This week’s learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. “My dear uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. “My dear uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah.”
Ketubot 34
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה — לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה. הָתִינַח עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, אֶלָּא שְׁחִיטַת שַׁבָּת — שְׁחִיטָה רְאוּיָה הִיא! דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּשַׁבָּת וּבְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ — שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה!
It is Rabbi Shimon, who said: The legal status of slaughter that is improper, in that it does not render the meat fit to be eaten, is not that of slaughter. Therefore, one is not liable for slaughter of the animal. The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to idolatry and the ox that is stoned, as their slaughter is ineffective in rendering the meat fit to be eaten; however, the slaughter on Shabbat is a proper act of slaughter, as we learned in a mishna (Ḥullin 14a): In the case of one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although he is liable to receive the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat, his slaughter is valid and the meat may be eaten.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר. דְּתַנְיָא: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֹאכַל, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֹאכַל לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל עוֹלָמִית. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֵאָכֵל לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לוֹ, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֵאָכֵל עוֹלָמִית, לֹא לוֹ וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים.
The Gemara answers: The tanna of the baraita under discussion holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar, as it is taught in a baraita:
With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat the food he cooked; if he did so intentionally, he may not eat it at all. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehuda says: If he cooked unwittingly he may eat at the conclusion of Shabbat, as the Sages penalized even one who sinned unwittingly in that they prohibited him from deriving immediate benefit from the dish that he cooked; if he sinned intentionally, he may not eat from it ever.
Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar says: If he did so unwittingly, the food may be eaten at the conclusion of Shabbat by others but not by him; if he did so intentionally, it may not be eaten ever, neither by him nor by other Jews. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar, food prepared by means of intentional desecration of Shabbat is unfit to be eaten. That is true with regard to cooking food on Shabbat and with regard to slaughtering an animal on Shabbat.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר? כִּדְדָרֵישׁ רַבִּי חִיָּיא אַפִּיתְחָא דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה: ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִיא לָכֶם״, מָה קוֹדֶשׁ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה — אַף מַעֲשֵׂה שַׁבָּת אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה. אִי: מָה קוֹדֶשׁ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה — אַף מַעֲשֵׂה שַׁבָּת אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לָכֶם״ — שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא.
The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar? The Gemara explains: It is as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi. It is written: “And you shall observe Shabbat, for it is sacred to you; he who profanes it shall be put to death” (Exodus 31:14); just as with regard to a sacred item consecrated to the Temple, eating it is prohibited, so too, with regard to food produced through action that desecrates Shabbat, eating it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: If so, perhaps the analogy should be extended to include the following: Just as with regard to a sacred item, deriving benefit from it is prohibited, so too, with regard to the product of an action that desecrates Shabbat, deriving benefit from it should be prohibited. The Gemara answers: The verse states: “It is sacred to you” (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it shall be yours in the sense that one may derive benefit from it.
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מְחַלְּלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת״, בְּמֵזִיד אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא בְּשׁוֹגֵג.
The Gemara asks: Based on the analogy between actions that desecrate Shabbat and sacred items, one might have thought that even if the action was performed unwittingly it should be prohibited to eat its product, as is the case with regard to sacred items. Therefore, the verse states: “He who profanes it shall be put to death” (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it is with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat intentionally that I stated to you this analogy to sacred items, as the verse is clearly referring to one who is liable to receive the death penalty, and not with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat unwittingly, who is not executed.
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂה שַׁבָּת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְחַד אָמַר: דְּרַבָּנַן. מַאן דְּאָמַר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — כְּדַאֲמַרַן, מַאן דְּאָמַר דְּרַבָּנַן — אָמַר קְרָא: ״קֹדֶשׁ הִיא״, הִיא קוֹדֶשׁ, וְאֵין מַעֲשֶׂיהָ קוֹדֶשׁ.
The Gemara comments: Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this matter. One said: The product of an action that desecrates Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law, and one said that it is prohibited by rabbinic law. With regard to the one who said that it is prohibited by Torah law, it is as we said, that it is based on the verse interpreted by Rabbi Ḥiyya. And the one who said that it is prohibited by rabbinic law holds that the verse states: “It is sacred,” from which he infers: It is sacred, but the product of its actions is not sacred, and therefore, by Torah law it may be eaten.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּרַבָּנַן, מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן דְּפָטְרִי? כִּי קָא פָּטְרִי רַבָּנַן אַשְּׁאָרָא.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said it is prohibited by rabbinic law, what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis who exempt the thief from payment for the slaughter performed by his agent on Shabbat? By Torah law, the slaughter is valid. The Gemara answers: When the Rabbis exempt the thief from payment, it is with regard to the rest of the cases, i.e., one who slaughters for idolatry or an ox sentenced to stoning, not with regard to Shabbat.
טוֹבֵחַ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁחַט בֵּיהּ פּוּרְתָּא — אִיתְּסַר לֵיהּ, אִידַּךְ כִּי קָא טָבַח, לָאו דְּמָרֵיהּ קָא טָבַח! אָמַר רָבָא: בְּאוֹמֵר בִּגְמַר זְבִיחָה הוּא עוֹבְדָהּ.
The Gemara asks the following question with regard to Rabbi Meir’s opinion that one who slaughters for idolatry is liable to pay the owner for the animal. Once he slaughtered the animal a bit, at the very start of the act of slaughter, it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from the animal because it is an animal sacrificed to idolatry; and when he slaughters the rest, it is not the animal that belongs to its owner that he is slaughtering. Since it is prohibited to derive benefit from the animal, it has no value and there is no ownership. Rava said: It is referring to one who says, prior to the slaughter, that he is worshipping the idol only at the completion of the slaughter, and therefore the prohibition takes effect only then.
שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, לָאו דִּידֵיהּ הוּא דְּקָטָבַח! אָמַר רַבָּה: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁמְּסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר, וְהִזִּיק בְּבֵית שׁוֹמֵר, וְנִגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית שׁוֹמֵר, וּגְנָבוֹ גַּנָּב מִבֵּית שׁוֹמֵר.
The Gemara asks the following question with regard to Rabbi Meir’s opinion that one who slaughters the ox that is stoned is liable to pay for the slaughter. Why is he liable? It is not the owner’s ox that he is slaughtering, since once the ox is sentenced to be stoned it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Rabba said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the owners entrusted the ox to a bailee and the ox injured another person while in the bailee’s house, and it was sentenced to be stoned while in the bailee’s house, and the thief then stole it from the bailee’s house and slaughtered it.
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּאָמַר: אַף מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ הֶחְזִירוֹ שׁוֹמֵר לִבְעָלָיו — מוּחְזָר. וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר הַגּוֹרֵם לְמָמוֹן — כְּמָמוֹן דָּמֵי.
And this solution is based on the fact that Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov and holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who said: Even after the ox was sentenced to be stoned, if the bailee returned it to its owners, it is returned. Despite the fact that the ox is now worthless, as no benefit may be derived from it, since the bailee returned an ox that is physically intact the owner has no claim against him. And Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that the legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is like that of money. Even in the case of an object that is worthless, if its elimination causes monetary loss because it must be replaced, it is considered to have value. In this case, although the ox has no value in and of itself, slaughtering the animal prevents the bailee from returning it intact to the owner, requiring him to pay the owner the value of the ox before it was sentenced to be stoned. Consequently, the thief must reimburse the bailee, as the ox has value for the bailee.
רַבָּה אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם בְּטוֹבֵחַ עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ,
Rabba said: Actually, contrary to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation of the baraita, it is referring to one who slaughters the animal himself,
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם אִית לֵיהּ, מֵת וּמְשַׁלֵּם לֵית לֵיהּ. וְשָׁאנֵי הָנֵי, דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא שֶׁחִידְּשָׁה תּוֹרָה בִּקְנָס, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיקְּטִיל — מְשַׁלֵּם. וְאַזְדָּא רַבָּה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: הָיָה גְּדִי גָּנוּב לוֹ, וּטְבָחוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת. גָּנַב וְטָבַח בְּשַׁבָּת — פָּטוּר, שֶׁאִם אֵין גְּנֵיבָה, אֵין טְבִיחָה וְאֵין מְכִירָה.
and 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 these halakhot are different, as it is a novel element that the Torah innovated with regard to the halakhic category of fines; although he is killed, he pays. And Rabba followed his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Rabba said: If one had a stolen kid in his possession that he had stolen previously, and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is liable to pay five times the principal for slaughtering the kid, as he was already liable for stealing before he came to violate the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat. Although he slaughtered the goat on Shabbat, a capital crime, he is liable for the payment because it is a fine. However, if he stole the goat and slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is exempt from the payment of five times the principal as, if there is no payment for theft, due to his liability to receive the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat, and his obligation to repay the theft is not a fine, there is no liability for slaughter and there is no liability for sale.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: הָיָה גְּדִי גָּנוּב לוֹ וּטְבָחוֹ בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת — חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר מַחְתֶּרֶת. גָּנַב וְטָבַח בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת — פָּטוּר, שֶׁאִם אֵין גְּנֵיבָה, אֵין טְבִיחָה וְאֵין מְכִירָה.
And Rabba said: If one had a stolen kid in his possession that he had stolen previously, and he slaughtered it in the course of an act of burglary, he is liable to pay four or five times the principal, as he was already liable for theft before he came to violate the prohibition against burglary. However, if he stole and slaughtered an animal in the course of an act of burglary, he is exempt. Because the owner of the house is permitted to kill the burglar, the status of the burglar is tantamount to one liable to receive the death penalty. As, if there is no payment for theft, there is no liability for slaughter and there is no liability for sale. Rabba’s statements indicate that one pays the fines for slaughter or sale even if he is liable to receive the death penalty.
וּצְרִיכָא. דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שַׁבָּת — מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיסּוּרָהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם. אֲבָל מַחְתֶּרֶת, דְּאִיסּוּר שָׁעָה הוּא — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מַחְתֶּרֶת — מִשּׁוּם דְּמַחְתַּרְתּוֹ זוֹ הִיא הַתְרָאָתוֹ. אֲבָל שַׁבָּת, דְּבָעֲיָא הַתְרָאָה — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara comments: And it was necessary for Rabba to state this halakha with regard to both Shabbat and burglary; as, if he had taught us that one is exempt from payment only with regard to Shabbat, it is because Shabbat is severe since punishment for violation of its prohibition is an eternal prohibition, as whenever witnesses testify that one desecrated Shabbat, he can be executed. However, in the case of burglary, as punishment for violating its prohibition is transitory, e.g., it is permitted for the homeowner to kill the burglar only as long as the burglar remains on his property, say that he is not exempt from payment. And if he taught us the exemption only with regard to burglary, that would be because his burglary is his forewarning. Because he certainly intends to kill the homeowner, it is permitted for the homeowner to kill him without forewarning. In that respect, burglary is a severe prohibition and exempts one from payment. However, Shabbat, which requires forewarning, is a less severe prohibition, and in that case, say that one is not exempt from payment. Therefore, it was necessary for Rabba to state the exemption in both cases.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָיְתָה פָּרָה גְּנוּבָה לוֹ, וּטְבָחָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת. הָיְתָה פָּרָה שְׁאוּלָה לוֹ, וּטְבָחָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת — פָּטוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: רַב פָּפָּא, פָּרָה אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן?!
Rav Pappa said: If one had a stolen cow in his possession that he had stolen previously and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is liable to pay four or five times the principal as he was already liable for theft before he came to violate the prohibition of Shabbat. If a cow was lent to him and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is exempt from paying the fine. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Is Rav Pappa coming to teach us the case of a cow? In other words, what did Rav Pappa add that was not already clear from Rabba’s statement? The same principle applies with regard to both a kid and a cow. If one was liable to pay for the theft when he stole the animal, he is liable to pay the fine for slaughter as well, even if he is liable to receive the death penalty.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַב פָּפָּא, שְׁאוּלָה אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִשְּׁעַת מְשִׁיכָה הוּא דְּאִתְחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, הָכָא נָמֵי: מִשְּׁעַת שְׁאֵלָה אִתְחַיַּיב בְּאוּנְסֶיהָ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Rav Ashi said to him: Rav Pappa is coming to teach us the halakha with regard to a borrowed cow, as it could enter your mind to say that since Rav Pappa said: It is from the moment of pulling the animal into his domain that the borrower is obligated to provide the animal’s sustenance, then here too, from the moment of borrowing he is liable to pay for its unavoidable accidents. From that point, the animal is legally in his possession and therefore, even if he slaughtered the animal on Shabbat he should be liable. Therefore, he teaches us that one assumes liability for unavoidable accidents only when they actually occur, and if that is on Shabbat, he is exempt.
אָמַר רָבָא: הִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן פָּרָה שְׁאוּלָה — מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בָּהּ כׇּל יְמֵי שְׁאֵלָתָהּ, מֵתָה — אֵין חַיָּיבִין בְּאוֹנְסָהּ. כִּסְבוּרִין שֶׁל אֲבִיהֶם הִיא וּטְבָחוּהָ וַאֲכָלוּהָ — מְשַׁלְּמִין דְּמֵי בָשָׂר בְּזוֹל. הִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים — חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם.
Rava said: If their father died and left them a borrowed cow, they may use it for the entire duration of the period for which it was borrowed. The right to use a borrowed article continues even after the borrower himself dies. However, if the cow died, they are not liable to pay for its unavoidable accident, as they did not borrow the animal themselves. Similarly, if they thought the cow was their father’s and they slaughtered it and ate it, they pay only a reduced assessment of the price of the meat. They are required to pay only for the benefit they received, not the damage they caused the owner. However, if their father left them property as a guarantee for return of the borrowed item, i.e., there was a lien on the father’s property during his lifetime, they are obligated to pay the entire sum of the damage.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא. מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַסֵּיפָא — וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב פָּפָּא. וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, אֲבָל אַרֵישָׁא לָא — וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא.
The Gemara comments: Some teach this statement, that if the father left property as a guarantee his heirs are liable to pay the entire damage, with regard to the first clause of this halakha, and some teach it with regard to the latter clause. The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who teaches it with regard to the first clause, when the animal died, all the more so would he teach this halakha with regard to the latter clause, as since they slaughtered the animal they must pay full damages. And this approach differs with the opinion of Rav Pappa, who said that a borrower is liable for accidents only when the incident occurs. And according to the one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause, this halakha applies only when they slaughtered and ate it; however, with regard to the first clause, when it died, they would not be liable, as the tanna too maintains that liability for unavoidable accidents begins only when the incident occurs, not from when the cow was borrowed. And this is consistent with the ruling of Rav Pappa.
בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּקָא מוֹקֵים לָהּ כְּרַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אָמַר לָךְ: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — פָּטוּר, כִּי לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — נָמֵי פָּטוּר.
Several possible solutions were proposed to resolve the apparent contradiction between the mishna here that says that one who rapes his sister pays a fine and the mishna in Makkot that says that he is flogged. The Gemara comments: Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan, who explains the mishna as referring to a case where he was not forewarned, did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who explains that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as he establishes the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, a preferable option, as that aligns the unattributed mishna with the halakha. However, what is the reason that Reish Lakish didn’t state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: Since if they forewarned him he is exempt from payment, when they did not forewarn him, he is exempt as well.
וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ. דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת שׁוֹגְגִין, וְחַיָּיבֵי מַלְקִיּוֹת שׁוֹגְגִין וְדָבָר אַחֵר — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּטוּר. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר חַיָּיב — דְּהָא לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּטוּר — כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — פָּטוּר, כִּי לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — נָמֵי פָּטוּר.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish each follow their standard lines of reasoning in this regard, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: With regard to those who unwittingly performed a transgression for which one is liable to receive the death penalty, or those who unwittingly performed a transgression for which one is liable to receive lashes, and that transgression also involved another matter, monetary payment, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He is liable to pay; since he sinned unwittingly he did not receive the severe punishment. And Reish Lakish said he is exempt. The Gemara clarifies the rationales for their statements. Rabbi Yoḥanan said he is liable; since they did not forewarn him, he sinned unwittingly. Reish Lakish said he is exempt; since if they forewarned him he is exempt from payment, when they did not forewarn him, he is exempt as well.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ״,
Reish Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from the following verse, which describes a case where two people fought and during their struggle they hurt a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry: “And yet no harm follow, he shall be punished as imposed upon him by the woman’s husband” (Exodus 21:22).
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Ketubot 112: Honey, I Shrunk the Fruit
Ketubot: 107-112 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Minnesota, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Bronx, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Ketubot 34
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ€Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉ β Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΦΈΧ!
It is Rabbi Shimon, who said: The legal status of slaughter that is improper, in that it does not render the meat fit to be eaten, is not that of slaughter. Therefore, one is not liable for slaughter of the animal. The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to idolatry and the ox that is stoned, as their slaughter is ineffective in rendering the meat fit to be eaten; however, the slaughter on Shabbat is a proper act of slaughter, as we learned in a mishna (αΈ€ullin 14a): In the case of one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although he is liable to receive the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat, his slaughter is valid and the meat may be eaten.
Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΉΧΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΉΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¦ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧΧΦ·Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¦ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ, ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara answers: The tanna of the baraita under discussion holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan HaSandlar, as it is taught in a baraita:
With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat the food he cooked; if he did so intentionally, he may not eat it at all. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehuda says: If he cooked unwittingly he may eat at the conclusion of Shabbat, as the Sages penalized even one who sinned unwittingly in that they prohibited him from deriving immediate benefit from the dish that he cooked; if he sinned intentionally, he may not eat from it ever.
Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan HaSandlar says: If he did so unwittingly, the food may be eaten at the conclusion of Shabbat by others but not by him; if he did so intentionally, it may not be eaten ever, neither by him nor by other Jews. According to Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan HaSandlar, food prepared by means of intentional desecration of Shabbat is unfit to be eaten. That is true with regard to cooking food on Shabbat and with regard to slaughtering an animal on Shabbat.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨? ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ! ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧΧ΄ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan HaSandlar? The Gemara explains: It is as Rabbi αΈ€iyya taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi. It is written: βAnd you shall observe Shabbat, for it is sacred to you; he who profanes it shall be put to deathβ (Exodus 31:14); just as with regard to a sacred item consecrated to the Temple, eating it is prohibited, so too, with regard to food produced through action that desecrates Shabbat, eating it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: If so, perhaps the analogy should be extended to include the following: Just as with regard to a sacred item, deriving benefit from it is prohibited, so too, with regard to the product of an action that desecrates Shabbat, deriving benefit from it should be prohibited. The Gemara answers: The verse states: βIt is sacred to youβ (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it shall be yours in the sense that one may derive benefit from it.
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ? ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΧ΄, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara asks: Based on the analogy between actions that desecrate Shabbat and sacred items, one might have thought that even if the action was performed unwittingly it should be prohibited to eat its product, as is the case with regard to sacred items. Therefore, the verse states: βHe who profanes it shall be put to deathβ (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it is with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat intentionally that I stated to you this analogy to sacred items, as the verse is clearly referring to one who is liable to receive the death penalty, and not with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat unwittingly, who is not executed.
Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ β ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄Χ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ.
The Gemara comments: Rav AαΈ₯a and Ravina disagree with regard to this matter. One said: The product of an action that desecrates Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law, and one said that it is prohibited by rabbinic law. With regard to the one who said that it is prohibited by Torah law, it is as we said, that it is based on the verse interpreted by Rabbi αΈ€iyya. And the one who said that it is prohibited by rabbinic law holds that the verse states: βIt is sacred,β from which he infers: It is sacred, but the product of its actions is not sacred, and therefore, by Torah law it may be eaten.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ? ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said it is prohibited by rabbinic law, what is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis who exempt the thief from payment for the slaughter performed by his agent on Shabbat? By Torah law, the slaughter is valid. The Gemara answers: When the Rabbis exempt the thief from payment, it is with regard to the rest of the cases, i.e., one who slaughters for idolatry or an ox sentenced to stoning, not with regard to Shabbat.
ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ.
The Gemara asks the following question with regard to Rabbi Meirβs opinion that one who slaughters for idolatry is liable to pay the owner for the animal. Once he slaughtered the animal a bit, at the very start of the act of slaughter, it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from the animal because it is an animal sacrificed to idolatry; and when he slaughters the rest, it is not the animal that belongs to its owner that he is slaughtering. Since it is prohibited to derive benefit from the animal, it has no value and there is no ownership. Rava said: It is referring to one who says, prior to the slaughter, that he is worshipping the idol only at the completion of the slaughter, and therefore the prohibition takes effect only then.
Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨.
The Gemara asks the following question with regard to Rabbi Meirβs opinion that one who slaughters the ox that is stoned is liable to pay for the slaughter. Why is he liable? It is not the ownerβs ox that he is slaughtering, since once the ox is sentenced to be stoned it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Rabba said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the owners entrusted the ox to a bailee and the ox injured another person while in the baileeβs house, and it was sentenced to be stoned while in the baileeβs house, and the thief then stole it from the baileeβs house and slaughtered it.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ. Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨. ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
And this solution is based on the fact that Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yaβakov and holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yaβakov, who said: Even after the ox was sentenced to be stoned, if the bailee returned it to its owners, it is returned. Despite the fact that the ox is now worthless, as no benefit may be derived from it, since the bailee returned an ox that is physically intact the owner has no claim against him. And Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that the legal status of an object that effects monetary loss is like that of money. Even in the case of an object that is worthless, if its elimination causes monetary loss because it must be replaced, it is considered to have value. In this case, although the ox has no value in and of itself, slaughtering the animal prevents the bailee from returning it intact to the owner, requiring him to pay the owner the value of the ox before it was sentenced to be stoned. Consequently, the thief must reimburse the bailee, as the ox has value for the bailee.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΦ· Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ,
Rabba said: Actually, contrary to Rabbi YoαΈ₯ananβs explanation of the baraita, it is referring to one who slaughters the animal himself,
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΧΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ. ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
and 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 these halakhot are different, as it is a novel element that the Torah innovated with regard to the halakhic category of fines; although he is killed, he pays. And Rabba followed his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Rabba said: If one had a stolen kid in his possession that he had stolen previously, and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is liable to pay five times the principal for slaughtering the kid, as he was already liable for stealing before he came to violate the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat. Although he slaughtered the goat on Shabbat, a capital crime, he is liable for the payment because it is a fine. However, if he stole the goat and slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is exempt from the payment of five times the principal as, if there is no payment for theft, due to his liability to receive the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat, and his obligation to repay the theft is not a fine, there is no liability for slaughter and there is no liability for sale.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
And Rabba said: If one had a stolen kid in his possession that he had stolen previously, and he slaughtered it in the course of an act of burglary, he is liable to pay four or five times the principal, as he was already liable for theft before he came to violate the prohibition against burglary. However, if he stole and slaughtered an animal in the course of an act of burglary, he is exempt. Because the owner of the house is permitted to kill the burglar, the status of the burglar is tantamount to one liable to receive the death penalty. As, if there is no payment for theft, there is no liability for slaughter and there is no liability for sale. Rabbaβs statements indicate that one pays the fines for slaughter or sale even if he is liable to receive the death penalty.
ΧΦΌΧ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ β ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara comments: And it was necessary for Rabba to state this halakha with regard to both Shabbat and burglary; as, if he had taught us that one is exempt from payment only with regard to Shabbat, it is because Shabbat is severe since punishment for violation of its prohibition is an eternal prohibition, as whenever witnesses testify that one desecrated Shabbat, he can be executed. However, in the case of burglary, as punishment for violating its prohibition is transitory, e.g., it is permitted for the homeowner to kill the burglar only as long as the burglar remains on his property, say that he is not exempt from payment. And if he taught us the exemption only with regard to burglary, that would be because his burglary is his forewarning. Because he certainly intends to kill the homeowner, it is permitted for the homeowner to kill him without forewarning. In that respect, burglary is a severe prohibition and exempts one from payment. However, Shabbat, which requires forewarning, is a less severe prohibition, and in that case, say that one is not exempt from payment. Therefore, it was necessary for Rabba to state the exemption in both cases.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ. ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ: Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ?!
Rav Pappa said: If one had a stolen cow in his possession that he had stolen previously and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is liable to pay four or five times the principal as he was already liable for theft before he came to violate the prohibition of Shabbat. If a cow was lent to him and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is exempt from paying the fine. Rav AαΈ₯a, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Is Rav Pappa coming to teach us the case of a cow? In other words, what did Rav Pappa add that was not already clear from Rabbaβs statement? The same principle applies with regard to both a kid and a cow. If one was liable to pay for the theft when he stole the animal, he is liable to pay the fine for slaughter as well, even if he is liable to receive the death penalty.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ. Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Φ°Χ‘ΦΆΧΧΦΈ. Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
Rav Ashi said to him: Rav Pappa is coming to teach us the halakha with regard to a borrowed cow, as it could enter your mind to say that since Rav Pappa said: It is from the moment of pulling the animal into his domain that the borrower is obligated to provide the animalβs sustenance, then here too, from the moment of borrowing he is liable to pay for its unavoidable accidents. From that point, the animal is legally in his possession and therefore, even if he slaughtered the animal on Shabbat he should be liable. Therefore, he teaches us that one assumes liability for unavoidable accidents only when they actually occur, and if that is on Shabbat, he is exempt.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦΈ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ.
Rava said: If their father died and left them a borrowed cow, they may use it for the entire duration of the period for which it was borrowed. The right to use a borrowed article continues even after the borrower himself dies. However, if the cow died, they are not liable to pay for its unavoidable accident, as they did not borrow the animal themselves. Similarly, if they thought the cow was their fatherβs and they slaughtered it and ate it, they pay only a reduced assessment of the price of the meat. They are required to pay only for the benefit they received, not the damage they caused the owner. However, if their father left them property as a guarantee for return of the borrowed item, i.e., there was a lien on the fatherβs property during his lifetime, they are obligated to pay the entire sum of the damage.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ.
The Gemara comments: Some teach this statement, that if the father left property as a guarantee his heirs are liable to pay the entire damage, with regard to the first clause of this halakha, and some teach it with regard to the latter clause. The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who teaches it with regard to the first clause, when the animal died, all the more so would he teach this halakha with regard to the latter clause, as since they slaughtered the animal they must pay full damages. And this approach differs with the opinion of Rav Pappa, who said that a borrower is liable for accidents only when the incident occurs. And according to the one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause, this halakha applies only when they slaughtered and ate it; however, with regard to the first clause, when it died, they would not be liable, as the tanna too maintains that liability for unavoidable accidents begins only when the incident occurs, not from when the cow was borrowed. And this is consistent with the ruling of Rav Pappa.
ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨.
Several possible solutions were proposed to resolve the apparent contradiction between the mishna here that says that one who rapes his sister pays a fine and the mishna in Makkot that says that he is flogged. The Gemara comments: Granted, Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan, who explains the mishna as referring to a case where he was not forewarned, did not state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, who explains that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as he establishes the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, a preferable option, as that aligns the unattributed mishna with the halakha. However, what is the reason that Reish Lakish didnβt state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have said to you: Since if they forewarned him he is exempt from payment, when they did not forewarn him, he is exempt as well.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨.
And Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan and Reish Lakish each follow their standard lines of reasoning in this regard, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: With regard to those who unwittingly performed a transgression for which one is liable to receive the death penalty, or those who unwittingly performed a transgression for which one is liable to receive lashes, and that transgression also involved another matter, monetary payment, Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said: He is liable to pay; since he sinned unwittingly he did not receive the severe punishment. And Reish Lakish said he is exempt. The Gemara clarifies the rationales for their statements. Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said he is liable; since they did not forewarn him, he sinned unwittingly. Reish Lakish said he is exempt; since if they forewarned him he is exempt from payment, when they did not forewarn him, he is exempt as well.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΉΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ΅Χ’ΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ©ΧΧ΄,
Reish Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan from the following verse, which describes a case where two people fought and during their struggle they hurt a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry: βAnd yet no harm follow, he shall be punished as imposed upon him by the womanβs husbandβ (Exodus 21:22).
