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

Daf Yomi

August 7, 2022 | 讬壮 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 32

This month’s shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 谞注专讛 讻讗谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 讘讜讙专转


And since we maintain in general that one is not both flogged and liable to pay, if one receives lashes for having relations with his sister, why must he pay the fine as well? Ulla said: This is not difficult; here, the halakha in the mishna is with regard to his sister who is a young woman, for whom one pays a fine and is not flogged, whereas there, the halakha in the mishna is with regard to his sister who is a grown woman, for whom one does not pay a fine.


讗讞讜转讜 讘讜讙专转 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讘砖讜讟讛 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 爪注专讗 讘诪驻讜转讛


The Gemara asks: In the case of one who has relations with his sister who is a grown woman, too, although he does not pay a fine, isn鈥檛 there compensation for humiliation and degradation? He should be exempt from lashes in that case as well. The Gemara answers: There, the halakha in the mishna is with regard to his sister who is an imbecile, with regard to whom there is no humiliation or degradation beyond her status as an imbecile. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there payment for pain even in the rape of an imbecile? The Gemara responds: The halakha is with regard to a seduced woman, who is not entitled to payment for pain, as she engaged in relations willingly.


讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讞讜转讜 谞注专讛 讘讬转讜诪讛 讜诪驻讜转讛


The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this explanation that the mishna is referring to a seduced woman, the mishna can be understood even if you say it is referring to his sister who is a young woman. The reason that the seducer does not pay the fine is that the halakha is with regard to one who is an orphan and a seduced woman. Were her father alive, he would receive the payment. Because he died, the payment goes to her. Since she willingly participated in the relations, she relinquished her right to the payment, and the seducer is therefore liable to receive lashes.


讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇讗 讛讗 讙诪专 诪讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪讛 讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 讗祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬


The Gemara observes: Apparently, Ulla maintains that in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, e.g., one who has forced relations with his sister who is a young woman, one pays money but is not flogged. The Gemara asks: From where does Ulla derive this principle? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the halakha of one who injures another. Just as with regard to one who injures another where there is liability to both pay money for the injury and receive lashes for violating the prohibition 鈥淟est he continues to strike him鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:3), the halakha there is that one pays money but is not flogged, so too, in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged.


诪讛 诇讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讗讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 砖讻谉 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉


The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the comparison between other cases and the case of one who injures another? One who injures another cannot serve as a paradigm for cases of liability for both money and lashes because the case of one who injures another is particularly stringent, as he is liable to pay five types of indemnity: Injury, pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation. And if payment of money is a more lenient form of punishment than lashes, one could infer a fortiori: If in the stringent case of injuring another, one receives the more lenient punishment, all the more so would he receive the more lenient punishment in less stringent cases; nevertheless, one who injures another cannot serve as a paradigm for cases of liability for both money and lashes. The reason is that there is also a lenient aspect with regard to injuring another, as it is permitted, in departure from its norm, in court. The court administers lashes, injuring those convicted. The leniency is that its application is selective.


讗诇讗 讙诪专 诪注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪讛 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 讗祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬


Rather, the Gemara states that Ulla derives this principle from the halakha of false, conspiring witnesses. Just as with regard to conspiring witnesses, where there is liability to both pay money, if they falsely testified to render one liable for payment, and receive lashes, for violating the prohibition 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor鈥 (Exodus 20:13), and the halakha is that one pays money but is not flogged, so too, in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged.


诪讛 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 砖讻谉 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬诐 讛转专讗讛 讜讗讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 砖讻谉 诇讗 注砖讜 诪注砖讛


The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the comparison of other cases to the case of conspiring witnesses? Conspiring witnesses cannot serve as a paradigm for cases of liability for both money and lashes because the case of conspiring witnesses is particularly stringent, as they do not require forewarning. As a rule, the courts administer punishment only to one who was forewarned not to perform the transgression. The fact that this is not a requirement in the case of conspiring witnesses indicates that it is a particularly stringent prohibition. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the case of conspiring witnesses to other cases with regard to monetary payment instead of lashes. And if payment of money is a more lenient form of punishment than lashes, the case of conspiring witnesses also has a lenient aspect, as they did not perform an action but merely spoke.


讗诇讗 讙诪专 诪转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 讗祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 讞诪讜专 讜讗讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 讛拽诇


Rather, Ulla derives the principle from both of them, the cases of one who injures another and of conspiring witnesses. The common denominator of both cases is that there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes and the halakha is that one pays money but is not flogged; so too, in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged. The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the comparison of other cases to the common denominator of both cases, as they have an element of stringency that does not exist in other prohibitions in that one who injures another pays five types of indemnity, and conspiring witnesses are flogged without forewarning? And if payment of money is a more lenient form of punishment than lashes, other cases cannot be derived from it, as they have an element of leniency that does not exist in other prohibitions. The prohibition in the case of one who injures another is selectively applied, as it is permitted, in departure from its norm, in court, and the case of conspiring witnesses is lenient because they performed no action.


讗诇讗 注讜诇讗 转讞转 转讞转 讙诪专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 转讞转 讗砖专 注谞讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 注讬谉 转讞转 注讬谉 诪讛 讛转诐 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 讗祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬


Rather, Ulla derives the fact that one pays and is not flogged by means of a verbal analogy between the terms for and for. The verse states with regard to rape: 鈥淎nd the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and to him she shall be as a wife, because [ta岣t] he tormented her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), and it states there, with regard to injury: 鈥淎n eye for [ta岣t] an eye鈥 (Exodus 21:24). Just as there, with regard to injury, one pays money and is not flogged, so too, in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讞讜转讜 谞注专讛 讻讗谉 砖讛转专讜 讘讜 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讛转专讜 讘讜


搂 In proposing a different resolution to the apparent contradiction between the mishna here that rules that one pays a fine for raping his sister and the mishna in Makkot that rules that one is flogged in that case, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even if you say that both mishnayot are referring to his sister who is a young woman, there it is referring to a case where the witnesses forewarned him, and therefore the rapist is flogged; here, it is referring to a case where the witnesses did not forewarn him. Since no lashes are administered without forewarning, the rapist pays the fine.


讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 讜讗转专讜 讘讬讛 诪讬诇拽讗 诇拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讚讬 专砖注转讜 诪砖讜诐 专砖注讛 讗讞转 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖转讬 专砖注讬讜转 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讻谞讜


The Gemara observes: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, and the witnesses forewarned him, he is flogged but does not pay money. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Yo岣nan derive this principle? The Gemara explains that he derives it from that which the verse states with regard to one sentenced to lashes in the court: 鈥淭he judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, according to the measure of his wickedness鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2), from which it is inferred: For one act of wickedness, i.e., punishment, you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two acts of wickedness. And juxtaposed to this it states: 鈥淔orty he shall strike him鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that the punishment that is administered when one is liable to receive two punishments is lashes and not payment.


讜讛专讬 讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 诪讬诇拽讗 诇拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讛讜 讛讻讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讜拽讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讜拽讛 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗转专讜 讘讬讛 讜讟注诪讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讛讗 讗讬转 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬


The Gemara asks: And what of the case of one who injures another where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, in which case one pays money but is not flogged? And lest you say that this applies only when the witnesses did not forewarn him, but if they forewarned him before he struck his friend he is flogged but does not pay money, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Ami say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one struck another with a blow that does not cause damage that amounts to the value of a peruta, he is flogged? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of that case? If it is a case where the witnesses did not forewarn him, why is he flogged? No lashes are administered without forewarning. Rather, obviously it is a case where they forewarned him, and the reason he is flogged is that there is not damage that amounts to the value of a peruta. The damages are not quantifiable. The Gemara infers: However, if there is damage that amounts to the value of a peruta, he pays money and is not flogged, even though he was forewarned.


讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讘驻讬专讜砖 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗讛讗 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讞讬讬讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 砖诇讗 讛砖诐 讛诪讘讬讗谉 诇讬讚讬 诪讻讜转 诪讘讬讗谉 诇讬讚讬 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛


The Gemara answers that the fact that conspiring witnesses pay money can be explained in accordance with that which Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said in a different context: The Torah explicitly amplified the case of conspiring witnesses to include liability for payment. The Torah employed language indicating that conspiring witnesses who testified falsely in order to render one liable for payment must pay the sum and are not flogged. Here, too, with regard to injury, the Torah explicitly amplified the case of one who injures another to include liability for payment. The Gemara asks: And where is this statement of Rabbi Ile鈥檃 stated? The Gemara answers that it is stated concerning this mishna (Makkot 4a). If witnesses said: We testify that so-and-so owes another two hundred dinar, and these witnesses were discovered to be conspiring witnesses; they are flogged and pay, as the source [shem] that brings them to liability to receive lashes does not bring them to liability for payment. Each liability has an independent source; the source for lashes is: 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,鈥 (Exodus 20:13) while the source for payment is: 鈥淵ou shall do unto him as he conspired鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Anyone who pays is not flogged.


讜谞讬诪讗 讻诇 讛诇讜拽讛 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讘驻讬专讜砖 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讬讻谉 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讞讬讜 讬讚 讘讬讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讘专 讛谞讬转谉 诪讬讚 诇讬讚 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪诪讜谉


And with regard to that mishna, the Gemara asks: Let us say, on the contrary, that anyone who is flogged does not pay. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said: The Torah explicitly amplified the case of conspiring witnesses for payment, not lashes. The Gemara asks: Where did the Torah amplify the case of conspiring witnesses? The Gemara explains: Now, since it states with regard to conspiring witnesses: 鈥淎nd you shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19); why do I require the Torah to state in his punishment: 鈥淎 hand for a hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:21)? This indicates that the punishment that takes precedence is one in which there is an item that is given from hand to hand, and what is that item? It is money.


讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 谞诪讬 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 讻谉 讬谞转谉 讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞转讬谞讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪诪讜谉


The same can be said with regard to one who injures another. Now, since it states: 鈥淎nd a man who places a blemish upon his counterpart, as he has done so shall be done to him鈥 (Leviticus 24:19), why do I require the Torah to state: 鈥淎s one who places a blemish upon a man, so shall be placed [yinnaten] upon him鈥 (Leviticus 24:20)? This teaches that this is referring to an item that involves giving [netina], and what is that item? It is money.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻注讜诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讘讟诇转 注专讜转 讗讞讜转讱 诇讗 转讙诇讛


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is the reason that he did not say the same halakha as Ulla, that where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged? The Gemara answers: If so, if that were the case, you have rendered moot the prohibition 鈥淭he nakedness of your sister鈥ou shall not uncover鈥 (Leviticus 18:9) in that contrary to the standard prohibitions, no lashes would be administered for its violation.


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 28-34 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will finish the second chapter of Masechet Ketuvot that discusses who鈥檚 testimony is believed in court. The...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 32: According to the Amount of One’s Wickedness

A deep dive into a dispute between Ulla and R. Yochanan about not paying and getting lashes, both, for the...

Ketubot 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 32

讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 谞注专讛 讻讗谉 讘讗讞讜转讜 讘讜讙专转


And since we maintain in general that one is not both flogged and liable to pay, if one receives lashes for having relations with his sister, why must he pay the fine as well? Ulla said: This is not difficult; here, the halakha in the mishna is with regard to his sister who is a young woman, for whom one pays a fine and is not flogged, whereas there, the halakha in the mishna is with regard to his sister who is a grown woman, for whom one does not pay a fine.


讗讞讜转讜 讘讜讙专转 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讘砖讜讟讛 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 爪注专讗 讘诪驻讜转讛


The Gemara asks: In the case of one who has relations with his sister who is a grown woman, too, although he does not pay a fine, isn鈥檛 there compensation for humiliation and degradation? He should be exempt from lashes in that case as well. The Gemara answers: There, the halakha in the mishna is with regard to his sister who is an imbecile, with regard to whom there is no humiliation or degradation beyond her status as an imbecile. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there payment for pain even in the rape of an imbecile? The Gemara responds: The halakha is with regard to a seduced woman, who is not entitled to payment for pain, as she engaged in relations willingly.


讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讞讜转讜 谞注专讛 讘讬转讜诪讛 讜诪驻讜转讛


The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this explanation that the mishna is referring to a seduced woman, the mishna can be understood even if you say it is referring to his sister who is a young woman. The reason that the seducer does not pay the fine is that the halakha is with regard to one who is an orphan and a seduced woman. Were her father alive, he would receive the payment. Because he died, the payment goes to her. Since she willingly participated in the relations, she relinquished her right to the payment, and the seducer is therefore liable to receive lashes.


讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇讗 讛讗 讙诪专 诪讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪讛 讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 讗祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬


The Gemara observes: Apparently, Ulla maintains that in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, e.g., one who has forced relations with his sister who is a young woman, one pays money but is not flogged. The Gemara asks: From where does Ulla derive this principle? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the halakha of one who injures another. Just as with regard to one who injures another where there is liability to both pay money for the injury and receive lashes for violating the prohibition 鈥淟est he continues to strike him鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:3), the halakha there is that one pays money but is not flogged, so too, in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged.


诪讛 诇讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 砖讻谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讗讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 砖讻谉 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉


The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the comparison between other cases and the case of one who injures another? One who injures another cannot serve as a paradigm for cases of liability for both money and lashes because the case of one who injures another is particularly stringent, as he is liable to pay five types of indemnity: Injury, pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation. And if payment of money is a more lenient form of punishment than lashes, one could infer a fortiori: If in the stringent case of injuring another, one receives the more lenient punishment, all the more so would he receive the more lenient punishment in less stringent cases; nevertheless, one who injures another cannot serve as a paradigm for cases of liability for both money and lashes. The reason is that there is also a lenient aspect with regard to injuring another, as it is permitted, in departure from its norm, in court. The court administers lashes, injuring those convicted. The leniency is that its application is selective.


讗诇讗 讙诪专 诪注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪讛 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 讗祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬


Rather, the Gemara states that Ulla derives this principle from the halakha of false, conspiring witnesses. Just as with regard to conspiring witnesses, where there is liability to both pay money, if they falsely testified to render one liable for payment, and receive lashes, for violating the prohibition 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor鈥 (Exodus 20:13), and the halakha is that one pays money but is not flogged, so too, in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged.


诪讛 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 砖讻谉 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬诐 讛转专讗讛 讜讗讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 砖讻谉 诇讗 注砖讜 诪注砖讛


The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the comparison of other cases to the case of conspiring witnesses? Conspiring witnesses cannot serve as a paradigm for cases of liability for both money and lashes because the case of conspiring witnesses is particularly stringent, as they do not require forewarning. As a rule, the courts administer punishment only to one who was forewarned not to perform the transgression. The fact that this is not a requirement in the case of conspiring witnesses indicates that it is a particularly stringent prohibition. Therefore, no proof can be cited from the case of conspiring witnesses to other cases with regard to monetary payment instead of lashes. And if payment of money is a more lenient form of punishment than lashes, the case of conspiring witnesses also has a lenient aspect, as they did not perform an action but merely spoke.


讗诇讗 讙诪专 诪转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 讗祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 讞诪讜专 讜讗讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讛讜讗 砖讻谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 讛拽诇


Rather, Ulla derives the principle from both of them, the cases of one who injures another and of conspiring witnesses. The common denominator of both cases is that there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes and the halakha is that one pays money but is not flogged; so too, in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged. The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the comparison of other cases to the common denominator of both cases, as they have an element of stringency that does not exist in other prohibitions in that one who injures another pays five types of indemnity, and conspiring witnesses are flogged without forewarning? And if payment of money is a more lenient form of punishment than lashes, other cases cannot be derived from it, as they have an element of leniency that does not exist in other prohibitions. The prohibition in the case of one who injures another is selectively applied, as it is permitted, in departure from its norm, in court, and the case of conspiring witnesses is lenient because they performed no action.


讗诇讗 注讜诇讗 转讞转 转讞转 讙诪专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 转讞转 讗砖专 注谞讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 注讬谉 转讞转 注讬谉 诪讛 讛转诐 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 讗祝 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬


Rather, Ulla derives the fact that one pays and is not flogged by means of a verbal analogy between the terms for and for. The verse states with regard to rape: 鈥淎nd the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and to him she shall be as a wife, because [ta岣t] he tormented her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), and it states there, with regard to injury: 鈥淎n eye for [ta岣t] an eye鈥 (Exodus 21:24). Just as there, with regard to injury, one pays money and is not flogged, so too, in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讞讜转讜 谞注专讛 讻讗谉 砖讛转专讜 讘讜 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讛转专讜 讘讜


搂 In proposing a different resolution to the apparent contradiction between the mishna here that rules that one pays a fine for raping his sister and the mishna in Makkot that rules that one is flogged in that case, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even if you say that both mishnayot are referring to his sister who is a young woman, there it is referring to a case where the witnesses forewarned him, and therefore the rapist is flogged; here, it is referring to a case where the witnesses did not forewarn him. Since no lashes are administered without forewarning, the rapist pays the fine.


讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 讜讗转专讜 讘讬讛 诪讬诇拽讗 诇拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讚讬 专砖注转讜 诪砖讜诐 专砖注讛 讗讞转 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖转讬 专砖注讬讜转 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讻谞讜


The Gemara observes: Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, and the witnesses forewarned him, he is flogged but does not pay money. The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Yo岣nan derive this principle? The Gemara explains that he derives it from that which the verse states with regard to one sentenced to lashes in the court: 鈥淭he judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, according to the measure of his wickedness鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2), from which it is inferred: For one act of wickedness, i.e., punishment, you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two acts of wickedness. And juxtaposed to this it states: 鈥淔orty he shall strike him鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that the punishment that is administered when one is liable to receive two punishments is lashes and not payment.


讜讛专讬 讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 讚讗讬讻讗 诪诪讜谉 讜诪诇拽讜转 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 诪讬诇拽讗 诇拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讛讜 讛讻讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讜拽讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讜拽讛 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗转专讜 讘讬讛 讜讟注诪讗 讚诇讬转 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讛讗 讗讬转 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪诪讜谞讗 诪砖诇诐 诪讬诇拽讗 诇讗 诇拽讬


The Gemara asks: And what of the case of one who injures another where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, in which case one pays money but is not flogged? And lest you say that this applies only when the witnesses did not forewarn him, but if they forewarned him before he struck his friend he is flogged but does not pay money, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Ami say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one struck another with a blow that does not cause damage that amounts to the value of a peruta, he is flogged? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of that case? If it is a case where the witnesses did not forewarn him, why is he flogged? No lashes are administered without forewarning. Rather, obviously it is a case where they forewarned him, and the reason he is flogged is that there is not damage that amounts to the value of a peruta. The damages are not quantifiable. The Gemara infers: However, if there is damage that amounts to the value of a peruta, he pays money and is not flogged, even though he was forewarned.


讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讘驻讬专讜砖 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘驻讬专讜砖 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗讛讗 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讞讬讬讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 砖诇讗 讛砖诐 讛诪讘讬讗谉 诇讬讚讬 诪讻讜转 诪讘讬讗谉 诇讬讚讬 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛


The Gemara answers that the fact that conspiring witnesses pay money can be explained in accordance with that which Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said in a different context: The Torah explicitly amplified the case of conspiring witnesses to include liability for payment. The Torah employed language indicating that conspiring witnesses who testified falsely in order to render one liable for payment must pay the sum and are not flogged. Here, too, with regard to injury, the Torah explicitly amplified the case of one who injures another to include liability for payment. The Gemara asks: And where is this statement of Rabbi Ile鈥檃 stated? The Gemara answers that it is stated concerning this mishna (Makkot 4a). If witnesses said: We testify that so-and-so owes another two hundred dinar, and these witnesses were discovered to be conspiring witnesses; they are flogged and pay, as the source [shem] that brings them to liability to receive lashes does not bring them to liability for payment. Each liability has an independent source; the source for lashes is: 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,鈥 (Exodus 20:13) while the source for payment is: 鈥淵ou shall do unto him as he conspired鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Anyone who pays is not flogged.


讜谞讬诪讗 讻诇 讛诇讜拽讛 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讘驻讬专讜砖 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讬讻谉 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讞讬讜 讬讚 讘讬讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讘专 讛谞讬转谉 诪讬讚 诇讬讚 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪诪讜谉


And with regard to that mishna, the Gemara asks: Let us say, on the contrary, that anyone who is flogged does not pay. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said: The Torah explicitly amplified the case of conspiring witnesses for payment, not lashes. The Gemara asks: Where did the Torah amplify the case of conspiring witnesses? The Gemara explains: Now, since it states with regard to conspiring witnesses: 鈥淎nd you shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19); why do I require the Torah to state in his punishment: 鈥淎 hand for a hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:21)? This indicates that the punishment that takes precedence is one in which there is an item that is given from hand to hand, and what is that item? It is money.


讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 谞诪讬 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 讻谉 讬谞转谉 讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞转讬谞讛 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪诪讜谉


The same can be said with regard to one who injures another. Now, since it states: 鈥淎nd a man who places a blemish upon his counterpart, as he has done so shall be done to him鈥 (Leviticus 24:19), why do I require the Torah to state: 鈥淎s one who places a blemish upon a man, so shall be placed [yinnaten] upon him鈥 (Leviticus 24:20)? This teaches that this is referring to an item that involves giving [netina], and what is that item? It is money.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻注讜诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讘讟诇转 注专讜转 讗讞讜转讱 诇讗 转讙诇讛


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is the reason that he did not say the same halakha as Ulla, that where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged? The Gemara answers: If so, if that were the case, you have rendered moot the prohibition 鈥淭he nakedness of your sister鈥ou shall not uncover鈥 (Leviticus 18:9) in that contrary to the standard prohibitions, no lashes would be administered for its violation.


Scroll To Top