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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 16, 2022 | 讬状讟 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 Shlemah 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 41

This month’s learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka.聽

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 驻转讬转讬 讗转 讘转讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 诪砖诇诐 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 讛讗讜诪专 讙谞讘转讬 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讛诪讬转 砖讜专讬 讗转 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讜 砖讜专讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讛诪讬转 砖讜专讬 注讘讚讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讬转专 注诇 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

MISHNA: One who says: I seduced the daughter of so-and-so, pays compensation for humiliation and degradation based on his own admission, but does not pay the fine. Similarly, one who says: I stole, pays the principal, the value of the stolen goods, based on his own admission, but does not pay the double payment and the payment four and five times the principal for the slaughter or sale of the sheep or ox that he stole. Likewise if he confessed: My ox killed so-and-so, or: My ox killed an ox belonging to so-and-so, this owner pays based on his own admission. However, if he said: My ox killed a slave belonging to so-and-so, he does not pay based on his own admission as that payment is a fine. This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than what he damaged, the payments are fines and therefore he does not pay based on his own admission. He pays only based on the testimony of others.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬转谞讬 讗谞住转讬 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讗谞住转讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讛 讚诪砖诇诐 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 驻转讬转讬 讚拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach this halakha with regard to one who said: I raped the daughter of so-and-so. Why did the mishna cite the case of seduction? The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking employing the style: It is not necessary. It is not necessary for the mishna to cite the case of one who says: I raped her, where he does not tarnish her reputation and merely incriminates himself, as it is obvious that he pays compensation for humiliation and degradation based on his own admission. However, in the case of one who says: I seduced her, where he tarnishes her reputation as he testifies that she willingly engaged in relations with him, and he is not deemed credible to do so, say that he does not pay based on his own admission. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in the case of seduction he pays compensation for humiliation and degradation based on his own admission.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗祝 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬驻讙讜诐 讘转讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even the payments of humiliation and degradation, he does not pay them based on his own admission as it is not within his power to tarnish the reputation of the daughter of so-and-so based merely on his confession. Consequently, unless his account is corroborated by the testimony of others, his admission that she was complicit in her seduction is rejected.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 诇讚讬讚讛 诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛 诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讬讻讗 讞讚 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Rabbi Shimon, if she herself is amenable to his claim, and admits that his version of the events is accurate, what is the halakha? Is he exempt from payments of humiliation and degradation in that case as well? Abaye responded: Perhaps her father is not amenable to his daughter鈥檚 reputation being tarnished. We therefore do not rely on his statement even in this case. Rav Pappa continued: If her father is also amenable to his claim, what is the halakha? Abaye responded: Perhaps her other family members are not amenable, as the reputation of the entire family would be tarnished. Rav Pappa asked: If the family members too are amenable, what is the halakha? Abaye answered: Even if all the local relatives are amenable, it is impossible that there will not be at least one relative in a country overseas who is not amenable to his claim.

讛讗讜诪专 讙谞讘转讬 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讻讜壮 讗讬转诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 诪诪讜谞讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 拽谞住讗

The mishna continues. One who says: I stole, pays the principal, but does not pay the double payment and the payment four and five times the principal. It is stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the payment of half the damage that the owner of an innocuous ox, which was not yet witnessed goring a person or an ox three times, must pay to the owner of the ox that he gored. Rav Pappa said: Half the damage is considered a payment of money, compensation for the damage caused. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that half the damage is considered payment of a fine.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 诪诪讜谞讗 拽住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 诇讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐 讻讜诇讬讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬住 注诇讜讬讛 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗讬注讚 转讜专讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 拽住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬砖诇诐 讻诇诇 讜专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚拽谞住讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬谞讟专讬讛 诇转讜专讬讛

The Gemara elaborates. Rav Pappa said: Half the damage is considered a payment of money, as he maintains: Standard oxen do not exist in the presumptive status of safety, and therefore are likely to cause damage. And by right, the owner should pay the entire damage caused by his animal, and it is the Merciful One that has compassion on him, as his ox is not yet forewarned until it has gored a person or an animal three times. Fundamentally, the payment is for damage that the animal caused. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that half the damage is payment of a fine, as he maintains: Standard oxen exist in the presumptive status of safety, and are not dangerous. And by right, the owner should not pay at all, as the ox goring could not have been anticipated, and therefore the owner bears no responsibility. And it is the Merciful One that penalized him so that he would guard his ox. The sum that he pays is a fine.

住讬诪谉 讛讬讝讬拽 诪讛 讜讛诪讬转 讻诇诇 转谞谉 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖讬讬讱 谞讬讝拽 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗讬转讬讛

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs cited with regard to this dispute: Damaged; what; and killed; principle. We learned in a mishna that if an innocuous ox gored and killed another鈥檚 ox, both the damaged and the damager share in the payments. Granted, according to the one who said that half the damage is a payment of money; that is how the damaged party shares in the payments. By right, the owner of the dead ox should be compensated for his entire loss. However, since the ox that gored his ox was innocuous, the owner of the gored ox bears half the costs. The mishna characterizes him as sharing in the payments. However, according to he who said that half the damage is payment of a fine, by right, the injured party himself is entitled to nothing. Now, the owner takes half the damage that by right is not his; can he be characterized as sharing in the payments?

诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇驻讞转 谞讘讬诇讛 驻讞转 谞讘讬诇讛 转谞讬谞讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 谞讝拽 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 讘谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara answers: This halakha is necessary only for the degradation of the carcass. Initially, half the damage is assessed by calculating the difference between the value of a living ox and the value of its carcass when the owner of the ox that gored the other ox stands trial. The degradation in the value of the carcass from when it was gored until the owner is able to sell it is borne by the owner of the carcass. The owner thereby shares in the payment, as he loses that sum. The Gemara asks: We already learned the halakha with regard to the degradation of the carcass in a baraita in Bava Kamma (10b) in which it is taught that the passage in the mishna: I have become liable to pay payments of damage, teaches that the owners tend to the carcass and bear the costs of its degradation.

讞讚讗 讘转诐 讜讞讚讗 讘诪讜注讚 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗讬注讚 讗讘诇 诪讜注讚 讚讗讬注讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪砖诇诐 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讘诇 转诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: One of these halakhot is with regard to an innocuous ox and one is with regard to a forewarned ox. The Gemara adds: And it is necessary to teach both halakhot, as if the mishna had taught us only with regard to an innocuous ox, one would understand that its owner is treated with leniency and the owner of the carcass bears the cost of degradation due to the fact that the ox has not yet been forewarned; however, with regard to a forewarned ox, that was forewarned, say no, the owner of the carcass does not bear the cost of degradation. And if the mishna had taught us only with regard to a forewarned ox, one would understand that its owner is treated with leniency and the owner of the carcass bears the cost of degradation due to the fact that he pays for the entire damage, and therefore, the relatively insignificant cost of degradation is overlooked. However, with regard to an innocuous ox, say no, since the owner pays only half the damage, he must bear the cost of degradation. Therefore, it was necessary to state the halakha in both cases. Therefore, there is no proof from this mishna whether half the damage is payment of a money or payment of a fine.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讛 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 砖讛转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讙讜驻讜 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖讛转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara continues. Come and hear an additional proof from a baraita: What is the difference between an innocuous and a forewarned ox? The difference is that the owner of an innocuous ox pays half of the damage from its body. Compensation for the damage may be collected only from the body of the ox that gored another ox. If the ox that gored another ox is worth less than half the damage, e.g., if an inexpensive ox killed an expensive one, the injured party receives less than half the damage. And the owner of a forewarned ox pays the entire damage from the owner鈥檚 property, and the value of the ox that gored another ox has no effect on the payment. The tanna did not teach an additional difference that the owner of an innocuous ox does not pay based on his own admission and the owner of a forewarned ox pays based on his own admission. Apparently, the half damage is a payment of money and not a fine.

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专 砖讬讬专 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara refutes this claim: This baraita is no proof, as the tanna taught some cases and omitted others and did not list all the differences between innocuous and forewarned oxen. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? The failure to include an item in a list can be deemed insignificant only if it is one of at least two omissions. If there is only one omission, apparently it was omitted advisedly. The Gemara replies: He omitted the halakha of the half ransom as well. If a forewarned ox killed a person, its owner pays a ransom, and if an innocuous ox killed a person, the owner does not pay even half the ransom. The Gemara rejects this claim: If it is due to the half ransom that the failure to list the difference with regard to payment based on one鈥檚 own admission is insignificant, it is not an omission.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专

As it can be explained: According to whose opinion is this baraita taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: The owner of an innocuous ox pays half the ransom. According to his opinion, the only differences between innocuous and forewarned oxen are those specified in the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讬转 砖讜专讬 讗转 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讜 砖讜专讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘转诐 诇讗 讘诪讜注讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna. One who said: My ox killed so-and-so, or: My ox killed an ox belonging to so-and-so, this owner pays based on his own admission. What, is this not referring to an innocuous ox, for which he pays half the damage, proving that it is a payment of money and not a fine? The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the tanna is referring to a forewarned animal.

讗讘诇 讘转诐 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注讘讚讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 谞讬驻诇讜讙 讜谞讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜注讚 讗讘诇 转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讻讜诇讛 讘诪讜注讚 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara asks: However, in the case of an innocuous ox, what is the halakha? If it is that he does not pay based on his own admission, then, rather than teaching the latter clause of the mishna: One whose ox killed a slave belonging to so-and-so does not pay based on his own admission, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself: In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to a forewarned ox; however, the owner of an innocuous ox does not pay based on his own admission. The Gemara rejects this proof: The entire mishna is speaking of a forewarned ox, and does not address the halakha of an innocuous ox at all. Therefore, no proof can be cited with regard to the nature of half the payment.

转讗 砖诪注 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讬转专 注诇 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讻诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than what he damaged, the payments are fines, and therefore he does not pay based on his own admission. The Gemara infers: If he pays less than what he damaged, he pays based on his own admission. Apparently, payment of half the damage is a payment of money, not a fine. The Gemara rejects this proof: Do not infer and say: If he pays less than what he damaged, he pays based on his own admission. Infer and say: If he pays precisely what he damaged, he pays based on his own admission.

讗讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇讬转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讻诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讚诪砖诪注 驻讞讜转 讜诪砖诪注 讬转专 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara asks: But according to that explanation, if he pays less than the damage he caused, what is the halakha? If it is that he does not pay based on his own admission, let the tanna teach a more general principle: This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount that he damaged does not pay based on his own admission, as that formulation both indicates one who pays less and indicates one who pays more than the damage he inflicted. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, that payment of half the damage is a fine.

讜讛诇讻转讗 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转讜转讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讻诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 爪专讜专讜转 讚讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara further concludes: And the halakha is that payment of half the damage is a fine. The Gemara asks: Is there a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and the halakha is in accordance with that opinion? The Gemara responds: Yes, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, as, what is the reason that his opinion was conclusively refuted? It is because the tanna does not teach: This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount that he damaged. However, the reason the tanna did not employ that formulation is not clear-cut for him, since there is the payment of half the damage caused by pebbles dispersed by an animal proceeding in its usual manner. As it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the payment for pebbles is a monetary payment, not a fine; it is due to that fact that the tanna did not teach the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount that he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. In the case of pebbles, although he does not pay the amount that he damaged, he pays based on his own admission.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 讛讗讬 讻诇讘讗 讚讗讻诇 讗讬诪专讬 讜砖讜谞专讗 讚讗讻讬诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬 专讘专讘讬 诪砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讘讘诇 讗讘诇 讝讜讟专讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜诪讙讘讬谞谉

Based on that ruling, the Gemara concludes: And now that you said that payment of half the damage is a fine, this dog that ate lambs, and a cat that ate large roosters, is unusual damage, for which the owner is liable to pay only half the damage if the animal was innocuous, and therefore, we do not collect it in Babylonia. The payment for unusual damage is a fine, and fines cannot be collected in Babylonia, as there are no ordained judges authorized to adjudicate cases involving fines. However, if the cat ate small roosters, that is its usual manner, and we collect the damages in Babylonia, as it is a payment of money.

讜讗讬 转驻住 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专 讗拽讘注讜 诇讬 讝讬诪谞讗 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讘注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讝讬诇 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: And in cases of fines, if the injured party seized property from the offender in the amount of the fine, even in Babylonia we do not repossess it from him, as according to the letter of the law he is entitled to that payment, and the party from whom he seized the property cannot claim that he does not owe that payment. And if the injured party said: Set me a time to go to a court in Eretz Yisrael, where cases of fines are adjudicated, we set a time for him, and if the other disputant does not go to Israel as demanded, we excommunicate him.

讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 住诇讬拽 讛讝讬拽讱 诪讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讙讚诇 讗讚诐 讻诇讘 专注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜诇讗 讬注诪讬讚 住讜诇诐 专注讜注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讬诐 讚诪讬诐 讘讘讬转讱

The Gemara adds: Either way, whether or not he agrees to go to Eretz Yisrael, if he keeps the cause of the damage, we in Babylonia excommunicate him, as we say to him: Remove your cause of damage, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and may not place an unsteady ladder in his house? It is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall make a parapet for your roof that you shall not place blood in your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:8). It is prohibited to leave a potentially dangerous object in one鈥檚 house, and one who refuses to remove it is excommunicated.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗诇讜 谞注专讜转

 

诪转谞讬壮 谞注专讛 砖谞转驻转转讛 讘讜砖转讛 讜驻讙诪讛 讜拽谞住讛 砖诇 讗讘讬讛 讜讛爪注专 讘转驻讜住讛 注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 讗讘 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 讗讞讬谉

MISHNA: In the case of a young woman who was seduced, the compensation for her humiliation and her degradation and her fine belong to her father. And the same applies to the compensation for pain in the case of a woman who was raped. If the young woman stood trial against the seducer or rapist before the father died, these payments belong to her father, as stated above. If the father died before he collected the money from the offender, the payments belong to her brothers. As the father鈥檚 heirs, they inherit the money to which he was entitled before he passed away.

诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘讚讬谉 注讚 砖诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 注爪诪讛 注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讘讙专讛 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 讗讘 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 讗讞讬谉 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘讚讬谉 注讚 砖讘讙专讛 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 注爪诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讛 诇讙讘讜转 注讚 砖诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 注爪诪讛

However, if she did not manage to stand in judgment before the father died, and she was subsequently awarded the money, the compensation belongs to her, as she is now under her own jurisdiction due to the fact that she no longer has a father. If she stood trial before she reached majority, the payments belong to her father, and if the father died, they belong to her brothers, who inherit the money notwithstanding the fact that she has become a grown woman since the trial. If she did not manage to stand in judgment before she reached majority, the money belongs to her. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if she stood trial in her father鈥檚 lifetime but did not manage to collect the payments before the father died, the brothers do not inherit this money, as it belongs to her.

  • 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 Shlemah 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 41: Partial Payments and a Goring Ox

Closing the chapter, with a new mishnah. If someone stole, and then comes clean, he doesn't have the pay the...

Ketubot 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 41

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 驻转讬转讬 讗转 讘转讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 诪砖诇诐 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 拽谞住 讛讗讜诪专 讙谞讘转讬 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讛诪讬转 砖讜专讬 讗转 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讜 砖讜专讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讛诪讬转 砖讜专讬 注讘讚讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讬转专 注诇 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

MISHNA: One who says: I seduced the daughter of so-and-so, pays compensation for humiliation and degradation based on his own admission, but does not pay the fine. Similarly, one who says: I stole, pays the principal, the value of the stolen goods, based on his own admission, but does not pay the double payment and the payment four and five times the principal for the slaughter or sale of the sheep or ox that he stole. Likewise if he confessed: My ox killed so-and-so, or: My ox killed an ox belonging to so-and-so, this owner pays based on his own admission. However, if he said: My ox killed a slave belonging to so-and-so, he does not pay based on his own admission as that payment is a fine. This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than what he damaged, the payments are fines and therefore he does not pay based on his own admission. He pays only based on the testimony of others.

讙诪壮 讜诇讬转谞讬 讗谞住转讬 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讗谞住转讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讛 讚诪砖诇诐 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗讘诇 驻转讬转讬 讚拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach this halakha with regard to one who said: I raped the daughter of so-and-so. Why did the mishna cite the case of seduction? The Gemara answers: The tanna is speaking employing the style: It is not necessary. It is not necessary for the mishna to cite the case of one who says: I raped her, where he does not tarnish her reputation and merely incriminates himself, as it is obvious that he pays compensation for humiliation and degradation based on his own admission. However, in the case of one who says: I seduced her, where he tarnishes her reputation as he testifies that she willingly engaged in relations with him, and he is not deemed credible to do so, say that he does not pay based on his own admission. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in the case of seduction he pays compensation for humiliation and degradation based on his own admission.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗祝 讘讜砖转 讜驻讙诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬驻讙讜诐 讘转讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even the payments of humiliation and degradation, he does not pay them based on his own admission as it is not within his power to tarnish the reputation of the daughter of so-and-so based merely on his confession. Consequently, unless his account is corroborated by the testimony of others, his admission that she was complicit in her seduction is rejected.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 诇讚讬讚讛 诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讛 诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讬讻讗 讞讚 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Rabbi Shimon, if she herself is amenable to his claim, and admits that his version of the events is accurate, what is the halakha? Is he exempt from payments of humiliation and degradation in that case as well? Abaye responded: Perhaps her father is not amenable to his daughter鈥檚 reputation being tarnished. We therefore do not rely on his statement even in this case. Rav Pappa continued: If her father is also amenable to his claim, what is the halakha? Abaye responded: Perhaps her other family members are not amenable, as the reputation of the entire family would be tarnished. Rav Pappa asked: If the family members too are amenable, what is the halakha? Abaye answered: Even if all the local relatives are amenable, it is impossible that there will not be at least one relative in a country overseas who is not amenable to his claim.

讛讗讜诪专 讙谞讘转讬 诪砖诇诐 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讻讜壮 讗讬转诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 诪诪讜谞讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 拽谞住讗

The mishna continues. One who says: I stole, pays the principal, but does not pay the double payment and the payment four and five times the principal. It is stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the payment of half the damage that the owner of an innocuous ox, which was not yet witnessed goring a person or an ox three times, must pay to the owner of the ox that he gored. Rav Pappa said: Half the damage is considered a payment of money, compensation for the damage caused. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that half the damage is considered payment of a fine.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 诪诪讜谞讗 拽住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 诇讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐 讻讜诇讬讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讬讬住 注诇讜讬讛 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗讬注讚 转讜专讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 拽住讘专 住转诐 砖讜讜专讬诐 讘讞讝拽转 砖讬诪讜专 拽讬讬诪讬 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬砖诇诐 讻诇诇 讜专讞诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚拽谞住讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讬谞讟专讬讛 诇转讜专讬讛

The Gemara elaborates. Rav Pappa said: Half the damage is considered a payment of money, as he maintains: Standard oxen do not exist in the presumptive status of safety, and therefore are likely to cause damage. And by right, the owner should pay the entire damage caused by his animal, and it is the Merciful One that has compassion on him, as his ox is not yet forewarned until it has gored a person or an animal three times. Fundamentally, the payment is for damage that the animal caused. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that half the damage is payment of a fine, as he maintains: Standard oxen exist in the presumptive status of safety, and are not dangerous. And by right, the owner should not pay at all, as the ox goring could not have been anticipated, and therefore the owner bears no responsibility. And it is the Merciful One that penalized him so that he would guard his ox. The sum that he pays is a fine.

住讬诪谉 讛讬讝讬拽 诪讛 讜讛诪讬转 讻诇诇 转谞谉 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讛诪讝讬拽 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖讬讬讱 谞讬讝拽 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 讛砖转讗 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗讬转讬讛

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs cited with regard to this dispute: Damaged; what; and killed; principle. We learned in a mishna that if an innocuous ox gored and killed another鈥檚 ox, both the damaged and the damager share in the payments. Granted, according to the one who said that half the damage is a payment of money; that is how the damaged party shares in the payments. By right, the owner of the dead ox should be compensated for his entire loss. However, since the ox that gored his ox was innocuous, the owner of the gored ox bears half the costs. The mishna characterizes him as sharing in the payments. However, according to he who said that half the damage is payment of a fine, by right, the injured party himself is entitled to nothing. Now, the owner takes half the damage that by right is not his; can he be characterized as sharing in the payments?

诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇驻讞转 谞讘讬诇讛 驻讞转 谞讘讬诇讛 转谞讬谞讗 转砖诇讜诪讬 谞讝拽 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 诪讟驻诇讬谉 讘谞讘讬诇讛

The Gemara answers: This halakha is necessary only for the degradation of the carcass. Initially, half the damage is assessed by calculating the difference between the value of a living ox and the value of its carcass when the owner of the ox that gored the other ox stands trial. The degradation in the value of the carcass from when it was gored until the owner is able to sell it is borne by the owner of the carcass. The owner thereby shares in the payment, as he loses that sum. The Gemara asks: We already learned the halakha with regard to the degradation of the carcass in a baraita in Bava Kamma (10b) in which it is taught that the passage in the mishna: I have become liable to pay payments of damage, teaches that the owners tend to the carcass and bear the costs of its degradation.

讞讚讗 讘转诐 讜讞讚讗 讘诪讜注讚 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讻转讬 诇讗 讗讬注讚 讗讘诇 诪讜注讚 讚讗讬注讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪砖诇诐 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讘诇 转诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: One of these halakhot is with regard to an innocuous ox and one is with regard to a forewarned ox. The Gemara adds: And it is necessary to teach both halakhot, as if the mishna had taught us only with regard to an innocuous ox, one would understand that its owner is treated with leniency and the owner of the carcass bears the cost of degradation due to the fact that the ox has not yet been forewarned; however, with regard to a forewarned ox, that was forewarned, say no, the owner of the carcass does not bear the cost of degradation. And if the mishna had taught us only with regard to a forewarned ox, one would understand that its owner is treated with leniency and the owner of the carcass bears the cost of degradation due to the fact that he pays for the entire damage, and therefore, the relatively insignificant cost of degradation is overlooked. However, with regard to an innocuous ox, say no, since the owner pays only half the damage, he must bear the cost of degradation. Therefore, it was necessary to state the halakha in both cases. Therefore, there is no proof from this mishna whether half the damage is payment of a money or payment of a fine.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讛 讘讬谉 转诐 诇诪讜注讚 砖讛转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讙讜驻讜 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 砖讛转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讜诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara continues. Come and hear an additional proof from a baraita: What is the difference between an innocuous and a forewarned ox? The difference is that the owner of an innocuous ox pays half of the damage from its body. Compensation for the damage may be collected only from the body of the ox that gored another ox. If the ox that gored another ox is worth less than half the damage, e.g., if an inexpensive ox killed an expensive one, the injured party receives less than half the damage. And the owner of a forewarned ox pays the entire damage from the owner鈥檚 property, and the value of the ox that gored another ox has no effect on the payment. The tanna did not teach an additional difference that the owner of an innocuous ox does not pay based on his own admission and the owner of a forewarned ox pays based on his own admission. Apparently, the half damage is a payment of money and not a fine.

转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专 砖讬讬专 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara refutes this claim: This baraita is no proof, as the tanna taught some cases and omitted others and did not list all the differences between innocuous and forewarned oxen. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? The failure to include an item in a list can be deemed insignificant only if it is one of at least two omissions. If there is only one omission, apparently it was omitted advisedly. The Gemara replies: He omitted the halakha of the half ransom as well. If a forewarned ox killed a person, its owner pays a ransom, and if an innocuous ox killed a person, the owner does not pay even half the ransom. The Gemara rejects this claim: If it is due to the half ransom that the failure to list the difference with regard to payment based on one鈥檚 own admission is insignificant, it is not an omission.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专

As it can be explained: According to whose opinion is this baraita taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: The owner of an innocuous ox pays half the ransom. According to his opinion, the only differences between innocuous and forewarned oxen are those specified in the mishna.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讬转 砖讜专讬 讗转 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讜 砖讜专讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘转诐 诇讗 讘诪讜注讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna. One who said: My ox killed so-and-so, or: My ox killed an ox belonging to so-and-so, this owner pays based on his own admission. What, is this not referring to an innocuous ox, for which he pays half the damage, proving that it is a payment of money and not a fine? The Gemara rejects the proof: No, the tanna is referring to a forewarned animal.

讗讘诇 讘转诐 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注讘讚讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 谞讬驻诇讜讙 讜谞讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讜注讚 讗讘诇 转诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讻讜诇讛 讘诪讜注讚 拽诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara asks: However, in the case of an innocuous ox, what is the halakha? If it is that he does not pay based on his own admission, then, rather than teaching the latter clause of the mishna: One whose ox killed a slave belonging to so-and-so does not pay based on his own admission, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case itself: In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to a forewarned ox; however, the owner of an innocuous ox does not pay based on his own admission. The Gemara rejects this proof: The entire mishna is speaking of a forewarned ox, and does not address the halakha of an innocuous ox at all. Therefore, no proof can be cited with regard to the nature of half the payment.

转讗 砖诪注 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛诪砖诇诐 讬转专 注诇 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 驻讞讜转 诪诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讻诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than what he damaged, the payments are fines, and therefore he does not pay based on his own admission. The Gemara infers: If he pays less than what he damaged, he pays based on his own admission. Apparently, payment of half the damage is a payment of money, not a fine. The Gemara rejects this proof: Do not infer and say: If he pays less than what he damaged, he pays based on his own admission. Infer and say: If he pays precisely what he damaged, he pays based on his own admission.

讗讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 诇讬转谞讬 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讻诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讚诪砖诪注 驻讞讜转 讜诪砖诪注 讬转专 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara asks: But according to that explanation, if he pays less than the damage he caused, what is the halakha? If it is that he does not pay based on his own admission, let the tanna teach a more general principle: This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount that he damaged does not pay based on his own admission, as that formulation both indicates one who pays less and indicates one who pays more than the damage he inflicted. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, that payment of half the damage is a fine.

讜讛诇讻转讗 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转讜转讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 讻诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 爪专讜专讜转 讚讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara further concludes: And the halakha is that payment of half the damage is a fine. The Gemara asks: Is there a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and the halakha is in accordance with that opinion? The Gemara responds: Yes, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, as, what is the reason that his opinion was conclusively refuted? It is because the tanna does not teach: This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount that he damaged. However, the reason the tanna did not employ that formulation is not clear-cut for him, since there is the payment of half the damage caused by pebbles dispersed by an animal proceeding in its usual manner. As it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the payment for pebbles is a monetary payment, not a fine; it is due to that fact that the tanna did not teach the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount that he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. In the case of pebbles, although he does not pay the amount that he damaged, he pays based on his own admission.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 驻诇讙讗 谞讬讝拽讗 拽谞住讗 讛讗讬 讻诇讘讗 讚讗讻诇 讗讬诪专讬 讜砖讜谞专讗 讚讗讻讬诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬 专讘专讘讬 诪砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讘讘诇 讗讘诇 讝讜讟专讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜诪讙讘讬谞谉

Based on that ruling, the Gemara concludes: And now that you said that payment of half the damage is a fine, this dog that ate lambs, and a cat that ate large roosters, is unusual damage, for which the owner is liable to pay only half the damage if the animal was innocuous, and therefore, we do not collect it in Babylonia. The payment for unusual damage is a fine, and fines cannot be collected in Babylonia, as there are no ordained judges authorized to adjudicate cases involving fines. However, if the cat ate small roosters, that is its usual manner, and we collect the damages in Babylonia, as it is a payment of money.

讜讗讬 转驻住 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专 讗拽讘注讜 诇讬 讝讬诪谞讗 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讘注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讝讬诇 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: And in cases of fines, if the injured party seized property from the offender in the amount of the fine, even in Babylonia we do not repossess it from him, as according to the letter of the law he is entitled to that payment, and the party from whom he seized the property cannot claim that he does not owe that payment. And if the injured party said: Set me a time to go to a court in Eretz Yisrael, where cases of fines are adjudicated, we set a time for him, and if the other disputant does not go to Israel as demanded, we excommunicate him.

讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 住诇讬拽 讛讝讬拽讱 诪讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讙讚诇 讗讚诐 讻诇讘 专注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜诇讗 讬注诪讬讚 住讜诇诐 专注讜注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讬诐 讚诪讬诐 讘讘讬转讱

The Gemara adds: Either way, whether or not he agrees to go to Eretz Yisrael, if he keeps the cause of the damage, we in Babylonia excommunicate him, as we say to him: Remove your cause of damage, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and may not place an unsteady ladder in his house? It is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall make a parapet for your roof that you shall not place blood in your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:8). It is prohibited to leave a potentially dangerous object in one鈥檚 house, and one who refuses to remove it is excommunicated.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗诇讜 谞注专讜转

 

诪转谞讬壮 谞注专讛 砖谞转驻转转讛 讘讜砖转讛 讜驻讙诪讛 讜拽谞住讛 砖诇 讗讘讬讛 讜讛爪注专 讘转驻讜住讛 注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 讗讘 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 讗讞讬谉

MISHNA: In the case of a young woman who was seduced, the compensation for her humiliation and her degradation and her fine belong to her father. And the same applies to the compensation for pain in the case of a woman who was raped. If the young woman stood trial against the seducer or rapist before the father died, these payments belong to her father, as stated above. If the father died before he collected the money from the offender, the payments belong to her brothers. As the father鈥檚 heirs, they inherit the money to which he was entitled before he passed away.

诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘讚讬谉 注讚 砖诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 注爪诪讛 注诪讚讛 讘讚讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讘讙专讛 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 讗讘 诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 讗讞讬谉 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讛 诇注诪讜讚 讘讚讬谉 注讚 砖讘讙专讛 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 注爪诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛住驻讬拽讛 诇讙讘讜转 注讚 砖诪转 讛讗讘 讛专讬 讛谉 砖诇 注爪诪讛

However, if she did not manage to stand in judgment before the father died, and she was subsequently awarded the money, the compensation belongs to her, as she is now under her own jurisdiction due to the fact that she no longer has a father. If she stood trial before she reached majority, the payments belong to her father, and if the father died, they belong to her brothers, who inherit the money notwithstanding the fact that she has become a grown woman since the trial. If she did not manage to stand in judgment before she reached majority, the money belongs to her. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if she stood trial in her father鈥檚 lifetime but did not manage to collect the payments before the father died, the brothers do not inherit this money, as it belongs to her.

Scroll To Top