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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 12, 2022 | 讟状讜 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 37

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Chani Penstein and JJ Hornblass to commemorate the 2nd yahrzeit of their father Mayer Penstein z鈥漧 who loved daf yomi and was so proud of Michelle Farber. Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Leeza Hirt Wilner in loving memory of her grandfather, Mayer Penstein. 鈥淗e loved learning Torah with his grandchildren. He was especially proud to have a granddaughter with whom he could discuss the daf鈥.聽

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讙讬讜专转 砖谞转讙讬讬专讛 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that a captive woman remains in her state of sanctity? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a female convert who converted and saw the flow of menstrual blood on that same day, Rabbi Yehuda says: Deeming her impure from the hour that she saw the menstrual flow is sufficient for her. There is no decree of retroactive impurity on objects that she touched earlier, due to the concern that the blood flow might have started earlier. Rabbi Yosei says: Her legal status is like that of all of the Jewish women, and she therefore transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four hour period following her conversion, or from examination to examination, i.e., from the last time she examined herself.

讜爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 诇讬讗专住 讜诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讬讜专转 讗砖讘讜讬讛 拽讗 专诪讬转 讙讬讜专转 诇讗 诪谞讟专讗 谞驻砖讛 砖讘讜讬讛 诪谞讟专讗 谞驻砖讛

And a convert is required to wait three months after her conversion before marrying a Jew, due to the concern that she is pregnant, leading to confusion whether the child was conceived before or after her conversion; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei permits her to be betrothed and to be married immediately. Clearly, Rabbi Yehuda is concerned that she engaged in sexual relations prior to her conversion. Rav Yosef said to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel: Are you raising a contradiction from the halakha of a convert to that of a captive woman? A convert does not protect herself from engaging in sexual relations before conversion, whereas a captive protects herself, as she is conscious of the sanctity of the Jewish people and does not want to be violated.

讜专诪讬 砖讘讜讬讛 讗砖讘讜讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讬讜专转 讜讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜讛砖驻讞讛 砖谞驻讚讜 讜砖谞转讙讬讬专讜 讜砖谞砖转讞专专讜 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 讘谞讜转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 爪专讬讻讜转 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 诇讬讗专住 讜诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚 讗砖转讬拽

And Rav Pappa bar Shmuel raised a contradiction from one halakha with regard to a captive to another halakha with regard to a captive, as it is taught in a baraita: The convert, or the captive woman or the gentile maidservant, who were redeemed, converted, or emancipated when they were more than three years and one day old, are required to wait three months before marrying; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei permits these women to be betrothed and to be married immediately. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is concerned that she engaged in sexual relations prior to her redemption, contradicting his opinion here. Rav Yosef was silent, unable to respond.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讘讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗砖讛 诪讝谞讛 诪砖诪砖转 讘诪讜讱 砖诇讗 转转注讘专

Later, Rav Yosef said to him: Have you heard anything with regard to this matter? Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said to him: This is what Rav Sheshet said: Rabbi Yehuda is referring to a captive whom witnesses saw engage in intercourse. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the rationale for the ruling of Rabbi Yosei that she may marry immediately? Shouldn鈥檛 he be concerned lest she is pregnant? Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei holds that a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual relations has relations with a contraceptive resorbent at the entrance of her womb, so that she will not become pregnant.

讘砖诇诪讗 讙讬讜专转 讻讬讜谉 讚讚注转讛 诇讗讬讙讬讜专讬 诪谞讟专讗 谞驻砖讛 砖讘讜讬讛 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注讛 讛讬讻讗 诪诪讟讜 诇讛 砖驻讞讛 谞诪讬 讚砖诪注讛 诪驻讬 诪专讛 讗诇讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讘砖谉 讜注讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: Granted, a convert uses the resorbent; since it is her intention to convert, she protects herself from pregnancy. A captive too uses the resorbent because she does not know where they are taking her, and she does not want to become pregnant. A maidservant uses the resorbent too, as she heard from her master that he intends to free her, and she seeks to avoid confusion with regard to the lineage of her offspring. However, with regard a maidservant who emerges from slavery with the extraction by her master of her tooth or her eye, what is there to say? She has no advance knowledge that she will be freed and therefore would not take precautions to avoid becoming pregnant, and Rav Sheshet explained that this is a case where she was seen engaging in sexual relations.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻诇 诪诪讬诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛专讬 讗谞讜住讛 讜诪驻讜转讛 讚诪诪讬诇讗 讜转谞讬讗 讗谞讜住讛 讜诪驻讜转讛 爪专讬讻讜转 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 诇讬讗专住 讜诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚

And if you say that with regard to any situation that occurs on its own, without advance knowledge, Rabbi Yosei concedes to Rabbi Yehuda and did not say that it is permitted for her to marry immediately, that cannot be so. There is the case of a raped or seduced woman, which happens on its own without advance knowledge, and it is taught in a baraita: A raped woman and a seduced woman must wait three months before marrying; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda; Rabbi Yosei permits these women to be betrothed and to be married immediately.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗砖讛 诪讝谞讛 诪转讛驻讻转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转注讘专 讜讗讬讚讱 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 谞讛驻讻讛 讬驻讛 讬驻讛

Rather, Rabba said: The rationale for the ruling of Rabbi Yosei is not because the woman uses a contraceptive resorbent that she inserts before engaging in relations. Rather, Rabbi Yosei holds: A woman who engages in promiscuous sexual relations turns over at the conclusion of the sexual act so that she will not become pregnant. Therefore, even if she engaged in unplanned sexual relations, she can take steps afterward to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda respond to this contention? The Gemara answers: We are concerned lest the semen remain in her womb because she did not turn over properly, and she will become pregnant.

砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讗住讜谉 注谞讜砖 讬注谞砖 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讻讚讬 专砖注转讜 诪砖讜诐 专砖注讛 讗讞转 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖转讬 专砖注讬讜转

搂 The mishna states that one liable to receive the death penalty is exempt from payment, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd yet no harm follow, he shall be punished, etc.鈥 (Exodus 21:22). The Gemara asks: And is this principle derived from here? Actually, it is derived from there: 鈥淎nd to be beaten before his face according to the measure of his iniquity鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2). From the term: His iniquity, it is inferred: You can hold one who performs one action liable for one iniquity, i.e., punishment for violating one prohibition, but you do not hold him liable for two iniquities, i.e., punishments for violating two prohibitions.

讞讚讗 讘诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉 讜讞讚讗 讘诪诇拽讜转 讜诪诪讜谉 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讘诇 诪诇拽讜转 讜诪诪讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: One of these derivations, from the verse 鈥淎nd yet no harm follow鈥 is stated with regard to one who performed an action for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and to pay money, and the liability to be executed exempts him from payment. And one of these derivations, from the verse 鈥淎ccording to the measure of his iniquity,鈥 is stated with regard to one who performed an action for which he is liable to receive lashes and to pay money, and he receives only one punishment. The Gemara elaborates: And both derivations are necessary, as if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to death and money, one would assert that the exemption from payment is due to the fact that there is loss of life, the ultimate punishment, leaving no room for additional punishment; however, in the case of lashes and money, where there is no loss of life, say no, there is no exemption and he is flogged and pays.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪诇拽讜转 讜诪诪讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讗讘诇 诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉 讚讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to lashes and money, one would assert that the exemption from payment is due to the fact that the prohibition that he violated is not severe, as it is punishable by lashes, and for violating a prohibition that is not severe one does not receive two punishments. However, with regard to death and money, where the prohibition that he violated is severe, say no, he is not exempt from receiving two punishments. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to teach both derivations.

讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚讗 讘诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, who said that one is flogged and pays in cases where he violated a prohibition punishable by both, why do I require two derivations teaching that one does not receive the death penalty and pay? The Gemara answers: One derivation is with regard to death and money, exempting one liable to be executed from payment,

讜讞讚讗 讘诪讬转讛 讜诪诇拽讜转 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讚讗 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚讗 讘诪诪讜谞讬讛 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讘诪讬转讛 讜诪诇拽讜转 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讬转讛 讗专讬讻转讗 讛讬讗 讜谞注讘讬讚 讘讬讛

and one derivation is with regard to death and lashes, exempting one liable to be executed from lashes. The Gemara comments: And both verses are necessary, as if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to death and monetary payment, one would assert that the exemption from payment is due to the fact that we do not administer one punishment to his body and one to his money. However, with regard to death and lashes, that both this, death, and that, lashes, are administered to his body, say it is an extended death penalty and let us administer lashes and then the death penalty to him so that his death will ensue from affliction.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬转讛 讜诪诇拽讜转 讚转专转讬 讘讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讗讘诇 诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉 讚讞讚讗 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚讗 讘诪诪讜谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 谞注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 爪专讬讻讗

And if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to death and lashes, one would assert that the exemption from lashes is due to the fact that we do not administer two punishments to his body. However, with regard to death and money, where one is administered to his body and one is administered to his money, say: Let us administer both to him. Therefore, both verses are necessary, to teach that one receives only one punishment in both cases.

讜诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻讜驻专 诇谞驻砖 专讜爪讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转驻讟专讬讛 诪拽讟诇讗 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻讜驻专 诇谞讜住 讗诇 注讬专 诪拽诇讟讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转驻讟专讬讛 诪谉 讙诇讜转

The Gemara asks with regard to the verse 鈥淎nd you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death鈥 (Numbers 35:31), which means that one does not take payment from a person sentenced to death, why do I require this verse, if that principle was already derived from another verse? The Gemara explains that the Merciful One says: Do not take money from him and exempt him from the death penalty. Similarly, the following verse: 鈥淎nd you shall take no ransom for him that is fled to his city of refuge鈥 (Numbers 35:32), why do I require this verse? The Gemara explains that the Merciful One says: Do not take money from him and exempt him from exile.

讜转专讬 拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讞讚 讘诪讝讬讚 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讝讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讗讘诇 砖讜讙讙 讚诇讗 讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讜讙讙 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讘诇 诪讝讬讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: And why do I require two verses to teach the same principle? The Gemara explains: One verse refers to one who killed unwittingly, and one verse refers to one who killed intentionally. The Gemara comments: And both verses are necessary, as if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to an intentional murderer, one would assert that payment is not accepted due to the fact that the prohibition that he violated is severe. However, with regard to an unwitting killer, where the prohibition is not severe, say no, he may pay in lieu of exile. And if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to an unwitting killer, one would assert that payment is not accepted due to the fact that there is no loss of life, as the killer is not executed, and therefore, there is no reason to allow payment in lieu of exile. However, with regard to an intentional killer, where there is loss of life, as he will be executed, say no, he may pay in lieu of execution. Therefore, both verses are necessary.

讜诇讗专抓 诇讗 讬讻讜驻专 诇讚诐 讗砖专 砖讜驻讱 讘讛 讻讬 讗诐 讘讚诐 砖讜驻讻讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks with regard to the following verse: 鈥淎nd no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it鈥 (Numbers 35:33), which also indicates that he cannot be exempted by money, why do I require another verse to teach that one cannot absolve himself from the death penalty by means of payment?

诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 谞转注专驻讛 注讙诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗 讛讛讜专讙 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗专抓 诇讗 讬讻讜驻专 诇讚诐 讗砖专 砖讜驻讱 讘讛 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara explains: It is necessary to teach that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the matter of the calf that is beheaded. If a corpse whose murderer is unknown is found between two towns, the elders of the town nearest to the corpse bring a heifer and behead it in a riverbed, after which they pray for atonement for this murder. The baraita states: From where is it derived that if the calf was beheaded and the murderer was found thereafter, it is derived that one does not exempt him from punishment? It is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it鈥 (Numbers 35:32), from which it is inferred: And not by the blood of the calf.

讜讗转讛 转讘注专 讛讚诐 讛谞拽讬 诪拽专讘讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讜诪转讬诐 讘住讬讬祝 砖讛讜讗 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转讛 转讘注专 讛讚诐 讛谞拽讬 诪拽专讘讱 讛讜拽砖讜 讻诇 砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 诇注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 讗祝 砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专

The Gemara asks: What about the following verse, from the conclusion of the chapter of the heifer: The verse 鈥淎nd so shall you put away the innocent blood from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:9) appears to be teaching the very same halakha, that a murderer must be executed. Why do I need it? The Gemara answers that it is necessary to teach that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that with regard to those executed by sword, e.g., murderers, their execution is administered from the neck, and nowhere else? The verse states: 鈥淎nd so shall you put away the innocent blood from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:9), likening all spillers of blood to the beheaded calf brought for an unresolved murder. Just as there, the calf is beheaded from the neck, so too, murderers are beheaded from the neck.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讜诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讜诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讘专讜专 诇讜 诪讬转讛 讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: If so, just as there, in the case of the beheaded calf, it is beheaded with a cleaver [kofitz] and at the nape of the neck, here too the court executes murderers with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck. Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said that the verse says: 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), from which it is derived: Choose for him an agreeable death. It is prohibited to abuse a guilty person while executing him, and chopping off his head with a cleaver is an unseemly death. The murderer is beheaded from the neck, not with a cleaver, and not by the other methods employed in beheading the calf.

讻诇 讞专诐 讗砖专 讬讞专诐 诪谉 讛讗讚诐 诇讗 讬驻讚讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讜爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 讜讗诪专 讗讞讚 注专讻讜 注诇讬 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara asks with regard to the following verse: 鈥淎nything dedicated [岣rem], that may be dedicated of men, shall not be redeemed; he shall surely be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 27:29), which is interpreted here as: Anyone sentenced to be executed shall not be redeemed; this appears to teach the same halakha as above, so why do I need it? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to teach that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to one taken to be executed, and one person said: His valuation is upon me to donate to the Temple, that he did not say anything and his vow is not binding?

砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 讗砖专 讬讞专诐 诪谉 讛讗讚诐 诇讗 讬驻讚讛 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 拽讜讚诐 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛讗讚诐

It is derived as it is stated: 鈥淎nything dedicated [岣rem], that may be dedicated of men [yo岣ram], shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:29). This verse is taken to mean that anything dedicated, through which a man who is condemned [yo岣ram] is valuated, shall not be redeemed, as the person in question is already considered dead. One might think that even before his verdict is issued this should be so, and that one who said: The valuation of so-and-so on trial for murder is upon me, said nothing of consequence. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat may be dedicated of men,鈥 implying 鈥渙f men,鈥 but not entire men. If it is valuation of an entire man, one not yet sentenced to death, it is binding. If it is valuation of a partial man, one sentenced to death, it is not binding.

讜诇专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞注专讱 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诪讬讜 拽爪讜讘讬谉 讛讗讬 讻诇 讞专诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya, who said that even a person taken to his execution is valuated, and the vow is binding, because the money of his valuation is fixed. The sum of the valuation established in the Torah is not based on the worth of the individual; rather, there is a fixed sum determined by age and gender. Therefore, one may be valuated as long as he is alive. According to that opinion, the question remains with regard to this verse: 鈥淎nything dedicated,鈥 what does he derive from it?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 诇诪讜诪转讬诐 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讜转谞讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讜诪转讻驻专 诇讛谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 讻讜驻专 讬讜砖转 注诇讬讜 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞专诐 诪谉 讛讗讚诐 诇讗 讬驻讚讛

The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: Because we found with regard to those executed at the hand of Heaven, and not through court-administered execution, that they give money and their sins are atoned, as it is stated: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death. If there be laid upon him a ransom then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:29鈥30). One whose ox kills a person is essentially liable to receive the death penalty at the hand of Heaven, and pays money instead. You might think that even with regard to those liable to receive the death penalty at the hands of man it is so, and one can pay in lieu of execution. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淒edicated of men shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:29). One who is executed by man cannot be redeemed with money.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讬转讜转 讞诪讜专讜转 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 砖讙讙转谉 诇讻驻专讛 诪讬转讜转 拽诇讜转 砖谞讬转谞讛 砖讙讙转谉 诇讻驻专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讞专诐

And I have derived this restriction only with regard to prohibitions punishable by severe penalties of death, e.g., striking one鈥檚 father, for which no atonement is designated in the Torah for their unwitting violation. However, with regard to prohibitions punishable by less severe penalties of death, e.g., performing labor on Shabbat, for which atonement, a sin-offering, is designated in the Torah for their unwitting violation, from where is it derived that there is no payment in lieu of execution? The verse states: 鈥淎nything dedicated,鈥 to include all prohibitions punishable by court-administered execution.

讜诇讗 诪诪讬诇讗 诪诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻讜驻专 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转讬驻讟专讬讛 讻诇 讞专诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: And didn鈥檛 you incidentally learn the following conclusion from the verse 鈥淎nd you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death鈥 (Numbers 35:31): Do not take money from him and exempt him from death? Why, then, do I require the phrase: Any 岣rem? Rami bar 岣ma said: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say

  • 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 37: An Ethic of Justice

A female convert needs to wait 3 months post-conversion before getting married, to be sure she wasn't pregnant prior to...

Ketubot 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 37

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘拽讚讜砖转讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讙讬讜专转 砖谞转讙讬讬专讛 讜专讗转讛 讚诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 砖注转讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诪讟诪讗讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜诪驻拽讬讚讛 诇驻拽讬讚讛

And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that a captive woman remains in her state of sanctity? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a female convert who converted and saw the flow of menstrual blood on that same day, Rabbi Yehuda says: Deeming her impure from the hour that she saw the menstrual flow is sufficient for her. There is no decree of retroactive impurity on objects that she touched earlier, due to the concern that the blood flow might have started earlier. Rabbi Yosei says: Her legal status is like that of all of the Jewish women, and she therefore transmits impurity retroactively for a twenty-four hour period following her conversion, or from examination to examination, i.e., from the last time she examined herself.

讜爪专讬讻讛 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 诇讬讗专住 讜诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讬讜专转 讗砖讘讜讬讛 拽讗 专诪讬转 讙讬讜专转 诇讗 诪谞讟专讗 谞驻砖讛 砖讘讜讬讛 诪谞讟专讗 谞驻砖讛

And a convert is required to wait three months after her conversion before marrying a Jew, due to the concern that she is pregnant, leading to confusion whether the child was conceived before or after her conversion; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei permits her to be betrothed and to be married immediately. Clearly, Rabbi Yehuda is concerned that she engaged in sexual relations prior to her conversion. Rav Yosef said to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel: Are you raising a contradiction from the halakha of a convert to that of a captive woman? A convert does not protect herself from engaging in sexual relations before conversion, whereas a captive protects herself, as she is conscious of the sanctity of the Jewish people and does not want to be violated.

讜专诪讬 砖讘讜讬讛 讗砖讘讜讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讙讬讜专转 讜讛砖讘讜讬讛 讜讛砖驻讞讛 砖谞驻讚讜 讜砖谞转讙讬讬专讜 讜砖谞砖转讞专专讜 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 讘谞讜转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 爪专讬讻讜转 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 诇讬讗专住 讜诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚 讗砖转讬拽

And Rav Pappa bar Shmuel raised a contradiction from one halakha with regard to a captive to another halakha with regard to a captive, as it is taught in a baraita: The convert, or the captive woman or the gentile maidservant, who were redeemed, converted, or emancipated when they were more than three years and one day old, are required to wait three months before marrying; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei permits these women to be betrothed and to be married immediately. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is concerned that she engaged in sexual relations prior to her redemption, contradicting his opinion here. Rav Yosef was silent, unable to respond.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讘讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗砖讛 诪讝谞讛 诪砖诪砖转 讘诪讜讱 砖诇讗 转转注讘专

Later, Rav Yosef said to him: Have you heard anything with regard to this matter? Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said to him: This is what Rav Sheshet said: Rabbi Yehuda is referring to a captive whom witnesses saw engage in intercourse. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the rationale for the ruling of Rabbi Yosei that she may marry immediately? Shouldn鈥檛 he be concerned lest she is pregnant? Rabba said: Rabbi Yosei holds that a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual relations has relations with a contraceptive resorbent at the entrance of her womb, so that she will not become pregnant.

讘砖诇诪讗 讙讬讜专转 讻讬讜谉 讚讚注转讛 诇讗讬讙讬讜专讬 诪谞讟专讗 谞驻砖讛 砖讘讜讬讛 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注讛 讛讬讻讗 诪诪讟讜 诇讛 砖驻讞讛 谞诪讬 讚砖诪注讛 诪驻讬 诪专讛 讗诇讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讘砖谉 讜注讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: Granted, a convert uses the resorbent; since it is her intention to convert, she protects herself from pregnancy. A captive too uses the resorbent because she does not know where they are taking her, and she does not want to become pregnant. A maidservant uses the resorbent too, as she heard from her master that he intends to free her, and she seeks to avoid confusion with regard to the lineage of her offspring. However, with regard a maidservant who emerges from slavery with the extraction by her master of her tooth or her eye, what is there to say? She has no advance knowledge that she will be freed and therefore would not take precautions to avoid becoming pregnant, and Rav Sheshet explained that this is a case where she was seen engaging in sexual relations.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻诇 诪诪讬诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛专讬 讗谞讜住讛 讜诪驻讜转讛 讚诪诪讬诇讗 讜转谞讬讗 讗谞讜住讛 讜诪驻讜转讛 爪专讬讻讜转 诇讛诪转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪转讬专 诇讬讗专住 讜诇讬谞砖讗 诪讬讚

And if you say that with regard to any situation that occurs on its own, without advance knowledge, Rabbi Yosei concedes to Rabbi Yehuda and did not say that it is permitted for her to marry immediately, that cannot be so. There is the case of a raped or seduced woman, which happens on its own without advance knowledge, and it is taught in a baraita: A raped woman and a seduced woman must wait three months before marrying; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda; Rabbi Yosei permits these women to be betrothed and to be married immediately.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗砖讛 诪讝谞讛 诪转讛驻讻转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转转注讘专 讜讗讬讚讱 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 谞讛驻讻讛 讬驻讛 讬驻讛

Rather, Rabba said: The rationale for the ruling of Rabbi Yosei is not because the woman uses a contraceptive resorbent that she inserts before engaging in relations. Rather, Rabbi Yosei holds: A woman who engages in promiscuous sexual relations turns over at the conclusion of the sexual act so that she will not become pregnant. Therefore, even if she engaged in unplanned sexual relations, she can take steps afterward to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda respond to this contention? The Gemara answers: We are concerned lest the semen remain in her womb because she did not turn over properly, and she will become pregnant.

砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讗住讜谉 注谞讜砖 讬注谞砖 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讻讚讬 专砖注转讜 诪砖讜诐 专砖注讛 讗讞转 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖转讬 专砖注讬讜转

搂 The mishna states that one liable to receive the death penalty is exempt from payment, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd yet no harm follow, he shall be punished, etc.鈥 (Exodus 21:22). The Gemara asks: And is this principle derived from here? Actually, it is derived from there: 鈥淎nd to be beaten before his face according to the measure of his iniquity鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2). From the term: His iniquity, it is inferred: You can hold one who performs one action liable for one iniquity, i.e., punishment for violating one prohibition, but you do not hold him liable for two iniquities, i.e., punishments for violating two prohibitions.

讞讚讗 讘诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉 讜讞讚讗 讘诪诇拽讜转 讜诪诪讜谉 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讘诇 诪诇拽讜转 讜诪诪讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: One of these derivations, from the verse 鈥淎nd yet no harm follow鈥 is stated with regard to one who performed an action for which he is liable to receive the death penalty and to pay money, and the liability to be executed exempts him from payment. And one of these derivations, from the verse 鈥淎ccording to the measure of his iniquity,鈥 is stated with regard to one who performed an action for which he is liable to receive lashes and to pay money, and he receives only one punishment. The Gemara elaborates: And both derivations are necessary, as if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to death and money, one would assert that the exemption from payment is due to the fact that there is loss of life, the ultimate punishment, leaving no room for additional punishment; however, in the case of lashes and money, where there is no loss of life, say no, there is no exemption and he is flogged and pays.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪诇拽讜转 讜诪诪讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讗讘诇 诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉 讚讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to lashes and money, one would assert that the exemption from payment is due to the fact that the prohibition that he violated is not severe, as it is punishable by lashes, and for violating a prohibition that is not severe one does not receive two punishments. However, with regard to death and money, where the prohibition that he violated is severe, say no, he is not exempt from receiving two punishments. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to teach both derivations.

讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚讗 讘诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, who said that one is flogged and pays in cases where he violated a prohibition punishable by both, why do I require two derivations teaching that one does not receive the death penalty and pay? The Gemara answers: One derivation is with regard to death and money, exempting one liable to be executed from payment,

讜讞讚讗 讘诪讬转讛 讜诪诇拽讜转 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讚讗 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚讗 讘诪诪讜谞讬讛 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讗讘诇 讘诪讬转讛 讜诪诇拽讜转 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讬转讛 讗专讬讻转讗 讛讬讗 讜谞注讘讬讚 讘讬讛

and one derivation is with regard to death and lashes, exempting one liable to be executed from lashes. The Gemara comments: And both verses are necessary, as if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to death and monetary payment, one would assert that the exemption from payment is due to the fact that we do not administer one punishment to his body and one to his money. However, with regard to death and lashes, that both this, death, and that, lashes, are administered to his body, say it is an extended death penalty and let us administer lashes and then the death penalty to him so that his death will ensue from affliction.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬转讛 讜诪诇拽讜转 讚转专转讬 讘讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讗讘诇 诪讬转讛 讜诪诪讜谉 讚讞讚讗 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚讗 讘诪诪讜谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 谞注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 爪专讬讻讗

And if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to death and lashes, one would assert that the exemption from lashes is due to the fact that we do not administer two punishments to his body. However, with regard to death and money, where one is administered to his body and one is administered to his money, say: Let us administer both to him. Therefore, both verses are necessary, to teach that one receives only one punishment in both cases.

讜诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻讜驻专 诇谞驻砖 专讜爪讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转驻讟专讬讛 诪拽讟诇讗 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻讜驻专 诇谞讜住 讗诇 注讬专 诪拽诇讟讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转驻讟专讬讛 诪谉 讙诇讜转

The Gemara asks with regard to the verse 鈥淎nd you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death鈥 (Numbers 35:31), which means that one does not take payment from a person sentenced to death, why do I require this verse, if that principle was already derived from another verse? The Gemara explains that the Merciful One says: Do not take money from him and exempt him from the death penalty. Similarly, the following verse: 鈥淎nd you shall take no ransom for him that is fled to his city of refuge鈥 (Numbers 35:32), why do I require this verse? The Gemara explains that the Merciful One says: Do not take money from him and exempt him from exile.

讜转专讬 拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讞讚 讘诪讝讬讚 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讝讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讗讘诇 砖讜讙讙 讚诇讗 讞诪讬专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 砖讜讙讙 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讘诇 诪讝讬讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬讘讜讚 谞砖诪讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: And why do I require two verses to teach the same principle? The Gemara explains: One verse refers to one who killed unwittingly, and one verse refers to one who killed intentionally. The Gemara comments: And both verses are necessary, as if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to an intentional murderer, one would assert that payment is not accepted due to the fact that the prohibition that he violated is severe. However, with regard to an unwitting killer, where the prohibition is not severe, say no, he may pay in lieu of exile. And if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to an unwitting killer, one would assert that payment is not accepted due to the fact that there is no loss of life, as the killer is not executed, and therefore, there is no reason to allow payment in lieu of exile. However, with regard to an intentional killer, where there is loss of life, as he will be executed, say no, he may pay in lieu of execution. Therefore, both verses are necessary.

讜诇讗专抓 诇讗 讬讻讜驻专 诇讚诐 讗砖专 砖讜驻讱 讘讛 讻讬 讗诐 讘讚诐 砖讜驻讻讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks with regard to the following verse: 鈥淎nd no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it鈥 (Numbers 35:33), which also indicates that he cannot be exempted by money, why do I require another verse to teach that one cannot absolve himself from the death penalty by means of payment?

诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 谞转注专驻讛 注讙诇讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗 讛讛讜专讙 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗专抓 诇讗 讬讻讜驻专 诇讚诐 讗砖专 砖讜驻讱 讘讛 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara explains: It is necessary to teach that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the matter of the calf that is beheaded. If a corpse whose murderer is unknown is found between two towns, the elders of the town nearest to the corpse bring a heifer and behead it in a riverbed, after which they pray for atonement for this murder. The baraita states: From where is it derived that if the calf was beheaded and the murderer was found thereafter, it is derived that one does not exempt him from punishment? It is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it鈥 (Numbers 35:32), from which it is inferred: And not by the blood of the calf.

讜讗转讛 转讘注专 讛讚诐 讛谞拽讬 诪拽专讘讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讜诪转讬诐 讘住讬讬祝 砖讛讜讗 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转讛 转讘注专 讛讚诐 讛谞拽讬 诪拽专讘讱 讛讜拽砖讜 讻诇 砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 诇注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 讗祝 砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专

The Gemara asks: What about the following verse, from the conclusion of the chapter of the heifer: The verse 鈥淎nd so shall you put away the innocent blood from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:9) appears to be teaching the very same halakha, that a murderer must be executed. Why do I need it? The Gemara answers that it is necessary to teach that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that with regard to those executed by sword, e.g., murderers, their execution is administered from the neck, and nowhere else? The verse states: 鈥淎nd so shall you put away the innocent blood from your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:9), likening all spillers of blood to the beheaded calf brought for an unresolved murder. Just as there, the calf is beheaded from the neck, so too, murderers are beheaded from the neck.

讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讜诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讜驻讬抓 讜诪诪讜诇 注讜专祝 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 讘专讜专 诇讜 诪讬转讛 讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: If so, just as there, in the case of the beheaded calf, it is beheaded with a cleaver [kofitz] and at the nape of the neck, here too the court executes murderers with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck. Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said that the verse says: 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18), from which it is derived: Choose for him an agreeable death. It is prohibited to abuse a guilty person while executing him, and chopping off his head with a cleaver is an unseemly death. The murderer is beheaded from the neck, not with a cleaver, and not by the other methods employed in beheading the calf.

讻诇 讞专诐 讗砖专 讬讞专诐 诪谉 讛讗讚诐 诇讗 讬驻讚讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讜爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 讜讗诪专 讗讞讚 注专讻讜 注诇讬 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara asks with regard to the following verse: 鈥淎nything dedicated [岣rem], that may be dedicated of men, shall not be redeemed; he shall surely be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 27:29), which is interpreted here as: Anyone sentenced to be executed shall not be redeemed; this appears to teach the same halakha as above, so why do I need it? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to teach that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to one taken to be executed, and one person said: His valuation is upon me to donate to the Temple, that he did not say anything and his vow is not binding?

砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 讗砖专 讬讞专诐 诪谉 讛讗讚诐 诇讗 讬驻讚讛 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 拽讜讚诐 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讗讚诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛讗讚诐

It is derived as it is stated: 鈥淎nything dedicated [岣rem], that may be dedicated of men [yo岣ram], shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:29). This verse is taken to mean that anything dedicated, through which a man who is condemned [yo岣ram] is valuated, shall not be redeemed, as the person in question is already considered dead. One might think that even before his verdict is issued this should be so, and that one who said: The valuation of so-and-so on trial for murder is upon me, said nothing of consequence. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat may be dedicated of men,鈥 implying 鈥渙f men,鈥 but not entire men. If it is valuation of an entire man, one not yet sentenced to death, it is binding. If it is valuation of a partial man, one sentenced to death, it is not binding.

讜诇专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谉 注拽讘讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞注专讱 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诪讬讜 拽爪讜讘讬谉 讛讗讬 讻诇 讞专诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya, who said that even a person taken to his execution is valuated, and the vow is binding, because the money of his valuation is fixed. The sum of the valuation established in the Torah is not based on the worth of the individual; rather, there is a fixed sum determined by age and gender. Therefore, one may be valuated as long as he is alive. According to that opinion, the question remains with regard to this verse: 鈥淎nything dedicated,鈥 what does he derive from it?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 诇诪讜诪转讬诐 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 砖谞讜转谞讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讜诪转讻驻专 诇讛谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 讻讜驻专 讬讜砖转 注诇讬讜 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞专诐 诪谉 讛讗讚诐 诇讗 讬驻讚讛

The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: Because we found with regard to those executed at the hand of Heaven, and not through court-administered execution, that they give money and their sins are atoned, as it is stated: 鈥淭he ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death. If there be laid upon him a ransom then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:29鈥30). One whose ox kills a person is essentially liable to receive the death penalty at the hand of Heaven, and pays money instead. You might think that even with regard to those liable to receive the death penalty at the hands of man it is so, and one can pay in lieu of execution. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淒edicated of men shall not be redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 27:29). One who is executed by man cannot be redeemed with money.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讬转讜转 讞诪讜专讜转 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 砖讙讙转谉 诇讻驻专讛 诪讬转讜转 拽诇讜转 砖谞讬转谞讛 砖讙讙转谉 诇讻驻专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讞专诐

And I have derived this restriction only with regard to prohibitions punishable by severe penalties of death, e.g., striking one鈥檚 father, for which no atonement is designated in the Torah for their unwitting violation. However, with regard to prohibitions punishable by less severe penalties of death, e.g., performing labor on Shabbat, for which atonement, a sin-offering, is designated in the Torah for their unwitting violation, from where is it derived that there is no payment in lieu of execution? The verse states: 鈥淎nything dedicated,鈥 to include all prohibitions punishable by court-administered execution.

讜诇讗 诪诪讬诇讗 诪诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻讜驻专 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜转讬驻讟专讬讛 讻诇 讞专诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: And didn鈥檛 you incidentally learn the following conclusion from the verse 鈥淎nd you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death鈥 (Numbers 35:31): Do not take money from him and exempt him from death? Why, then, do I require the phrase: Any 岣rem? Rami bar 岣ma said: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say

Scroll To Top