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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 7, 2022 | ื™ืณ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 32 – Tisha B’av

This is the daf for Tisha B’av. For Shabbat’s daf, click here.

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

ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ื•ืžืฉืœื ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืื—ื•ืชื• ื ืขืจื” ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืื—ื•ืชื• ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช

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.

ืื—ื•ืชื• ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื ืžื™ ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ื‘ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืฆืขืจื ื‘ืžืคื•ืชื”

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, isnโ€™t 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 isnโ€™t 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.

ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืชื™ืช ืœื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืื—ื•ืชื• ื ืขืจื” ื‘ื™ืชื•ืžื” ื•ืžืคื•ืชื”

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.

ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื ื’ืžืจ ืžื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžื” ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™

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 โ€œLest he continues to strike himโ€ (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.

ืžื” ืœื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืฉื›ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœืงื•ืœื ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืชืจ ืžื›ืœืœื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

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.

ืืœื ื’ืžืจ ืžืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™

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 โ€œYou shall not bear false witness against your neighborโ€ (Exodus 20:12), 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.

ืžื” ืœืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ื ื”ืชืจืื” ื•ืื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœืงื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืœื ืขืฉื• ืžืขืฉื”

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.

ืืœื ื’ืžืจ ืžืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ืื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœืงื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ ื”ืงืœ

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.

ืืœื ืขื•ืœื ืชื—ืช ืชื—ืช ื’ืžืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืชื—ืช ืืฉืจ ืขื ื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ืขื™ืŸ ืชื—ืช ืขื™ืŸ ืžื” ื”ืชื ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ื ื ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™

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: โ€œAnd 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 [taแธฅat] he tormented herโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:29), and it states there, with regard to injury: โ€œAn eye for [taแธฅat] an eyeโ€ (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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืื—ื•ืชื• ื ืขืจื” ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ืชืจื• ื‘ื• ื›ืืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ืชืจื• ื‘ื•

ยง 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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ื•ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ืœืงื ืœืงื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœื ืžืฉืœื ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ื“ื™ ืจืฉืขืชื• ืžืฉื•ื ืจืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ืืชื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืชื™ ืจืฉืขื™ื•ืช ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื›ื ื•

The Gemara observes: Apparently, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan 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: โ€œThe judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, according to the measure of his wickednessโ€ (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: โ€œForty he shall strike himโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that the punishment that is administered when one is liable to receive two punishments is lashes and not payment.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ืœืงื ืœืงื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื• ื”ื›ืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืœื•ืงื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืœื•ืงื” ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื”ื ืื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™

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, didnโ€™t Rabbi Ami say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืœืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ืื”ื ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืื ื• ืืช ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžืืชื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื•ื ืžืฆืื• ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ื•ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ืฉื ื”ืžื‘ื™ืืŸ ืœื™ื“ื™ ืžื›ื•ืช ืžื‘ื™ืืŸ ืœื™ื“ื™ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉืœื ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื”

The Gemara answers that the fact that conspiring witnesses pay money can be explained in accordance with that which Rabbi Ileโ€™a 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 Ileโ€™a 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 brings them to liability for payment. Each liability has an independent source; the source for lashes is: โ€œYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,โ€ while the source for payment is: โ€œYou shall do unto him as he conspiredโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:19). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Anyone who pays is not flogged.

ื•ื ื™ืžื ื›ืœ ื”ืœื•ืงื” ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืœืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ืžื›ื“ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืœื• ื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžื ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœืื—ื™ื• ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ื“ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื™ืชืŸ ืžื™ื“ ืœื™ื“ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

And with regard to that mishna, the Gemara asks: Let us say, on the contrary, that anyone who is flogged does not pay. Rabbi Ileโ€™a 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: โ€œAnd you shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:19); why do I require the Torah to state in his punishment: โ€œA hand for a handโ€ (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.

ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืžื›ื“ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื” ืœื• ื›ืŸ ื™ื ืชืŸ ื‘ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื ืชื™ื ื” ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืขื•ืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœืช ืขืจื•ืช ืื—ื•ืชืš ืœื ืชื’ืœื”

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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 โ€œThe nakedness of your sisterโ€ฆyou shall not uncoverโ€ (Leviticus 18:9) in that contrary to the standard prohibitions, no lashes would be administered for its violation.

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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 whoโ€™s 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 – Tisha B’av

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 32 – Tisha B’av

ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ื•ืžืฉืœื ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืื—ื•ืชื• ื ืขืจื” ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืื—ื•ืชื• ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช

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.

ืื—ื•ืชื• ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื ืžื™ ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ื‘ืฉื•ื˜ื” ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืฆืขืจื ื‘ืžืคื•ืชื”

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, isnโ€™t 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 isnโ€™t 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.

ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืชื™ืช ืœื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืื—ื•ืชื• ื ืขืจื” ื‘ื™ืชื•ืžื” ื•ืžืคื•ืชื”

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.

ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืœืขื•ืœื ื”ื ื’ืžืจ ืžื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžื” ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™

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 โ€œLest he continues to strike himโ€ (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.

ืžื” ืœื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืฉื›ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœืงื•ืœื ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืชืจ ืžื›ืœืœื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

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.

ืืœื ื’ืžืจ ืžืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™

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 โ€œYou shall not bear false witness against your neighborโ€ (Exodus 20:12), 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.

ืžื” ืœืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ื ื”ืชืจืื” ื•ืื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœืงื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืœื ืขืฉื• ืžืขืฉื”

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.

ืืœื ื’ืžืจ ืžืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ืื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœืงื•ืœื ื”ื•ื ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ ื”ืงืœ

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.

ืืœื ืขื•ืœื ืชื—ืช ืชื—ืช ื’ืžืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืชื—ืช ืืฉืจ ืขื ื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ืขื™ืŸ ืชื—ืช ืขื™ืŸ ืžื” ื”ืชื ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ื ื ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™

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: โ€œAnd 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 [taแธฅat] he tormented herโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:29), and it states there, with regard to injury: โ€œAn eye for [taแธฅat] an eyeโ€ (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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืื—ื•ืชื• ื ืขืจื” ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ืชืจื• ื‘ื• ื›ืืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ืชืจื• ื‘ื•

ยง 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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ื•ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ืœืงื ืœืงื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœื ืžืฉืœื ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ื“ื™ ืจืฉืขืชื• ืžืฉื•ื ืจืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ืืชื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืชื™ ืจืฉืขื™ื•ืช ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื›ื ื•

The Gemara observes: Apparently, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan 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: โ€œThe judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, according to the measure of his wickednessโ€ (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: โ€œForty he shall strike himโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that the punishment that is administered when one is liable to receive two punishments is lashes and not payment.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ืื™ื›ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืžืœืงื•ืช ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ืœืงื ืœืงื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืœื ืžืฉืœื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื”ื• ื”ื›ืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืœื•ืงื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืœื•ืงื” ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื”ื ืื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™

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, didnโ€™t Rabbi Ami say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืœืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ืื”ื ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืื ื• ืืช ืื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžืืชื™ื ื–ื•ื– ื•ื ืžืฆืื• ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ื•ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ืฉื ื”ืžื‘ื™ืืŸ ืœื™ื“ื™ ืžื›ื•ืช ืžื‘ื™ืืŸ ืœื™ื“ื™ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉืœื ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื”

The Gemara answers that the fact that conspiring witnesses pay money can be explained in accordance with that which Rabbi Ileโ€™a 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 Ileโ€™a 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 brings them to liability for payment. Each liability has an independent source; the source for lashes is: โ€œYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,โ€ while the source for payment is: โ€œYou shall do unto him as he conspiredโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:19). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Anyone who pays is not flogged.

ื•ื ื™ืžื ื›ืœ ื”ืœื•ืงื” ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืœืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ืžื›ื“ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืœื• ื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžื ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœืื—ื™ื• ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ื“ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ื™ืชืŸ ืžื™ื“ ืœื™ื“ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

And with regard to that mishna, the Gemara asks: Let us say, on the contrary, that anyone who is flogged does not pay. Rabbi Ileโ€™a 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: โ€œAnd you shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:19); why do I require the Torah to state in his punishment: โ€œA hand for a handโ€ (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.

ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืžื›ื“ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื” ืœื• ื›ืŸ ื™ื ืชืŸ ื‘ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื ืชื™ื ื” ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืขื•ืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœืช ืขืจื•ืช ืื—ื•ืชืš ืœื ืชื’ืœื”

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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 โ€œThe nakedness of your sisterโ€ฆyou shall not uncoverโ€ (Leviticus 18:9) in that contrary to the standard prohibitions, no lashes would be administered for its violation.

Scroll To Top