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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 10, 2022 | ื™ืดื’ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืืกื•ืŸ ืžืžืฉ ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ืืกื•ืŸ ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืืกื•ืŸ ืขื ื•ืฉ ื™ืขื ืฉ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืืกื•ืŸ ืœื ืืกื•ืŸ ืžืžืฉ

Is this not referring to actual harm, i.e., the womanโ€™s 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 Yoแธฅanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish: โ€œAnd yet no harm follow, he shall be punishedโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ืฉื•ื’ื’ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ื ื•ื”ื ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ื•ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื”

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 didnโ€™t the Sage of the school of แธคizkiyya 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 โ€œAnd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall dieโ€ (Leviticus 24:21).

ืžื” ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ื—ื™ืœืงืช ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื™ืจื™ื“ื” ืœื“ืจืš ืขืœื™ื™ื” ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืœื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืฃ ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ืœื ืชื—ืœื•ืง ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื™ืจื™ื“ื” ืœื“ืจืš ืขืœื™ื™ื” ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืœื ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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.

ืืœื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ืฉื•ื’ื’ื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžืœืงื•ืช ืฉื•ื’ื’ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ืื™ืชืงื•ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžืœืงื™ื•ืช ืœื ืื™ืชืงื•ืฉ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžืœืงื™ื•ืช ื›ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช

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 แธคizkiyya. 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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืชื™ื ืจืฉืข ืจืฉืข ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืชื™ื ืžื›ื” ืžื›ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืจื‘ื ื”ื™ ืžื›ื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื•ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ืฉืœืžื ื” ื•ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ื™ื•ืžืช ื”ืื™ ื‘ืงื˜ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื ื”ืื™ ืžื›ื” ืžื›ื” ื ืคืฉ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ืฉืœืžื ื” ื ืคืฉ ืชื—ืช ื ืคืฉ ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืชืŸ ืžื•ื ื‘ืขืžื™ืชื• [ื›ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื” ืœื•]

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 โ€œThat he is wicked and liable to dieโ€ (Numbers 35:31), and the term wicked in the verse โ€œThat he is wicked and liable to be floggedโ€ (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 โ€œAnd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall dieโ€ (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: โ€œAnd he who smites an animal shall pay for it, a life for a lifeโ€ (Leviticus 24:18), and juxtaposed to it, it is written: โ€œAnd a man who places a blemish upon his counterpart, as he has done so shall be done to himโ€ (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.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืœืื• ืžื›ื” ื”ื™ื ืื ืŸ ื”ื›ืื” ื”ื›ืื” ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ืจ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื›ืื” ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื›ืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this term that appears in the latter verse is โ€œplaces a blemish,โ€ 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.

ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื“ืžื—ื™ื™ื” ืงืจืข ืฉื™ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืœื™ื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ืœืจื‘ื ื•ืœืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ื•ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืžืื™ ื“ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืœืื™ืคืœื•ื’ื™ ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื“ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื’ื•ืคื” ืื™ื›ื ืœืื™ืคืœื•ื’ื™

ยง Rav แธคiyya said to Rava: And according to the derivation of the tanna of the school of แธคizkiyya, 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.

ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ืฉืœืžื ื” ื•ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ื™ื•ืžืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ืืžืื™ ื™ื•ืžืช ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ืฉืœืžื ื” ืืœื ืœืื• ื‘ื—ื•ืœ

The Gemara answers: That notion should not enter your mind, as it is written: โ€œAnd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall dieโ€ (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, isnโ€™t the verse clearly referring to a case during the week?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื“ืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืงื ืก ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืžืฉืœื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืงืฉื™ื ื‘ืชื• ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ื•ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ื”ืงื ื” ืงืฉื™ื ืื—ื•ืชื• ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืงืฉื™ื ืžืžื–ืจืช

ยง 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 Neแธฅunya ben HaKana, it is difficult, as why does the mishna rule that he pays the fine for raping his sister? Rabbi Neแธฅunya 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 Yitzแธฅak, 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?

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ืžื™ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืœื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื” ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ืš ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”

This works out well if Rabba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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 Yoแธฅanan, 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 Yoแธฅanan in this regard.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืžืชื ื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžืœืงื™ื•ืช ื›ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ื•ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ื”ืงื ื” ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง

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 Neแธฅunya 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 Yitzแธฅak, who rules that those liable to receive karet are not flogged.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืฉื ื™ื•ืช ืœืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืœื ืงื ืก ื•ืœื ืคื™ืชื•ื™ ื”ืžืžืื ืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืœื ืงื ืก ื•ืœื ืคื™ืชื•ื™ ืื™ื™ืœื•ื ื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืœื ืงื ืก ื•ืœื ืคื™ืชื•ื™ ื•ื”ื™ื•ืฆืืช ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ืจืข ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืœื ืงื ืก ื•ืœื ืคื™ืชื•ื™

ยง 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.

ืžืื™ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื™ื•ืช ืœืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืขืจื™ื•ืช

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 sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • 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

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืืกื•ืŸ ืžืžืฉ ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ืืกื•ืŸ ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืืกื•ืŸ ืขื ื•ืฉ ื™ืขื ืฉ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืืกื•ืŸ ืœื ืืกื•ืŸ ืžืžืฉ

Is this not referring to actual harm, i.e., the womanโ€™s 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 Yoแธฅanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish: โ€œAnd yet no harm follow, he shall be punishedโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ืฉื•ื’ื’ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ื ื•ื”ื ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ื•ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื”

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 didnโ€™t the Sage of the school of แธคizkiyya 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 โ€œAnd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall dieโ€ (Leviticus 24:21).

ืžื” ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื ื—ื™ืœืงืช ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื™ืจื™ื“ื” ืœื“ืจืš ืขืœื™ื™ื” ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืœื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืฃ ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ืœื ืชื—ืœื•ืง ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื–ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืœืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื™ืจื™ื“ื” ืœื“ืจืš ืขืœื™ื™ื” ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืœื ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืžืžื•ืŸ

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.

ืืœื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ืฉื•ื’ื’ื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžืœืงื•ืช ืฉื•ื’ื’ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ืื™ืชืงื•ืฉ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžืœืงื™ื•ืช ืœื ืื™ืชืงื•ืฉ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžืœืงื™ื•ืช ื›ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช

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 แธคizkiyya. 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 Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืชื™ื ืจืฉืข ืจืฉืข ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืชื™ื ืžื›ื” ืžื›ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืจื‘ื ื”ื™ ืžื›ื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื•ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ืฉืœืžื ื” ื•ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ื™ื•ืžืช ื”ืื™ ื‘ืงื˜ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื ื”ืื™ ืžื›ื” ืžื›ื” ื ืคืฉ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ืฉืœืžื ื” ื ืคืฉ ืชื—ืช ื ืคืฉ ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืชืŸ ืžื•ื ื‘ืขืžื™ืชื• [ื›ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ื›ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื” ืœื•]

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 โ€œThat he is wicked and liable to dieโ€ (Numbers 35:31), and the term wicked in the verse โ€œThat he is wicked and liable to be floggedโ€ (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 โ€œAnd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall dieโ€ (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: โ€œAnd he who smites an animal shall pay for it, a life for a lifeโ€ (Leviticus 24:18), and juxtaposed to it, it is written: โ€œAnd a man who places a blemish upon his counterpart, as he has done so shall be done to himโ€ (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.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืœืื• ืžื›ื” ื”ื™ื ืื ืŸ ื”ื›ืื” ื”ื›ืื” ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ืจ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื›ืื” ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื›ืื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื” ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this term that appears in the latter verse is โ€œplaces a blemish,โ€ 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.

ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื“ืžื—ื™ื™ื” ืงืจืข ืฉื™ืจืื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืœื™ื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ืœืจื‘ื ื•ืœืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ื•ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืžืื™ ื“ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืœืื™ืคืœื•ื’ื™ ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื“ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื’ื•ืคื” ืื™ื›ื ืœืื™ืคืœื•ื’ื™

ยง Rav แธคiyya said to Rava: And according to the derivation of the tanna of the school of แธคizkiyya, 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.

ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ืฉืœืžื ื” ื•ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ื™ื•ืžืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืžื›ื” ืื“ื ืืžืื™ ื™ื•ืžืช ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืžื›ื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ืฉืœืžื ื” ืืœื ืœืื• ื‘ื—ื•ืœ

The Gemara answers: That notion should not enter your mind, as it is written: โ€œAnd one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall dieโ€ (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, isnโ€™t the verse clearly referring to a case during the week?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืฉื—ื™ื“ืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ืงื ืก ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ืžืฉืœื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืงืฉื™ื ื‘ืชื• ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ื•ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ื”ืงื ื” ืงืฉื™ื ืื—ื•ืชื• ืื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืงืฉื™ื ืžืžื–ืจืช

ยง 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 Neแธฅunya ben HaKana, it is difficult, as why does the mishna rule that he pays the fine for raping his sister? Rabbi Neแธฅunya 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 Yitzแธฅak, 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?

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ืžื™ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืœื ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืชืจืฅ ืœื” ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ืš ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”

This works out well if Rabba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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 Yoแธฅanan, 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 Yoแธฅanan in this regard.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืžืชื ื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ืชื•ืจื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžืœืงื™ื•ืช ื›ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ื•ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ื”ืงื ื” ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง

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 Neแธฅunya 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 Yitzแธฅak, who rules that those liable to receive karet are not flogged.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืฉื ื™ื•ืช ืœืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืœื ืงื ืก ื•ืœื ืคื™ืชื•ื™ ื”ืžืžืื ืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืœื ืงื ืก ื•ืœื ืคื™ืชื•ื™ ืื™ื™ืœื•ื ื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืœื ืงื ืก ื•ืœื ืคื™ืชื•ื™ ื•ื”ื™ื•ืฆืืช ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื ืจืข ืื™ืŸ ืœื” ืœื ืงื ืก ื•ืœื ืคื™ืชื•ื™

ยง 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.

ืžืื™ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื™ื•ืช ืœืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืขืจื™ื•ืช

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