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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 8, 2022 | ื™ืดื ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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 33

ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœืช ืœื ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืคืŸ ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœืช ื•ื”ื™ื” ืื ื‘ืŸ ื”ื›ื•ืช ื”ืจืฉืข ืืœื ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืงื™ื•ืžื” ื‘ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืงื™ื•ืžื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื›ื”ื• ื”ื›ืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”

The Gemara asks: Based on that reasoning, the same would hold true for one who injures another as well; if so, if he pays and is not lashed, you have rendered moot the prohibition โ€œForty he shall strike him; he shall not exceed, lest if he should exceedโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:3). The same would hold true for conspiring witnesses as well; if so, you have rendered moot the verse interpreted as addressing the matter of conspiring witnesses: โ€œAnd it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be floggedโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:2). Rather, with regard to conspiring witnesses, that verse can be fulfilled in the case of the son of a divorcรฉe or the son of a แธฅalutza. If witnesses testified that a priest is the son of a divorcรฉe or a แธฅalutza and were discovered to be conspiring witnesses, there is no payment and they are flogged. With regard to one who injures another as well, the verse can be fulfilled in a case where he struck him with a blow that does not cause damage amounting to the value of a peruta.

ืื—ื•ืชื• ื ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืงื™ื•ืžื” ื‘ืื—ื•ืชื• ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืื™ ืชื—ืช ืืฉืจ ืขื™ื ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืชื—ืช ืืฉืจ ืขื™ื ื” ื”ืื™ ืชื—ืช ืืฉืจ ืขื™ื ื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, with regard to oneโ€™s sister as well, the lashes can be fulfilled in the case of one who had forced relations with his sister who is a grown woman. Since there is no fine in that case, he is flogged and the verse is not moot. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan could have said to you that he does not agree with Ulla because this verse: โ€œBecause he tormented herโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:29), is not available for a verbal analogy, as he requires it to derive in accordance with that which Abaye said, as Abaye said that the verse states: The fine of fifty dinar is payment โ€œbecause he tormented herโ€; by inference one may conclude that beyond the fine, there is compensation for humiliation and degradation.

ื•ืขื•ืœื ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื ืชืŸ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ืฉื•ื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ืœืื‘ื™ ื”ื ืขืจื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื›ืกืฃ ื”ื ืืช ืฉื›ื™ื‘ื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื

The Gemara asks: And Ulla, who uses this verse to derive a verbal analogy, from where does he derive the halakha stated by Abaye? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the statement of Rava, who derives that halakha from the same verse, as Rava said that the verse states: โ€œAnd the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silverโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:29). The superfluous phrase โ€œwho lay with herโ€ teaches that it is for the pleasure of lying with her that he pays fifty shekels, i.e., fifty sela; by inference one may conclude that beyond the fine, there is compensation for humiliation and degradation.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ ื•ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื”ืชืจืื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื“ืข ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืื™ืžืช ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืืžืจื™ ืื™ืฉืชืœื™ืŸ ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ืžืขืฉื” ืคืจืฉื™ ื•ืœื ืžืกื”ื“ื™ ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืžืื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ื”ื•ื”

ยง Rabbi Eliezer says: The reason that conspiring witnesses pay money but are not flogged is due to the fact that they are not subject to forewarning, and without forewarning there are no lashes. Rava said: Know that this is true, since there is no practical manner to forewarn them, as when would we forewarn them? Perhaps let us forewarn them initially, before they come to testify; in that case, the forewarning would be ineffective because they could say: We forgot the forewarning. Then let us forewarn them at the moment of the action, just before they testify; in that case they will leave and not testify at all, as concern for potential repercussions will intimidate them into silence. Or, let us forewarn them at the end after their testimony; in that case that which was, was, and forewarning at that point is pointless.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืชื•ืš ื›ื“ื™ ื“ื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืงื ื•ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื•ื ืจืžื– ื‘ื”ื• ืจืžื•ื–ื™

Abaye strongly objects to this: And let us warn them within an interval equivalent to the time of speaking, during the brief period after they completed their statements, at which time the testimony is not yet considered to have concluded. Since they can still retract or amend their testimony during that period, a warning delivered at that point would be timely and effective. Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Ika, also strongly objects to this: And let us forewarn them initially, before they testify, and gesture to them during the actual testimony, reminding them of the forewarning so they will be unable to claim that they forgot it.

ื”ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืื• ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื”ืชืจืื” ื›ื™ ืœื ืžืชืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ื• ืœื ืงื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื• ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ืขื• ืงื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ืœื ื”ืชืจืื” ื•ืื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ืขื• ื”ืชืจืื” ื”ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืœื• ื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžื ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœืื—ื™ื• ื•ืœื™ื›ื

Abaye then said: That which I stated is not a significant matter. Instead, if it enters your mind that conspiring witnesses require forewarning, when we do not forewarn them we do not kill them. However, is there a matter in which they sought to kill the defendant without forewarning him, as their testimony was false, and in order to punish them they require forewarning? Donโ€™t we require that their punishment reflect the verse โ€œAnd you shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:19)? And if they require forewarning that is not the case.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืกืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื“ืœื ืžื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžื ืงื ืžื™ืชืจื‘ื™ ืœื™ื‘ืขื™ ื”ืชืจืื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžืฉืคื˜ ืื—ื“ ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœื›ื ืžืฉืคื˜ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื›ื

Rav Samma, son of Rav Yirmeya, strongly objects to this: However, if what you say is so, when witnesses falsely accuse a priest of being the son of a divorcรฉe or the son of a แธฅalutza, as their punishment is not amplified from the verse โ€œAs he conspiredโ€ but rather they are punished for violating the prohibition โ€œYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,โ€ let them require forewarning. The Gemara answers that the verse states: โ€œYou shall have one manner of lawโ€ (Leviticus 24:22), meaning that there must be a law equal for all of you. Since in standard cases of conspiring witnesses no forewarning is required, even in exceptional cases like testimony that a priest is the son of a divorcรฉe or a แธฅalutza, forewarning is not required.

ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ื•ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืžื”ื›ื ื•ื›ื™ ื™ื ืฆื• ืื ืฉื™ื ื•ื ื’ืคื• ืืฉื” ื”ืจื” ื•ื™ืฆืื• ื™ืœื“ื™ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉื‘ืžื™ืชื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื ืืกื•ืŸ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื•ื ืชืช ื ืคืฉ ืชื—ืช ื ืคืฉ

ยง Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The fact that in the case of one who injures another as well he pays money and is not flogged is derived not by means of a verbal analogy but from here: โ€œIf men quarrel and hurt a pregnant woman so that her child departs from her, and yet no harm follow, he shall be punished as imposed upon him by the womanโ€™s husbandโ€ (Exodus 21:22). And Rabbi Elazar said: The verse is speaking of a quarrel that involves death, i.e., they sought to kill each other, as it is written: โ€œAnd if any harm follow, then you shall give a soul for a soulโ€ (Exodus 21:23).

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืงืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืืกื•ืŸ ืขื ื•ืฉ ื™ืขื ืฉ

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If they did not forewarn one not to kill the other, why is he killed if the death of his opponent ensues? Rather, obviously it is a case where they forewarned him, and the principle is that one who is forewarned with regard to a severe matter, murdering his counterpart, is forewarned with regard to a lesser matter, injuring his counterpart. And although he is forewarned against injuring another, which violates a prohibition and is punishable by lashes, the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd yet no harm follow, he shall be punishedโ€ (Exodus 21:22), indicating that one pays and is not flogged.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืงืœ ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžื™ืชื” ื—ืžื•ืจื”

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this proof. First of all, with regard to your initial assumption, from where do you ascertain that one who is forewarned with regard to a severe matter is forewarned with regard to a lesser matter? Perhaps he is not considered forewarned with regard to the lesser matter. Furthermore, even if you say that one is in fact forewarned with regard to a lesser matter, from where do you ascertain that the death penalty is a more severe punishment than lashes?

ื“ืœืžื ืžืœืงื•ืช ื—ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ืœืžืœื™ ื ื’ื“ื•ื” ืœื—ื ื ื™ื” ืžื™ืฉืืœ ื•ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืคืœื—ื• ืœืฆืœืžื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืกืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืกืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœืš ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ืœื”ื›ืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงืฆื‘ื”

Perhaps the punishment of lashes is more severe, as Rav said: Had they flogged Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (see Daniel, chapter 3) instead of casting them into the fiery furnace, these three would have been induced to worship the graven image. Apparently, the punishment of lashes is more severe than death. Rav Samma, son of Rav Asi, said to Rav Ashi, and some say Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Rav Ashi: And is there no difference to you between flogging that has a limit, e.g., forty lashes by Torah law, which is a less severe punishment, and flogging that does not have a limit, i.e., flogging administered to induce compliance, which is more severe?

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžื ื”ืจ ืคืงื•ื“ ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ื ืคืฉ ืžืžืฉ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

With regard to the basic proof from the case of the two men quarreling, Rav Yaโ€™akov from Nehar Pekod strongly objects to this. This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who said that the verse โ€œAnd you shall give a soul for a soulโ€ (Exodus 21:23) is referring to an actual life, and that if he caused the womanโ€™s death he is executed. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that if he did not intend to injure the woman he is not liable to be executed and instead pays money as indemnity for causing her death, what can be said? According to that opinion, there was no forewarning for lashes at all, and the only liability is payment for injuring another.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžื ื”ืจ ืคืงื•ื“ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืžื”ื›ื ืื ื™ืงื•ื ื•ื”ืชื”ืœืš ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืขืœ ืžืฉืขื ืชื• ื•ื ืงื” ื”ืžื›ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชืขืœื” ืขืœ ื“ืขืชืš ืฉื–ื” ืžื”ืœืš ื‘ืฉื•ืง ื•ื–ื” ื ื”ืจื’ ืืœื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื—ื•ื‘ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืื™ ืžื™ืช ืงื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ ืœื ืžื™ืช ืฉื‘ืชื• ื™ืชืŸ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื

Rather, Rav Yaโ€™akov from Nehar Pekod said in the name of Rava that the halakha that one pays and is not flogged is derived from here. With regard to one who struck another with a stone or his fist and did not kill him but caused him to be bedridden, it is written: โ€œIf he rises and walks outside with his staff, he who struck him is absolvedโ€ (Exodus 21:19). And could it enter your mind that this victim is walking in the marketplace and that aggressor is executed as a murderer? Rather, the verse teaches that one imprisons the aggressor while the injured party recuperates, and if he dies due to the blow he received, we kill him. And if he does not die and recovers, the aggressorโ€™s punishment is based on the verse โ€œHis loss of livelihood he shall give, and he shall cause him to be thoroughly healedโ€ (Exodus 21:19).

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืงืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฉื‘ืชื• ื™ืชืŸ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื

The Gemara elaborates: What are the circumstances? If the witnesses did not forewarn him, why is the offender killed if the victim dies? Rather, obviously it is a case where the witnesses forewarned him, and one who is forewarned for a severe matter, such as the potential death penalty, is also forewarned for the lesser matter of injuring another, for which he is liable to be flogged, and nevertheless the Merciful One states: โ€œHis loss of livelihood he shall give, and he shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.โ€ Apparently, despite his liability to be flogged, he pays and is not flogged.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืงืœ ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžื™ืชื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ื“ืœืžื ืžืœืงื•ืช ื—ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ืœืžืœื™ ื ื’ื“ื•ื” ืœื—ื ื ื™ื” ืžื™ืฉืืœ ื•ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืคืœื—ื• ืœืฆืœืžื

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this proof: First of all, with regard to your initial assumption, from where do you ascertain that one who is forewarned with regard to a severe matter is forewarned with regard to a lesser matter? Perhaps he is not considered forewarned with regard to the lesser matter. Furthermore, even if you say that one is in fact forewarned with regard to a lesser matter, from where do you ascertain that the death penalty is a more severe punishment than lashes? Perhaps the punishment of lashes is more severe, as Rav said: Had they flogged Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, instead of casting them into the fiery furnace, they would have been induced to worship the graven image. Apparently, the punishment of lashes is more severe than death.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืกืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืกืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœืš ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ืœื”ื›ืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงืฆื‘ื”

Rav Samma, son of Rav Asi, said to Rav Ashi, and some say Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Rav Ashi: And is there no difference to you between flogging that has a limit, e.g., forty lashes by Torah law, which is a less severe punishment, and flogging that does not have a limit, administered to induce compliance, which is more severe?

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื•ื ืงื” ืžืงื˜ืœื ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื•ื ืงื” ืžื’ืœื•ืช ืงืฉื™ื

Rav Mari strongly objects to this proof that one pays and is not flogged: From where do you ascertain that this is referring to one who struck another intentionally, and that the verse โ€œHe who struck him shall be absolvedโ€ means that he shall be absolved of the death penalty? Perhaps the verse is referring to one who struck another unwittingly, and the verse means that he shall be absolved of exile? In that case, there would be no forewarning. Therefore, no proof may be cited from here that one who injures another pays and is not flogged. The Gemara concludes: This is difficult, and no proof may be cited from here.

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ื•ืžืฉืœื ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืชื• ื ืžื™

ยง The Gemara cites another resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna here, which obligates one who rapes his sister to pay a fine, and the mishna in Makkot, which rules him liable to be flogged. Reish Lakish said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One is flogged and pays. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, even if one raped his daughter he should also be obligated to pay the fine. However, the mishna lists only those who raped women for whom one is liable to be punished for violating a prohibition or liable to receive karet, not those for whom one is liable to receive court-imposed execution.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœื•ืงื” ื•ืžืฉืœื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืžืช ื•ืžืฉืœื ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื’ื ื‘ ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื ืกืงืœ ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ

And lest you say that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that one is flogged and pays, but is not of the opinion that one dies by execution and pays; and isnโ€™t he of the opinion that one who is executed pays? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Shabbat, or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatry, or stole an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, from which one may derive no benefit and is therefore worthless, and slaughtered it, he pays the owner a payment of four or five times the principal, as he would in any case of stealing and slaughtering an animal? This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis exempt him from payment because he is liable to receive the death penalty for slaughtering on Shabbat or for idolatry. Apparently, Rabbi Meir maintains that one is obligated to pay even when he is liable to receive the death penalty.

ื”ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ื•ื›ืœ ื—ื‘ื•ืจืชื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจ

The Gemara refutes this: Wasnโ€™t it stated concerning this baraita that Rabbi Yaโ€™akov said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, that Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Ileโ€™a and the entire group said in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: That case is referring to one who slaughters by means of another? The thief himself did not slaughter the animal; rather, it was his agent. Consequently, the thief pays be-cause the capital crime was committed by his agent. Therefore, this source is unrelated to Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion with regard to the question of whether one is executed and pays.

ื•ื›ื™ ื–ื” ื—ื•ื˜ื ื•ื–ื” ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ืื• ืžื›ืจื• ืžื” ืžื›ื™ืจื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจ ืืฃ ื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจ

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s explanation: And does this agent sin and that thief is liable to pay four and five times the principal? This violates the principle: There is no agent for matters of transgression. The Gemara explains that this is a halakha unique to this case. Rava said that the Merciful One states: โ€œIf a man steal an ox or a sheep and slaughter it or sell itโ€ (Exodus 21:37). Based on the juxtaposition of slaughter and sale, Rava continues: Just as sale is performed by means of another, as there is no sale without a buyer, so too, one is liable to be punished for slaughter by means of another. Although there is no agent for transgression, here there is a Torah decree that one is liable by means of another.

ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืชื ื ืื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืชื ื ืชื—ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืฉืœื™ื—

The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different source for the halakha that one is liable for slaughter by means of an agent. It is written: โ€œAnd slaughter it or sell itโ€; the term โ€œorโ€ comes to include an agent. The Sages of the school of Rabbi แธคizkiyya taught a different proof from the same verse: โ€œHe shall payโ€ฆfor an oxโ€ฆfor a sheepโ€; the term โ€œforโ€ comes to include an agent.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืื™ืœื• ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ื”ื• ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื™ื”ื• ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื”

Mar Zutra strongly objects to this halakha. Is there any matter with regard to which if one performs it himself, he is not liable, and yet if his agent performs it he is liable? Had he slaughtered the animal himself on Shabbat he would have been exempt from payment. How, then, is he liable if he does so by means of an agent? The Gemara answers: He is exempt not due to the fact that he is not liable for the slaughter; rather, he is exempt due to the fact that he receives the greater of the two punishments, the death penalty, for his desecration of Shabbat. He is liable for both the slaughter and the desecration of Shabbat. In practice, he receives the more severe punishment. However, when he appoints an agent, there is no liability for the desecration of Shabbat, and therefore he must pay for the slaughter.

ืื™ ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืคื˜ืจื™ ืžืืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื

The Gemara returns to Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s explanation of the baraita. If the baraita is referring to the case of one who slaughtered by means of another, what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis, who exempt him from payment? As the thief did not perform a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, why is he exempt from payment for slaughtering the animal? The Gemara answers: Who are the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir in this case?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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 whoโ€™s testimony is believed in court. The...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 33: Lashes, Warnings, and the Fiery Furnace

The impact of warning on sin, punishment, and how it works with plotting (conspiring) witnesses. But how can conspiring witnesses...

Ketubot 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 33

ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœืช ืœื ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืคืŸ ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ื‘ื˜ืœืช ื•ื”ื™ื” ืื ื‘ืŸ ื”ื›ื•ืช ื”ืจืฉืข ืืœื ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืงื™ื•ืžื” ื‘ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืงื™ื•ืžื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื›ื”ื• ื”ื›ืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”

The Gemara asks: Based on that reasoning, the same would hold true for one who injures another as well; if so, if he pays and is not lashed, you have rendered moot the prohibition โ€œForty he shall strike him; he shall not exceed, lest if he should exceedโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:3). The same would hold true for conspiring witnesses as well; if so, you have rendered moot the verse interpreted as addressing the matter of conspiring witnesses: โ€œAnd it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be floggedโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:2). Rather, with regard to conspiring witnesses, that verse can be fulfilled in the case of the son of a divorcรฉe or the son of a แธฅalutza. If witnesses testified that a priest is the son of a divorcรฉe or a แธฅalutza and were discovered to be conspiring witnesses, there is no payment and they are flogged. With regard to one who injures another as well, the verse can be fulfilled in a case where he struck him with a blow that does not cause damage amounting to the value of a peruta.

ืื—ื•ืชื• ื ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืงื™ื•ืžื” ื‘ืื—ื•ืชื• ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ืืžืจ ืœืš ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืื™ ืชื—ืช ืืฉืจ ืขื™ื ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืชื—ืช ืืฉืจ ืขื™ื ื” ื”ืื™ ืชื—ืช ืืฉืจ ืขื™ื ื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, with regard to oneโ€™s sister as well, the lashes can be fulfilled in the case of one who had forced relations with his sister who is a grown woman. Since there is no fine in that case, he is flogged and the verse is not moot. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan could have said to you that he does not agree with Ulla because this verse: โ€œBecause he tormented herโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:29), is not available for a verbal analogy, as he requires it to derive in accordance with that which Abaye said, as Abaye said that the verse states: The fine of fifty dinar is payment โ€œbecause he tormented herโ€; by inference one may conclude that beyond the fine, there is compensation for humiliation and degradation.

ื•ืขื•ืœื ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื ืชืŸ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ืฉื•ื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ืœืื‘ื™ ื”ื ืขืจื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื›ืกืฃ ื”ื ืืช ืฉื›ื™ื‘ื” ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื

The Gemara asks: And Ulla, who uses this verse to derive a verbal analogy, from where does he derive the halakha stated by Abaye? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the statement of Rava, who derives that halakha from the same verse, as Rava said that the verse states: โ€œAnd the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silverโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:29). The superfluous phrase โ€œwho lay with herโ€ teaches that it is for the pleasure of lying with her that he pays fifty shekels, i.e., fifty sela; by inference one may conclude that beyond the fine, there is compensation for humiliation and degradation.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœืžื™ ื•ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื”ืชืจืื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื“ืข ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืื™ืžืช ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืืžืจื™ ืื™ืฉืชืœื™ืŸ ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ืžืขืฉื” ืคืจืฉื™ ื•ืœื ืžืกื”ื“ื™ ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืžืื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ื”ื•ื”

ยง Rabbi Eliezer says: The reason that conspiring witnesses pay money but are not flogged is due to the fact that they are not subject to forewarning, and without forewarning there are no lashes. Rava said: Know that this is true, since there is no practical manner to forewarn them, as when would we forewarn them? Perhaps let us forewarn them initially, before they come to testify; in that case, the forewarning would be ineffective because they could say: We forgot the forewarning. Then let us forewarn them at the moment of the action, just before they testify; in that case they will leave and not testify at all, as concern for potential repercussions will intimidate them into silence. Or, let us forewarn them at the end after their testimony; in that case that which was, was, and forewarning at that point is pointless.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืชื•ืš ื›ื“ื™ ื“ื‘ื•ืจ ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืงื ื•ื ื™ืชืจื™ ื‘ื”ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื•ื ืจืžื– ื‘ื”ื• ืจืžื•ื–ื™

Abaye strongly objects to this: And let us warn them within an interval equivalent to the time of speaking, during the brief period after they completed their statements, at which time the testimony is not yet considered to have concluded. Since they can still retract or amend their testimony during that period, a warning delivered at that point would be timely and effective. Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Ika, also strongly objects to this: And let us forewarn them initially, before they testify, and gesture to them during the actual testimony, reminding them of the forewarning so they will be unable to claim that they forgot it.

ื”ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืื• ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืขื“ื™ื ื–ื•ืžืžื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ืŸ ื”ืชืจืื” ื›ื™ ืœื ืžืชืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ื• ืœื ืงื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื• ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ืขื• ืงื˜ื™ืœ ื‘ืœื ื”ืชืจืื” ื•ืื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ืขื• ื”ืชืจืื” ื”ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืœื• ื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžื ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœืื—ื™ื• ื•ืœื™ื›ื

Abaye then said: That which I stated is not a significant matter. Instead, if it enters your mind that conspiring witnesses require forewarning, when we do not forewarn them we do not kill them. However, is there a matter in which they sought to kill the defendant without forewarning him, as their testimony was false, and in order to punish them they require forewarning? Donโ€™t we require that their punishment reflect the verse โ€œAnd you shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brotherโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:19)? And if they require forewarning that is not the case.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืกืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื“ืœื ืžื›ืืฉืจ ื–ืžื ืงื ืžื™ืชืจื‘ื™ ืœื™ื‘ืขื™ ื”ืชืจืื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžืฉืคื˜ ืื—ื“ ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœื›ื ืžืฉืคื˜ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื›ื

Rav Samma, son of Rav Yirmeya, strongly objects to this: However, if what you say is so, when witnesses falsely accuse a priest of being the son of a divorcรฉe or the son of a แธฅalutza, as their punishment is not amplified from the verse โ€œAs he conspiredโ€ but rather they are punished for violating the prohibition โ€œYou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,โ€ let them require forewarning. The Gemara answers that the verse states: โ€œYou shall have one manner of lawโ€ (Leviticus 24:22), meaning that there must be a law equal for all of you. Since in standard cases of conspiring witnesses no forewarning is required, even in exceptional cases like testimony that a priest is the son of a divorcรฉe or a แธฅalutza, forewarning is not required.

ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื ืžื™ ืžืžื•ื ื ืžืฉืœื ื•ืžื™ืœืงื ืœื ืœืงื™ ืžื”ื›ื ื•ื›ื™ ื™ื ืฆื• ืื ืฉื™ื ื•ื ื’ืคื• ืืฉื” ื”ืจื” ื•ื™ืฆืื• ื™ืœื“ื™ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉื‘ืžื™ืชื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื ืืกื•ืŸ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื•ื ืชืช ื ืคืฉ ืชื—ืช ื ืคืฉ

ยง Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The fact that in the case of one who injures another as well he pays money and is not flogged is derived not by means of a verbal analogy but from here: โ€œIf men quarrel and hurt a pregnant woman so that her child departs from her, and yet no harm follow, he shall be punished as imposed upon him by the womanโ€™s husbandโ€ (Exodus 21:22). And Rabbi Elazar said: The verse is speaking of a quarrel that involves death, i.e., they sought to kill each other, as it is written: โ€œAnd if any harm follow, then you shall give a soul for a soulโ€ (Exodus 21:23).

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืงืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืืกื•ืŸ ืขื ื•ืฉ ื™ืขื ืฉ

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If they did not forewarn one not to kill the other, why is he killed if the death of his opponent ensues? Rather, obviously it is a case where they forewarned him, and the principle is that one who is forewarned with regard to a severe matter, murdering his counterpart, is forewarned with regard to a lesser matter, injuring his counterpart. And although he is forewarned against injuring another, which violates a prohibition and is punishable by lashes, the Merciful One states: โ€œAnd yet no harm follow, he shall be punishedโ€ (Exodus 21:22), indicating that one pays and is not flogged.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืงืœ ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžื™ืชื” ื—ืžื•ืจื”

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this proof. First of all, with regard to your initial assumption, from where do you ascertain that one who is forewarned with regard to a severe matter is forewarned with regard to a lesser matter? Perhaps he is not considered forewarned with regard to the lesser matter. Furthermore, even if you say that one is in fact forewarned with regard to a lesser matter, from where do you ascertain that the death penalty is a more severe punishment than lashes?

ื“ืœืžื ืžืœืงื•ืช ื—ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ืœืžืœื™ ื ื’ื“ื•ื” ืœื—ื ื ื™ื” ืžื™ืฉืืœ ื•ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืคืœื—ื• ืœืฆืœืžื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืกืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืกืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœืš ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ืœื”ื›ืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงืฆื‘ื”

Perhaps the punishment of lashes is more severe, as Rav said: Had they flogged Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (see Daniel, chapter 3) instead of casting them into the fiery furnace, these three would have been induced to worship the graven image. Apparently, the punishment of lashes is more severe than death. Rav Samma, son of Rav Asi, said to Rav Ashi, and some say Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Rav Ashi: And is there no difference to you between flogging that has a limit, e.g., forty lashes by Torah law, which is a less severe punishment, and flogging that does not have a limit, i.e., flogging administered to induce compliance, which is more severe?

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžื ื”ืจ ืคืงื•ื“ ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ื ืคืฉ ืžืžืฉ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

With regard to the basic proof from the case of the two men quarreling, Rav Yaโ€™akov from Nehar Pekod strongly objects to this. This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who said that the verse โ€œAnd you shall give a soul for a soulโ€ (Exodus 21:23) is referring to an actual life, and that if he caused the womanโ€™s death he is executed. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that if he did not intend to injure the woman he is not liable to be executed and instead pays money as indemnity for causing her death, what can be said? According to that opinion, there was no forewarning for lashes at all, and the only liability is payment for injuring another.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžื ื”ืจ ืคืงื•ื“ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืžื”ื›ื ืื ื™ืงื•ื ื•ื”ืชื”ืœืš ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ืขืœ ืžืฉืขื ืชื• ื•ื ืงื” ื”ืžื›ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชืขืœื” ืขืœ ื“ืขืชืš ืฉื–ื” ืžื”ืœืš ื‘ืฉื•ืง ื•ื–ื” ื ื”ืจื’ ืืœื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื—ื•ื‘ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืื™ ืžื™ืช ืงื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ ืœื ืžื™ืช ืฉื‘ืชื• ื™ืชืŸ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื

Rather, Rav Yaโ€™akov from Nehar Pekod said in the name of Rava that the halakha that one pays and is not flogged is derived from here. With regard to one who struck another with a stone or his fist and did not kill him but caused him to be bedridden, it is written: โ€œIf he rises and walks outside with his staff, he who struck him is absolvedโ€ (Exodus 21:19). And could it enter your mind that this victim is walking in the marketplace and that aggressor is executed as a murderer? Rather, the verse teaches that one imprisons the aggressor while the injured party recuperates, and if he dies due to the blow he received, we kill him. And if he does not die and recovers, the aggressorโ€™s punishment is based on the verse โ€œHis loss of livelihood he shall give, and he shall cause him to be thoroughly healedโ€ (Exodus 21:19).

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืงืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฉื‘ืชื• ื™ืชืŸ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื

The Gemara elaborates: What are the circumstances? If the witnesses did not forewarn him, why is the offender killed if the victim dies? Rather, obviously it is a case where the witnesses forewarned him, and one who is forewarned for a severe matter, such as the potential death penalty, is also forewarned for the lesser matter of injuring another, for which he is liable to be flogged, and nevertheless the Merciful One states: โ€œHis loss of livelihood he shall give, and he shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.โ€ Apparently, despite his liability to be flogged, he pays and is not flogged.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžื•ืชืจื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืงืœ ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ืžื™ืชื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ื“ืœืžื ืžืœืงื•ืช ื—ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ืœืžืœื™ ื ื’ื“ื•ื” ืœื—ื ื ื™ื” ืžื™ืฉืืœ ื•ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืคืœื—ื• ืœืฆืœืžื

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this proof: First of all, with regard to your initial assumption, from where do you ascertain that one who is forewarned with regard to a severe matter is forewarned with regard to a lesser matter? Perhaps he is not considered forewarned with regard to the lesser matter. Furthermore, even if you say that one is in fact forewarned with regard to a lesser matter, from where do you ascertain that the death penalty is a more severe punishment than lashes? Perhaps the punishment of lashes is more severe, as Rav said: Had they flogged Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, instead of casting them into the fiery furnace, they would have been induced to worship the graven image. Apparently, the punishment of lashes is more severe than death.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืกืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืกืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื™ ืœืš ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ืœื”ื›ืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืงืฆื‘ื”

Rav Samma, son of Rav Asi, said to Rav Ashi, and some say Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Rav Ashi: And is there no difference to you between flogging that has a limit, e.g., forty lashes by Torah law, which is a less severe punishment, and flogging that does not have a limit, administered to induce compliance, which is more severe?

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืžืžืื™ ื“ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื•ื ืงื” ืžืงื˜ืœื ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื•ื ืงื” ืžื’ืœื•ืช ืงืฉื™ื

Rav Mari strongly objects to this proof that one pays and is not flogged: From where do you ascertain that this is referring to one who struck another intentionally, and that the verse โ€œHe who struck him shall be absolvedโ€ means that he shall be absolved of the death penalty? Perhaps the verse is referring to one who struck another unwittingly, and the verse means that he shall be absolved of exile? In that case, there would be no forewarning. Therefore, no proof may be cited from here that one who injures another pays and is not flogged. The Gemara concludes: This is difficult, and no proof may be cited from here.

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ื•ืžืฉืœื ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืชื• ื ืžื™

ยง The Gemara cites another resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna here, which obligates one who rapes his sister to pay a fine, and the mishna in Makkot, which rules him liable to be flogged. Reish Lakish said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One is flogged and pays. The Gemara asks: If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, even if one raped his daughter he should also be obligated to pay the fine. However, the mishna lists only those who raped women for whom one is liable to be punished for violating a prohibition or liable to receive karet, not those for whom one is liable to receive court-imposed execution.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœื•ืงื” ื•ืžืฉืœื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืžืช ื•ืžืฉืœื ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื’ื ื‘ ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื ืกืงืœ ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ

And lest you say that Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that one is flogged and pays, but is not of the opinion that one dies by execution and pays; and isnโ€™t he of the opinion that one who is executed pays? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Shabbat, or stole it and slaughtered it for idolatry, or stole an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, from which one may derive no benefit and is therefore worthless, and slaughtered it, he pays the owner a payment of four or five times the principal, as he would in any case of stealing and slaughtering an animal? This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis exempt him from payment because he is liable to receive the death penalty for slaughtering on Shabbat or for idolatry. Apparently, Rabbi Meir maintains that one is obligated to pay even when he is liable to receive the death penalty.

ื”ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ืขืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื ื•ื›ืœ ื—ื‘ื•ืจืชื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจ

The Gemara refutes this: Wasnโ€™t it stated concerning this baraita that Rabbi Yaโ€™akov said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, that Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Ileโ€™a and the entire group said in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: That case is referring to one who slaughters by means of another? The thief himself did not slaughter the animal; rather, it was his agent. Consequently, the thief pays be-cause the capital crime was committed by his agent. Therefore, this source is unrelated to Rabbi Meirโ€™s opinion with regard to the question of whether one is executed and pays.

ื•ื›ื™ ื–ื” ื—ื•ื˜ื ื•ื–ื” ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื˜ื‘ื—ื• ืื• ืžื›ืจื• ืžื” ืžื›ื™ืจื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจ ืืฃ ื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจ

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s explanation: And does this agent sin and that thief is liable to pay four and five times the principal? This violates the principle: There is no agent for matters of transgression. The Gemara explains that this is a halakha unique to this case. Rava said that the Merciful One states: โ€œIf a man steal an ox or a sheep and slaughter it or sell itโ€ (Exodus 21:37). Based on the juxtaposition of slaughter and sale, Rava continues: Just as sale is performed by means of another, as there is no sale without a buyer, so too, one is liable to be punished for slaughter by means of another. Although there is no agent for transgression, here there is a Torah decree that one is liable by means of another.

ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืชื ื ืื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืฉืœื™ื— ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืชื ื ืชื—ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืฉืœื™ื—

The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different source for the halakha that one is liable for slaughter by means of an agent. It is written: โ€œAnd slaughter it or sell itโ€; the term โ€œorโ€ comes to include an agent. The Sages of the school of Rabbi แธคizkiyya taught a different proof from the same verse: โ€œHe shall payโ€ฆfor an oxโ€ฆfor a sheepโ€; the term โ€œforโ€ comes to include an agent.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืื™ืœื• ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ื”ื• ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื™ื”ื• ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ืœื™ื” ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื”

Mar Zutra strongly objects to this halakha. Is there any matter with regard to which if one performs it himself, he is not liable, and yet if his agent performs it he is liable? Had he slaughtered the animal himself on Shabbat he would have been exempt from payment. How, then, is he liable if he does so by means of an agent? The Gemara answers: He is exempt not due to the fact that he is not liable for the slaughter; rather, he is exempt due to the fact that he receives the greater of the two punishments, the death penalty, for his desecration of Shabbat. He is liable for both the slaughter and the desecration of Shabbat. In practice, he receives the more severe punishment. However, when he appoints an agent, there is no liability for the desecration of Shabbat, and therefore he must pay for the slaughter.

ืื™ ื‘ื˜ื•ื‘ื— ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืื—ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืคื˜ืจื™ ืžืืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื

The Gemara returns to Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s explanation of the baraita. If the baraita is referring to the case of one who slaughtered by means of another, what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis, who exempt him from payment? As the thief did not perform a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, why is he exempt from payment for slaughtering the animal? The Gemara answers: Who are the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir in this case?

Scroll To Top