛专 讬注拽讘 注诇 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗讝讛专

Rav Adda bar Ahava strongly objects to this: From where is it derived that when Jacob is warning his sons he is warning them about cold and heat [tzinim pa岣m], which are at the hand of Heaven? Perhaps he was warning them about a lion and thieves, which are harm at the hands of man, meaning that unlike heat and cold, these dangers are not calibrated by God. The Gemara refutes this: Is that to say that Jacob warned them about this harm at the hand of man, but about that harm at the hand of Heaven he did not warn them? Jacob warned them about all potentially harmful matters that might befall Benjamin, not merely one particular form of catastrophe.

讜爪讬谞讬诐 驻讞讬诐 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讻诇 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讞讜抓 诪爪讬谞讬诐 驻讞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 爪讬谞讬诐 驻讞讬诐 讘讚专讱 注讬拽砖 砖讜诪专 谞驻砖讜 讬专讞拽 诪讛诐 讜转讜 讗专讬讗 讜讙谞讘讬 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘讟诇讜 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讗专讘注 诪讬转讜转 诇讗 讘讟诇讜 诇讗 讘讟诇讜 讛讗 讘讟诇讜 诇讛讜 讗诇讗

The Gemara asks: And are cold and heat at the hand of Heaven? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: All matters are at the hand of Heaven except for cold and heat, as it is stated: 鈥淐old and heat are on the path of the crooked, he who guards his soul shall keep far from them鈥 (Proverbs 22:5)? This indicates that cold and heat are forms of harm caused by man, from which one can protect himself. And furthermore, are a lion and thieves forms of harm at the hands of man? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef say, and similarly, didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach a baraita: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin was abolished the four death penalties were not abolished? The Gemara asks: Were they not abolished? It is clear that they were abolished, as today there is neither Sanhedrin nor capital punishment. Rather, it means that although there are no court-imposed executions,

讚讬谉 讗专讘注 诪讬转讜转 诇讗 讘讟诇讜 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 住拽讬诇讛 讗讜 谞讜驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讗讜 讞讬讛 讚讜专住转讜 讜诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 砖专讬驻讛 讗讜 谞讜驻诇 讘讚诇讬拽讛 讗讜 谞讞砖 诪讻讬砖讜 讜诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讛专讬讙讛 讗讜 谞诪住专 诇诪诇讻讜转 讗讜 诇讬住讟讬诐 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讞谞拽 讗讜 讟讜讘注 讘谞讛专 讗讜 诪转 讘住专讜谞讻讬 讗诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讗专讬讗 讜讙谞讘讬 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 爪讬谞讬诐 讜驻讞讬诐 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

the punishment of the four death penalties was not abolished. How so? One who was liable to be executed by stoning either falls from the roof or a beast tramples him. That is similar to stoning, which involves being pushed off an elevated place and then stoned. And one who was liable to be executed by burning either falls into a conflagration or a snake bites him, which creates a burning sensation. And one who was liable to be executed by decapitation is either handed over to the ruling monarchy for execution by sword, or bandits attack and kill him. And one who was liable to be executed by strangulation either drowns in a river, or dies of diphtheria [serunki]. Rather, reverse the order of the previous statement: A lion and thieves are cases of harm at the hand of Heaven, while cold and heat are cases of harm at the hands of man.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗诐 讛注诇诐 讬注诇讬诪讜 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗转 注讬谞讬讛诐 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讘转转讜 诪讝专注讜 诇诪讜诇讱 讜砖诪转讬 讗谞讬 讗转 驻谞讬 讘讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讜讘诪砖驻讞转讜 讜讛讻专转讬 讗讜转讜 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讻专转 砖诇讬 讻诪讬转讛 砖诇讻诐 诪讛 诪讬转讛 砖诇讻诐 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讻专转 砖诇讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉

Rava said an additional explanation: The rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana is from here. It is written that one who gives his children to Molech is liable to be executed by stoning: 鈥淎nd if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed to Molech, and do not put him to death; then I will set My face against that man and against his family, and will cut him off [vehikhrati]鈥 (Leviticus 20:4鈥5). Through the juxtaposition in this verse the Torah said: My karet is like your death penalty; just as one who is liable to receive your death penalty is exempt from the associated payments, so too, one who is liable to receive My karet is exempt from the associated payments.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讝专 砖讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 诇讗讘讬讬 驻讟讜专 讜诇专讘讗 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the opinions of Rava and Abaye with regard to the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to a non-priest who intentionally ate teruma. According to Abaye he is exempt from paying the priest the value of the teruma, as a non-priest who ate teruma is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Abaye maintains that the legal status of all forms of death at the hand of Heaven is equivalent to that of death at the hands of man, and therefore, one is exempt from payment. And according to Rava, who derives the rationale from the juxtaposition between karet and death at the hands of man, since a non-priest who ate teruma is not liable to receive karet, he is liable to pay the priest for the teruma that he ate.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讘讙讜谞讘 讞诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讻诇讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讗诇诪讗 讚诪注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讙讘讬讛 拽谞讬讬讛 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 诇讗 讛讜讛 注讚 讚讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讙讘讬讛 拽谞讬讬讛 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 讚讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜

The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye, is a non-priest actually exempt from payment for the teruma? But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say that Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana concedes with regard to one who steals another鈥檚 forbidden fat and eats it that he is obligated to pay for the fat, even though he is liable to receive karet, as he was already liable for theft before he came to violate the prohibition against eating forbidden fat? Apparently, from the moment he lifts the fat to steal it he acquired it, and he bears responsibility to repay it, but he is liable to receive the death penalty only when he eats it. Here, too, with regard to a non-priest who ate teruma, at the moment he lifts the teruma he acquired it and is responsible to repay it, and he is liable to receive the death penalty only when he eats it. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where another inserted the teruma into his mouth. In that case, acquisition and liability to receive the death penalty are simultaneous.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬讜谉 讚诇注住讬讛 拽谞讬讬讛 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 讚讘诇注讛 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘 诇讜 诇转讜讱 讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诪爪讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 谞讬讛讚专 讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪爪讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, once he chewed the teruma he acquired it and is liable to pay, and he is liable to receive the death penalty only when he swallows it. Since the two are not simultaneous, he should be liable to pay. The Gemara answers: It is a case where another inserted it into the pharynx, so the liability for payment and liability for the death penalty were both achieved through swallowing. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is possible to retrieve the teruma by removing it without ruining it, let him retrieve it. If one does so, he would not be liable to pay. If he fails to do so, liability or payment precedes liability for the death penalty. If it is not possible to retrieve the teruma, why is he liable? He did nothing; another person inserted the food in his throat. The Gemara answers: It is necessary only in a situation where it is possible to retrieve the teruma under duress, with great effort.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘讝专 砖讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇讜

Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a case where another inserted liquids of teruma into his mouth. As soon as the liquid enters his mouth, it is ruined. Therefore, the acquisition and his enjoyment are simultaneous. Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a non-priest who partook of his own teruma, e.g., if the non-priest inherited teruma from a priest, or acquired ownership from a priest. In that case, he did not steal the teruma and there is no payment for it, but he is liable to receive the death penalty for eating teruma,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 30

讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 诪爪专讬 讜讗讚讜诪讬

intercourse with women for which one is liable for violating a positive mitzva, e.g., an Egyptian convert and an Edomite convert (see Deuteronomy 23:8鈥9). If he raped a first- or second-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert, even Rabbi Yeshevav agrees that the child is not a mamzer, as the betrothal takes effect. On the other hand, it is prohibited for him to sustain her as a wife.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖讘讘 讗讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 拽讗转讬 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讬讗讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 注砖讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Yeshevav if he is coming to reject the opinion of Rabbi Simai. If Rabbi Yeshevav merely takes issue with Rabbi Simai, who said that all offspring of forbidden relations are mamzerim according to Rabbi Akiva except for those resulting from relations between a widow and a High Priest, then it may well be explained that Rabbi Yeshevav holds that Rabbi Akiva rules that betrothal does not take effect and that there is mamzerut when one violates the prohibitions of the priesthood. However, if he is stating his own opinion, independent of Rabbi Simai鈥檚 statement, his ruling is more comprehensive and leads to the conclusion that in the case of relations with anyone who does not have the possibility of permitted relations among the Jewish people, the child is a mamzer, and this is true even of women for relations with whom one is liable for violating positive mitzvot, e.g., Egyptian or Edomite converts. In that case, what is the difference between the opinions of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘注讜诇讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注砖讛 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讘讻诇

The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in the case of a non-virgin raped by a High Priest. And the Gemara asks: Here, too, she is a woman for relations with whom one is liable for violating a positive mitzva, as the High Priest fails to fulfill the mitzva 鈥淏ut a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife鈥 (Leviticus 21:14). If Rabbi Akiva rules that betrothal does not take effect when a positive mitzva is violated, what is different about this case? The Gemara answers: It is different because it is a positive mitzva whose application is not equal for all. There are two lenient aspects to this mitzva: It is a positive mitzva and not a prohibition, and it applies only to the High Priest and not to all Jews. Even Rabbi Yeshevav would agree that according to Rabbi Akiva, a child born from relations between a High Priest and a non-virgin is not a mamzer. However, the High Priest may not sustain the woman as his wife. Therefore, this case is the practical difference between the statements of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讗 注诇 讛谞讚讛 砖诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 讬砖 讘讛 讛讜讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讬讬诪讛 讛讗 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬讛 诇拽讬讬诪讛

Rav 岣sda said: Everyone agrees with regard to one who engaged in forced intercourse with a menstruating woman that he pays the fine. He elaborates: According to the one who says that the criterion is whether there is betrothal, for this woman too there is betrothal. According to the one who says that the criterion is whether the woman is suitable for him to sustain, this woman is suitable for him to sustain.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻砖讘转 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪讛 砖讘转 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉

搂 The Gemara comments: And the mishna鈥檚 ruling that one who has relations with his sister is liable to pay the fine comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment for damages. Just as one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment for damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment for damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讗诪专 讗住讜谉 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜谞讗诪专 讗住讜谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讛 讗住讜谉 讛讗诪讜专 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讗住讜谉 讛讗诪讜专 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana? Abaye said: It states the word harm at the hands of man, in the verse 鈥淏ut if any harm follow, then you shall give a soul for a soul鈥 (Exodus 21:23) and it states the word harm at the hand of Heaven, in the verse in which Jacob states: 鈥淢y son shall not descend with you鈥nd harm befalls him on the way鈥 (Genesis 42:38). Just as with regard to harm that is stated at the hands of man, e.g., one who kills and is liable to be executed, one is exempt from the associated payment, so too, with regard to harm that is stated at the hand of Heaven, one is exempt from the associated payment.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪诪讗讬 讚讻讬 拽讗 诪讝讛专 诇讛讜 讬注拽讘 诇讘谞讬讛 注诇 爪讬谞讬诐 讜驻讞讬诐 讚讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讚诇诪讗 注诇 讗专讬讗 讜讙谞讘讬 讚讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讟讜 讬注拽讘 讗讛讗 讗讝讛专 讗讛讗 诇讗 讗讝讛专 讬注拽讘 注诇 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讗讝讛专

Rav Adda bar Ahava strongly objects to this: From where is it derived that when Jacob is warning his sons he is warning them about cold and heat [tzinim pa岣m], which are at the hand of Heaven? Perhaps he was warning them about a lion and thieves, which are harm at the hands of man, meaning that unlike heat and cold, these dangers are not calibrated by God. The Gemara refutes this: Is that to say that Jacob warned them about this harm at the hand of man, but about that harm at the hand of Heaven he did not warn them? Jacob warned them about all potentially harmful matters that might befall Benjamin, not merely one particular form of catastrophe.

讜爪讬谞讬诐 驻讞讬诐 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讻诇 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讞讜抓 诪爪讬谞讬诐 驻讞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 爪讬谞讬诐 驻讞讬诐 讘讚专讱 注讬拽砖 砖讜诪专 谞驻砖讜 讬专讞拽 诪讛诐 讜转讜 讗专讬讗 讜讙谞讘讬 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻谉 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘讟诇讜 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讗专讘注 诪讬转讜转 诇讗 讘讟诇讜 诇讗 讘讟诇讜 讛讗 讘讟诇讜 诇讛讜 讗诇讗

The Gemara asks: And are cold and heat at the hand of Heaven? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: All matters are at the hand of Heaven except for cold and heat, as it is stated: 鈥淐old and heat are on the path of the crooked, he who guards his soul shall keep far from them鈥 (Proverbs 22:5)? This indicates that cold and heat are forms of harm caused by man, from which one can protect himself. And furthermore, are a lion and thieves forms of harm at the hands of man? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef say, and similarly, didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach a baraita: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin was abolished the four death penalties were not abolished? The Gemara asks: Were they not abolished? It is clear that they were abolished, as today there is neither Sanhedrin nor capital punishment. Rather, it means that although there are no court-imposed executions,

讚讬谉 讗专讘注 诪讬转讜转 诇讗 讘讟诇讜 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 住拽讬诇讛 讗讜 谞讜驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讗讜 讞讬讛 讚讜专住转讜 讜诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 砖专讬驻讛 讗讜 谞讜驻诇 讘讚诇讬拽讛 讗讜 谞讞砖 诪讻讬砖讜 讜诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讛专讬讙讛 讗讜 谞诪住专 诇诪诇讻讜转 讗讜 诇讬住讟讬诐 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讞谞拽 讗讜 讟讜讘注 讘谞讛专 讗讜 诪转 讘住专讜谞讻讬 讗诇讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讗专讬讗 讜讙谞讘讬 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 爪讬谞讬诐 讜驻讞讬诐 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

the punishment of the four death penalties was not abolished. How so? One who was liable to be executed by stoning either falls from the roof or a beast tramples him. That is similar to stoning, which involves being pushed off an elevated place and then stoned. And one who was liable to be executed by burning either falls into a conflagration or a snake bites him, which creates a burning sensation. And one who was liable to be executed by decapitation is either handed over to the ruling monarchy for execution by sword, or bandits attack and kill him. And one who was liable to be executed by strangulation either drowns in a river, or dies of diphtheria [serunki]. Rather, reverse the order of the previous statement: A lion and thieves are cases of harm at the hand of Heaven, while cold and heat are cases of harm at the hands of man.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗诐 讛注诇诐 讬注诇讬诪讜 注诐 讛讗专抓 讗转 注讬谞讬讛诐 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讘转转讜 诪讝专注讜 诇诪讜诇讱 讜砖诪转讬 讗谞讬 讗转 驻谞讬 讘讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讜讘诪砖驻讞转讜 讜讛讻专转讬 讗讜转讜 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讻专转 砖诇讬 讻诪讬转讛 砖诇讻诐 诪讛 诪讬转讛 砖诇讻诐 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讻专转 砖诇讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉

Rava said an additional explanation: The rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana is from here. It is written that one who gives his children to Molech is liable to be executed by stoning: 鈥淎nd if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed to Molech, and do not put him to death; then I will set My face against that man and against his family, and will cut him off [vehikhrati]鈥 (Leviticus 20:4鈥5). Through the juxtaposition in this verse the Torah said: My karet is like your death penalty; just as one who is liable to receive your death penalty is exempt from the associated payments, so too, one who is liable to receive My karet is exempt from the associated payments.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讝专 砖讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 诇讗讘讬讬 驻讟讜专 讜诇专讘讗 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the opinions of Rava and Abaye with regard to the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to a non-priest who intentionally ate teruma. According to Abaye he is exempt from paying the priest the value of the teruma, as a non-priest who ate teruma is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Abaye maintains that the legal status of all forms of death at the hand of Heaven is equivalent to that of death at the hands of man, and therefore, one is exempt from payment. And according to Rava, who derives the rationale from the juxtaposition between karet and death at the hands of man, since a non-priest who ate teruma is not liable to receive karet, he is liable to pay the priest for the teruma that he ate.

讜诇讗讘讬讬 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讘讙讜谞讘 讞诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗讻诇讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讗诇诪讗 讚诪注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讙讘讬讛 拽谞讬讬讛 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 诇讗 讛讜讛 注讚 讚讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讙讘讬讛 拽谞讬讬讛 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 讚讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜

The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye, is a non-priest actually exempt from payment for the teruma? But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say that Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana concedes with regard to one who steals another鈥檚 forbidden fat and eats it that he is obligated to pay for the fat, even though he is liable to receive karet, as he was already liable for theft before he came to violate the prohibition against eating forbidden fat? Apparently, from the moment he lifts the fat to steal it he acquired it, and he bears responsibility to repay it, but he is liable to receive the death penalty only when he eats it. Here, too, with regard to a non-priest who ate teruma, at the moment he lifts the teruma he acquired it and is responsible to repay it, and he is liable to receive the death penalty only when he eats it. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where another inserted the teruma into his mouth. In that case, acquisition and liability to receive the death penalty are simultaneous.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬讜谉 讚诇注住讬讛 拽谞讬讬讛 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讚 讚讘诇注讛 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘 诇讜 诇转讜讱 讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诪爪讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 谞讬讛讚专 讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪爪讬 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, once he chewed the teruma he acquired it and is liable to pay, and he is liable to receive the death penalty only when he swallows it. Since the two are not simultaneous, he should be liable to pay. The Gemara answers: It is a case where another inserted it into the pharynx, so the liability for payment and liability for the death penalty were both achieved through swallowing. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If it is possible to retrieve the teruma by removing it without ruining it, let him retrieve it. If one does so, he would not be liable to pay. If he fails to do so, liability or payment precedes liability for the death penalty. If it is not possible to retrieve the teruma, why is he liable? He did nothing; another person inserted the food in his throat. The Gemara answers: It is necessary only in a situation where it is possible to retrieve the teruma under duress, with great effort.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖转讞讘 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 诪砖拽讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘讝专 砖讗讻诇 转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇讜

Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a case where another inserted liquids of teruma into his mouth. As soon as the liquid enters his mouth, it is ruined. Therefore, the acquisition and his enjoyment are simultaneous. Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a non-priest who partook of his own teruma, e.g., if the non-priest inherited teruma from a priest, or acquired ownership from a priest. In that case, he did not steal the teruma and there is no payment for it, but he is liable to receive the death penalty for eating teruma,

Scroll To Top