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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 9, 2015 | 讬状讞 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 35

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讜谉 诪诪砖 诇讗 讚讬谉 讗住讜谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讗住讜谉 注谞讜砖 讬注谞砖 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讬谉 讗住讜谉 诇讗 讗住讜谉 诪诪砖

Is this not referring to actual harm, i.e., the woman鈥檚 death? And the verse states that he pays only if she did not die, but if she died is he exempt, even if he was not forewarned? The Gemara answers: No, the verse can be explained to mean: If there is no sentence of harm. If the court does not actually sentence him to death, he pays the damages for the miscarried fetus. He is exempt from payment only if he is actually executed. Some say a different version of this exchange: Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish: 鈥淎nd yet no harm follow, he shall be punished鈥 (Exodus 21:22); is this not referring to a sentence of harm? The Gemara answers: No, the verse can be explained to mean: If there is no actual harm.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛

Rava said: Is there anyone who said that those who unwittingly performed a transgression for which one is liable to receive the death penalty are obligated to pay? But didn鈥檛 the Sage of the school of 岣zkiyya teach: The verse speaks of one who smites a person, and the verse speaks of one who smites an animal. The two cases are juxtaposed in the verse 鈥淎nd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall die鈥 (Leviticus 24:21).

诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讞讬诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 诇讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪诪讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讞讬讬讘讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 诇讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 诇讞讬讬讘讜 诪诪讜谉 讗诇讗 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪诪讜谉

Just as in the case of one who smites an animal, you did not distinguish between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally, between one who acted with intent and one who acted with no intent, between one who smites in the course of a downward motion and one who smites in the course of an upward motion, and in all those cases it is not to exempt him from paying money but rather to obligate him to pay money; so too, in the case of one who smites a person, do not distinguish between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally, between one who acted with intent and one who acted with no intent, between one who smites in the course of a downward motion and one who smites in the course of an upward motion. In all those cases as well it is not to obligate him to pay money but rather to exempt him from paying money. The halakha in both cases is unconditional; when he smites an animal he is always liable to pay and when he smites a person he is always exempt from payment, regardless of whether or not he is actually executed.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚驻讟讜专讬谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讜转 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 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讗讬转拽讜砖 讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 诇讗 讗讬转拽讜砖 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讘驻讬专讜砖 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 讻讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转

Rather, when Ravin 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, everyone agrees that they are exempt, as per the derivation of the Sages of the school of 岣zkiyya. When they disagree it is with regard to those who unwittingly performed a transgression for which one is liable to receive lashes, and another matter, for which he is liable to pay money. Rabbi Yo岣nan said that he is obligated to pay, as those liable to receive the death penalty are juxtaposed to cases of monetary payment and are unconditionally exempt from payment. However, those liable to receive lashes are not juxtaposed. Therefore, in the case of one who is liable to receive lashes, unless one is actually flogged, he is obligated to pay for the damage he inflicted. Reish Lakish said: He is exempt, as the Torah explicitly included those liable to receive lashes, like those liable to receive the death penalty, and unconditionally exempted them from payment.

讛讬讻谉 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗转讬讗 专砖注 专砖注 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 诪讻讛 诪讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讛讬 诪讻讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 讜诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讬讜诪转 讛讗讬 讘拽讟诇讗 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 诪讻讛 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬转谉 诪讜诐 讘注诪讬转讜 [讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜]

The Gemara asks: Where did the Torah include those liable to be flogged? Abaye said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term wicked in the verse 鈥淭hat he is wicked and liable to die鈥 (Numbers 35:31), and the term wicked in the verse 鈥淭hat he is wicked and liable to be flogged鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2). Rava said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term smites in one verse and the term smites in another verse. Rava Pappa said to Rava: To which term smites are you referring? If we say that it is the verse 鈥淎nd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall die鈥 (Leviticus 24:21), clearly that is not so, as that is written with regard to death. Smiting a person in that verse is referring to murder. Rather, it is to this term smites that Rava is referring: 鈥淎nd he who smites an animal shall pay for it, a life for a life鈥 (Leviticus 24:18), and juxtaposed to it, it is written: 鈥淎nd a man who places a blemish upon his counterpart, as he has done so shall be done to him鈥 (Leviticus 24:19). The verses liken those liable to receive lashes to those obligated to pay money, from which it is derived that those liable to receive lashes are exempt from payment.

讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讻讛 讛讬讗 讗谞谉 讛讻讗讛 讛讻讗讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讘讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 讘专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讛讻讗讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讛讻讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this term that appears in the latter verse is 鈥減laces a blemish,鈥 not smites. How, then, can one derive a verbal analogy? The Gemara answers: This is not a verbal analogy based on identical terms; rather, it is based on identical concepts. We are saying that it is a verbal analogy between smiting an animal in the first verse and smiting a person in the latter verse. The Gemara asks: However, when the second verse is written, it is written with regard to one who injures another, and one who injures another is subject to payment and not to lashes. This undermines the proof, as lashes are not mentioned in either verse. The Gemara answers: If it is not a matter of smiting that causes damage equivalent to the value of a peruta, in which case he would pay and would not be flogged, apply it to the matter of smiting that causes damage that is not equivalent to the value of a peruta. Since in that case there is no payment for the injury, one is flogged for striking that blow.

住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讗讜 讘专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讜讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讘讛讚讬 讚诪讞讬讬讛 拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 讚讬诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Ultimately, one who injured another and is flogged is not subject to payment, as he inflicted damage worth less than a peruta. How then can a principle be derived that one who is liable to receive lashes does not pay even when he is not actually flogged? The Gemara answers: The juxtaposition of the verses is necessary only with regard to a situation where at the same time that he struck him he tore his silk. In that case, where he performed a transgression for which he is liable to be flogged and is also liable to pay damages, it is derived that he would be exempt from paying damages even if he is not actually flogged.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘讗 讜诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讞讜诇 讻转讬讘 讜诇讬讻讗 诇讗讬驻诇讜讙讬 讚诇诪讗 讘砖讘转 讻转讬讘 讚讘讘讛诪讛 讙讜驻讛 讗讬讻讗 诇讗讬驻诇讜讙讬

Rav 岣yya said to Rava: And according to the derivation of the tanna of the school of 岣zkiyya, who said: The verse speaks of one who smites a person, and the verse speaks of one who smites an animal. From where does that tanna know that it is written with regard to a weekday and therefore there is no reason to distinguish between an unwitting and a purposeful sinner; perhaps this case is stated with regard to one who injured an animal on Shabbat, when concerning the animal itself there is reason to distinguish between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally. In the case of one who acted unwittingly, he is not liable to receive the death penalty and should therefore be obligated to pay, whereas one who acted intentionally is exempt from payment because he receives the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat. If so, there is no source to exempt from payment one who is not actually executed.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 讜诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讬讜诪转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讗诪讗讬 讬讜诪转 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗转专讜 讘讬讛 讜讗讬 讘砖讘转 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讞讜诇

The Gemara answers: That notion should not enter your mind, as it is written: 鈥淎nd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall die鈥 (Leviticus 24:21). What are the circumstances discussed in this verse? If it is a case where the witnesses did not forewarn him, i.e., when one who smites a person is not forewarned, why should he be executed? There is no corporal punishment, neither lashes nor execution, without forewarning. Rather, it is obvious that they forewarned him. And if the verse is referring to one who sinned on Shabbat after forewarning, would one who smites an animal be obligated to pay for it? He is executed and certainly exempt from payment. Rather, isn鈥檛 the verse clearly referring to a case during the week?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻诪讗谉 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽砖讬讗 讘转讜 讗讬 讻专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 拽砖讬讗 讗讞讜转讜 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 拽砖讬讗 诪诪讝专转

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Rabba, who said: It is a novel element that the Torah innovated with regard to the halakhic category of fine, and even though he is executed he pays the fine; in accordance with whose opinion does Rabba establish the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult; why is he exempt if he raped his daughter? According to Rabba, Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that even one liable to receive the death penalty pays the fine. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana, it is difficult, as why does the mishna rule that he pays the fine for raping his sister? Rabbi Ne岣nya holds that one liable to receive karet is exempt from the fine, like those liable to receive the death penalty. If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, who rules that lashes are not administered to those liable to receive karet and therefore they are obligated to pay the fine; however, one who is flogged is exempt from payment, it is difficult, as why did the mishna rule that he is obligated to pay the fine for raping a mamzeret, for which he is liable to receive lashes?

讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 诪转专抓 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讻讬 诪转专抓 诇讛 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

This works out well if Rabba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that one who did not receive forewarning is obligated to pay even if he performed a transgression for which he is liable to be flogged, as he can explain the mishna as well, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, that he is obligated to pay in cases where there was no forewarning. However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, that one who violated a prohibition for which one is liable to be flogged is exempt from payment even if he was not forewarned, how does he explain the mishna? The mishna does not correspond to any of the aforementioned opinions. The Gemara answers: You must say perforce that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan in this regard.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪转谞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讘驻讬专讜砖 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 讻讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽

Rav Mattana said to Abaye: According to Reish Lakish, who said that the Torah explicitly included those who are liable to receive lashes and accorded them legal status like those who are liable to receive the death penalty, unconditionally exempting them from payment; who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana and obligates one who is liable both to receive karet and to be flogged to pay, and the lashes do not exempt him from payment? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with either Rabbi Meir, who says that one who is liable to receive lashes is liable to pay a fine, or Rabbi Yitz岣k, who rules that those liable to receive karet are not flogged.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注专讬讜转 讜砖谞讬讜转 诇注专讬讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讛诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讜讛讬讜爪讗转 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬

搂 The Gemara turns its attention to a related issue. The Sages taught: Women who are forbidden relatives and secondary forbidden relatives receive neither payment of a fine for rape nor payment of a fine for seduction. Similarly, a girl who refuses to remain married to her husband receives neither payment of a fine for rape nor payment of a fine for seduction. Because she was married, she no longer has the presumptive status of a virgin. A sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit] who will never reach puberty and therefore her legal status is not that of a young woman, receives neither payment of a fine for rape nor payment of a fine for seduction. And one who leaves her husband due to a bad reputation receives neither payment of a fine for rape nor payment of a fine for seduction.

诪讗讬 注专讬讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讬讜转 诇注专讬讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注专讬讜转

The Gemara elaborates. What is the meaning of forbidden relatives, and what is the meaning of secondary forbidden relatives in the context of this baraita? If we say that forbidden relatives means

  • 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: 35-41 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue discussing the cases of rape and seduction and when the perpetrator must pay the fine...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 35: Building Up a Gezarah Shavah

Gezarah shavah! Where does the Torah specify all of the people who would deserve lashes as a punishment? From a...

Ketubot 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 35

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讜谉 诪诪砖 诇讗 讚讬谉 讗住讜谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讗住讜谉 注谞讜砖 讬注谞砖 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讬谉 讗住讜谉 诇讗 讗住讜谉 诪诪砖

Is this not referring to actual harm, i.e., the woman鈥檚 death? And the verse states that he pays only if she did not die, but if she died is he exempt, even if he was not forewarned? The Gemara answers: No, the verse can be explained to mean: If there is no sentence of harm. If the court does not actually sentence him to death, he pays the damages for the miscarried fetus. He is exempt from payment only if he is actually executed. Some say a different version of this exchange: Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish: 鈥淎nd yet no harm follow, he shall be punished鈥 (Exodus 21:22); is this not referring to a sentence of harm? The Gemara answers: No, the verse can be explained to mean: If there is no actual harm.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛

Rava said: Is there anyone who said that those who unwittingly performed a transgression for which one is liable to receive the death penalty are obligated to pay? But didn鈥檛 the Sage of the school of 岣zkiyya teach: The verse speaks of one who smites a person, and the verse speaks of one who smites an animal. The two cases are juxtaposed in the verse 鈥淎nd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall die鈥 (Leviticus 24:21).

诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讞讬诇拽转 讘讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 诇讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪诪讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讞讬讬讘讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 诇讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 诇讞讬讬讘讜 诪诪讜谉 讗诇讗 诇驻讜讟专讜 诪诪讜谉

Just as in the case of one who smites an animal, you did not distinguish between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally, between one who acted with intent and one who acted with no intent, between one who smites in the course of a downward motion and one who smites in the course of an upward motion, and in all those cases it is not to exempt him from paying money but rather to obligate him to pay money; so too, in the case of one who smites a person, do not distinguish between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally, between one who acted with intent and one who acted with no intent, between one who smites in the course of a downward motion and one who smites in the course of an upward motion. In all those cases as well it is not to obligate him to pay money but rather to exempt him from paying money. The halakha in both cases is unconditional; when he smites an animal he is always liable to pay and when he smites a person he is always exempt from payment, regardless of whether or not he is actually executed.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚驻讟讜专讬谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讜转 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 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讗讬转拽讜砖 讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 诇讗 讗讬转拽讜砖 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讘驻讬专讜砖 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 讻讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转

Rather, when Ravin 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, everyone agrees that they are exempt, as per the derivation of the Sages of the school of 岣zkiyya. When they disagree it is with regard to those who unwittingly performed a transgression for which one is liable to receive lashes, and another matter, for which he is liable to pay money. Rabbi Yo岣nan said that he is obligated to pay, as those liable to receive the death penalty are juxtaposed to cases of monetary payment and are unconditionally exempt from payment. However, those liable to receive lashes are not juxtaposed. Therefore, in the case of one who is liable to receive lashes, unless one is actually flogged, he is obligated to pay for the damage he inflicted. Reish Lakish said: He is exempt, as the Torah explicitly included those liable to receive lashes, like those liable to receive the death penalty, and unconditionally exempted them from payment.

讛讬讻谉 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗转讬讗 专砖注 专砖注 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗转讬讗 诪讻讛 诪讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讛讬 诪讻讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 讜诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讬讜诪转 讛讗讬 讘拽讟诇讗 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 诪讻讛 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬转谉 诪讜诐 讘注诪讬转讜 [讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜]

The Gemara asks: Where did the Torah include those liable to be flogged? Abaye said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term wicked in the verse 鈥淭hat he is wicked and liable to die鈥 (Numbers 35:31), and the term wicked in the verse 鈥淭hat he is wicked and liable to be flogged鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2). Rava said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term smites in one verse and the term smites in another verse. Rava Pappa said to Rava: To which term smites are you referring? If we say that it is the verse 鈥淎nd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall die鈥 (Leviticus 24:21), clearly that is not so, as that is written with regard to death. Smiting a person in that verse is referring to murder. Rather, it is to this term smites that Rava is referring: 鈥淎nd he who smites an animal shall pay for it, a life for a life鈥 (Leviticus 24:18), and juxtaposed to it, it is written: 鈥淎nd a man who places a blemish upon his counterpart, as he has done so shall be done to him鈥 (Leviticus 24:19). The verses liken those liable to receive lashes to those obligated to pay money, from which it is derived that those liable to receive lashes are exempt from payment.

讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讻讛 讛讬讗 讗谞谉 讛讻讗讛 讛讻讗讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讘讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 讘专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讛讻讗讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讛讻讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this term that appears in the latter verse is 鈥減laces a blemish,鈥 not smites. How, then, can one derive a verbal analogy? The Gemara answers: This is not a verbal analogy based on identical terms; rather, it is based on identical concepts. We are saying that it is a verbal analogy between smiting an animal in the first verse and smiting a person in the latter verse. The Gemara asks: However, when the second verse is written, it is written with regard to one who injures another, and one who injures another is subject to payment and not to lashes. This undermines the proof, as lashes are not mentioned in either verse. The Gemara answers: If it is not a matter of smiting that causes damage equivalent to the value of a peruta, in which case he would pay and would not be flogged, apply it to the matter of smiting that causes damage that is not equivalent to the value of a peruta. Since in that case there is no payment for the injury, one is flogged for striking that blow.

住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讗讜 讘专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讜讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讘讛讚讬 讚诪讞讬讬讛 拽专注 砖讬专讗讬谉 讚讬诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Ultimately, one who injured another and is flogged is not subject to payment, as he inflicted damage worth less than a peruta. How then can a principle be derived that one who is liable to receive lashes does not pay even when he is not actually flogged? The Gemara answers: The juxtaposition of the verses is necessary only with regard to a situation where at the same time that he struck him he tore his silk. In that case, where he performed a transgression for which he is liable to be flogged and is also liable to pay damages, it is derived that he would be exempt from paying damages even if he is not actually flogged.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘讗 讜诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讞讜诇 讻转讬讘 讜诇讬讻讗 诇讗讬驻诇讜讙讬 讚诇诪讗 讘砖讘转 讻转讬讘 讚讘讘讛诪讛 讙讜驻讛 讗讬讻讗 诇讗讬驻诇讜讙讬

Rav 岣yya said to Rava: And according to the derivation of the tanna of the school of 岣zkiyya, who said: The verse speaks of one who smites a person, and the verse speaks of one who smites an animal. From where does that tanna know that it is written with regard to a weekday and therefore there is no reason to distinguish between an unwitting and a purposeful sinner; perhaps this case is stated with regard to one who injured an animal on Shabbat, when concerning the animal itself there is reason to distinguish between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally. In the case of one who acted unwittingly, he is not liable to receive the death penalty and should therefore be obligated to pay, whereas one who acted intentionally is exempt from payment because he receives the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat. If so, there is no source to exempt from payment one who is not actually executed.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 讜诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讬讜诪转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讗诪讗讬 讬讜诪转 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗转专讜 讘讬讛 讜讗讬 讘砖讘转 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讞讜诇

The Gemara answers: That notion should not enter your mind, as it is written: 鈥淎nd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall die鈥 (Leviticus 24:21). What are the circumstances discussed in this verse? If it is a case where the witnesses did not forewarn him, i.e., when one who smites a person is not forewarned, why should he be executed? There is no corporal punishment, neither lashes nor execution, without forewarning. Rather, it is obvious that they forewarned him. And if the verse is referring to one who sinned on Shabbat after forewarning, would one who smites an animal be obligated to pay for it? He is executed and certainly exempt from payment. Rather, isn鈥檛 the verse clearly referring to a case during the week?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 砖讞讬讚砖讛 转讜专讛 讘拽谞住 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬拽讟讬诇 诪砖诇诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻诪讗谉 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽砖讬讗 讘转讜 讗讬 讻专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 拽砖讬讗 讗讞讜转讜 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 拽砖讬讗 诪诪讝专转

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Rabba, who said: It is a novel element that the Torah innovated with regard to the halakhic category of fine, and even though he is executed he pays the fine; in accordance with whose opinion does Rabba establish the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult; why is he exempt if he raped his daughter? According to Rabba, Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that even one liable to receive the death penalty pays the fine. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana, it is difficult, as why does the mishna rule that he pays the fine for raping his sister? Rabbi Ne岣nya holds that one liable to receive karet is exempt from the fine, like those liable to receive the death penalty. If the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, who rules that lashes are not administered to those liable to receive karet and therefore they are obligated to pay the fine; however, one who is flogged is exempt from payment, it is difficult, as why did the mishna rule that he is obligated to pay the fine for raping a mamzeret, for which he is liable to receive lashes?

讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 谞诪讬 诪转专抓 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讻讬 诪转专抓 诇讛 注诇 讻专讞讱 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

This works out well if Rabba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that one who did not receive forewarning is obligated to pay even if he performed a transgression for which he is liable to be flogged, as he can explain the mishna as well, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, that he is obligated to pay in cases where there was no forewarning. However, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, that one who violated a prohibition for which one is liable to be flogged is exempt from payment even if he was not forewarned, how does he explain the mishna? The mishna does not correspond to any of the aforementioned opinions. The Gemara answers: You must say perforce that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan in this regard.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪转谞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讘驻讬专讜砖 专讬讘转讛 转讜专讛 讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 讻讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽

Rav Mattana said to Abaye: According to Reish Lakish, who said that the Torah explicitly included those who are liable to receive lashes and accorded them legal status like those who are liable to receive the death penalty, unconditionally exempting them from payment; who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana and obligates one who is liable both to receive karet and to be flogged to pay, and the lashes do not exempt him from payment? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with either Rabbi Meir, who says that one who is liable to receive lashes is liable to pay a fine, or Rabbi Yitz岣k, who rules that those liable to receive karet are not flogged.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注专讬讜转 讜砖谞讬讜转 诇注专讬讜转 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讛诪诪讗谞转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬 讜讛讬讜爪讗转 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 拽谞住 讜诇讗 驻讬转讜讬

搂 The Gemara turns its attention to a related issue. The Sages taught: Women who are forbidden relatives and secondary forbidden relatives receive neither payment of a fine for rape nor payment of a fine for seduction. Similarly, a girl who refuses to remain married to her husband receives neither payment of a fine for rape nor payment of a fine for seduction. Because she was married, she no longer has the presumptive status of a virgin. A sexually underdeveloped woman [ailonit] who will never reach puberty and therefore her legal status is not that of a young woman, receives neither payment of a fine for rape nor payment of a fine for seduction. And one who leaves her husband due to a bad reputation receives neither payment of a fine for rape nor payment of a fine for seduction.

诪讗讬 注专讬讜转 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讬讜转 诇注专讬讜转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注专讬讜转

The Gemara elaborates. What is the meaning of forbidden relatives, and what is the meaning of secondary forbidden relatives in the context of this baraita? If we say that forbidden relatives means

Scroll To Top