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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 8, 2015 | 讬状讝 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

  • 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 34

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讛转讬谞讞 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讗诇讗 砖讞讬讟转 砖讘转 砖讞讬讟讛 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘砖讘转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

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 (岣llin 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.

住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讘砖诇 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转 诇讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the baraita under discussion holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛砖讘转 讻讬 拽讚砖 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诪讛 拽讜讚砖 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗祝 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬 诪讛 拽讜讚砖 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗祝 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诐 砖诇讻诐 讬讛讗

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar? The Gemara explains: It is as Rabbi 岣yya taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi. It is written: 鈥淎nd you shall observe Shabbat, for it is sacred to you; he who profanes it shall be put to death鈥 (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: 鈥淚t is sacred to you鈥 (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it shall be yours in the sense that one may derive benefit from it.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讜讙讙 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘诪讝讬讚 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讘砖讜讙讙

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: 鈥淗e who profanes it shall be put to death鈥 (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.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讚讗诪专谉 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 拽讚砖 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 拽讜讚砖 讜讗讬谉 诪注砖讬讛 拽讜讚砖

The Gemara comments: Rav A岣 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 岣yya. And the one who said that it is prohibited by rabbinic law holds that the verse states: 鈥淚t is sacred,鈥 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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻讟专讬 讻讬 拽讗 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讗砖讗专讗

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.

讟讜讘讞 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讞讟 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讗讬转住专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讻讬 拽讗 讟讘讞 诇讗讜 讚诪专讬讛 拽讗 讟讘讞 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 讘讙诪专 讝讘讬讞讛 讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讛

The Gemara asks the following question with regard to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 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.

砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讟讘讞 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖诪住专讜 诇砖讜诪专 讜讛讝讬拽 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讬讛 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜讙谞讘讜 讙谞讘 诪讘讬转 砖讜诪专

The Gemara asks the following question with regard to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 house, and it was sentenced to be stoned while in the bailee鈥檚 house, and the thief then stole it from the bailee鈥檚 house and slaughtered it.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚讗诪专 讗祝 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讛讞讝讬专讜 砖讜诪专 诇讘注诇讬讜 诪讜讞讝专 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 诇诪诪讜谉 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬

And this solution is based on the fact that Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov and holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

专讘讛 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘讟讜讘讞 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜

Rabba said: Actually, contrary to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 explanation of the baraita, it is referring to one who slaughters the animal himself,

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪转 讜诪砖诇诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜砖讗谞讬 讛谞讬 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬讛 讙讚讬 讙谞讜讘 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讬谉 讟讘讬讞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讛

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬讛 讙讚讬 讙谞讜讘 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讜 讘诪讞转专转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 诪讞转专转 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讘诪讞转专转 驻讟讜专 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讬谉 讟讘讬讞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讛

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鈥檚 statements indicate that one pays the fines for slaughter or sale even if he is liable to receive the death penalty.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讘转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬住讜专讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 诪讞转专转 讚讗讬住讜专 砖注讛 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讞转专转 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讞转专转讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 讛转专讗转讜 讗讘诇 砖讘转 讚讘注讬讗 讛转专讗讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬转讛 驻专讛 讙谞讜讘讛 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讛讬转讛 驻专讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讛 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讘 驻驻讗 驻专讛 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉

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 A岣, 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讗讜诇讛 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖注转 诪砖讬讻讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖注转 砖讗诇讛 讗转讞讬讬讘 讘讗讜谞住讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 驻专讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诪砖转诪砖讬谉 讘讛 讻诇 讬诪讬 砖讗诇转讛 诪转讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住讛 讻住讘讜专讬谉 砖诇 讗讘讬讛诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讘讞讜讛 讜讗讻诇讜讛 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讚诪讬 讘砖专 讘讝讜诇 讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 property during his lifetime, they are obligated to pay the entire sum of the damage.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗住讬驻讗 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗专讬砖讗 诇讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 驻驻讗

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 驻讟讜专 讻讬 诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专

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 Yo岣nan, 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鈥檛 state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan? 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.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 驻讟讜专 讻讬 诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讗住讜谉 注谞讜砖 讬注谞砖

Reish Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd yet no harm follow, he shall be punished as imposed upon him by the woman鈥檚 husband鈥 (Exodus 21:22).

  • 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 who鈥檚 testimony is believed in court. The...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 34: Two Sins, One Death Penalty

If one slaughters an animal on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, that's a violation of Shabbat or Yom Kippur, but the...

Ketubot 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 34

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讗讬谞讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讛转讬谞讞 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讗诇讗 砖讞讬讟转 砖讘转 砖讞讬讟讛 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘砖讘转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

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 (岣llin 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.

住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讘砖诇 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转 诇讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the baraita under discussion holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讻讚讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛砖讘转 讻讬 拽讚砖 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诪讛 拽讜讚砖 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗祝 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬 诪讛 拽讜讚砖 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗祝 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讗住讜专 讘讛谞讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诐 砖诇讻诐 讬讛讗

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar? The Gemara explains: It is as Rabbi 岣yya taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi. It is written: 鈥淎nd you shall observe Shabbat, for it is sacred to you; he who profanes it shall be put to death鈥 (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: 鈥淚t is sacred to you鈥 (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it shall be yours in the sense that one may derive benefit from it.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讜讙讙 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘诪讝讬讚 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 讘砖讜讙讙

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: 鈥淗e who profanes it shall be put to death鈥 (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.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪注砖讛 砖讘转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讚讗诪专谉 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 拽讚砖 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 拽讜讚砖 讜讗讬谉 诪注砖讬讛 拽讜讚砖

The Gemara comments: Rav A岣 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 岣yya. And the one who said that it is prohibited by rabbinic law holds that the verse states: 鈥淚t is sacred,鈥 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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻讟专讬 讻讬 拽讗 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讗砖讗专讗

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.

讟讜讘讞 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讞讟 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讗讬转住专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讻讬 拽讗 讟讘讞 诇讗讜 讚诪专讬讛 拽讗 讟讘讞 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 讘讙诪专 讝讘讬讞讛 讛讜讗 注讜讘讚讛

The Gemara asks the following question with regard to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 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.

砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讟讘讞 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖诪住专讜 诇砖讜诪专 讜讛讝讬拽 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讬讛 讘讘讬转 砖讜诪专 讜讙谞讘讜 讙谞讘 诪讘讬转 砖讜诪专

The Gemara asks the following question with regard to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 house, and it was sentenced to be stoned while in the bailee鈥檚 house, and the thief then stole it from the bailee鈥檚 house and slaughtered it.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讚讗诪专 讗祝 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讛讞讝讬专讜 砖讜诪专 诇讘注诇讬讜 诪讜讞讝专 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 诇诪诪讜谉 讻诪诪讜谉 讚诪讬

And this solution is based on the fact that Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov and holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

专讘讛 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘讟讜讘讞 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜

Rabba said: Actually, contrary to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 explanation of the baraita, it is referring to one who slaughters the animal himself,

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪转 讜诪砖诇诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜砖讗谞讬 讛谞讬 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐 讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬讛 讙讚讬 讙谞讜讘 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讬谉 讟讘讬讞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讛

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬讛 讙讚讬 讙谞讜讘 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讜 讘诪讞转专转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 诪讞转专转 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讘诪讞转专转 驻讟讜专 砖讗诐 讗讬谉 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讬谉 讟讘讬讞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讛

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鈥檚 statements indicate that one pays the fines for slaughter or sale even if he is liable to receive the death penalty.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讘转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬住讜专讛 讗讬住讜专 注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 诪讞转专转 讚讗讬住讜专 砖注讛 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讞转专转 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讞转专转讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 讛转专讗转讜 讗讘诇 砖讘转 讚讘注讬讗 讛转专讗讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬转讛 驻专讛 讙谞讜讘讛 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讛讬转讛 驻专讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讛 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 专讘 驻驻讗 驻专讛 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉

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 A岣, 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讗讜诇讛 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖注转 诪砖讬讻讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖注转 砖讗诇讛 讗转讞讬讬讘 讘讗讜谞住讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 驻专讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诪砖转诪砖讬谉 讘讛 讻诇 讬诪讬 砖讗诇转讛 诪转讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住讛 讻住讘讜专讬谉 砖诇 讗讘讬讛诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讘讞讜讛 讜讗讻诇讜讛 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讚诪讬 讘砖专 讘讝讜诇 讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 property during his lifetime, they are obligated to pay the entire sum of the damage.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗住讬驻讗 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗专讬砖讗 诇讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 驻驻讗

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚拽讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 驻讟讜专 讻讬 诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专

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 Yo岣nan, 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鈥檛 state his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan? 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.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 驻讟讜专 讻讬 诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讗住讜谉 注谞讜砖 讬注谞砖

Reish Lakish raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎nd yet no harm follow, he shall be punished as imposed upon him by the woman鈥檚 husband鈥 (Exodus 21:22).

Scroll To Top