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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 15, 2015 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืื“ืจ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 41

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืคืชื™ืชื™ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžืฉืœื ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ืงื ืก ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื ื‘ืชื™ ืžืฉืœื ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื”ืžื™ืช ืฉื•ืจื™ ืืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืื• ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื”ืžื™ืช ืฉื•ืจื™ ืขื‘ื“ื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉืœื ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื•

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.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืื ืกืชื™ ืœื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืื ืกืชื™ ื“ืœื ืงื ืคื’ื™ื ืœื” ื“ืžืฉืœื ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืื‘ืœ ืคืชื™ืชื™ ื“ืงื ืคื’ื™ื ืœื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืฉื™ืคื’ื•ื ื‘ืชื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ื ื™ื—ื ืœื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ืœื‘ื ื™ ืžืฉืคื—ื” ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ืœื‘ื ื™ ืžืฉืคื—ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ื“ืœื™ื›ื ื—ื“ ื‘ืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื“ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื”

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 daughterโ€™s 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.

ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื ื‘ืชื™ ืžืฉืœื ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืžืžื•ื ื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืงื ืกื

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 amoraโ€™im 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.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืžืžื•ื ื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืกืชื ืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ืœืื• ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืฉื™ืžื•ืจ ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉืœื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื•ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื—ื™ื™ืก ืขืœื•ื™ื” ื“ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ืื™ืขื“ ืชื•ืจื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืงื ืกื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืกืชื ืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืฉื™ืžื•ืจ ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืœื™ืฉืœื ื›ืœืœ ื•ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืกื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื ื™ื ื˜ืจื™ื” ืœืชื•ืจื™ื”

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.

ืกื™ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื–ื™ืง ืžื” ื•ื”ืžื™ืช ื›ืœืœ ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื™ื–ืง ื•ื”ืžื–ื™ืง ื‘ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืฉื™ื™ืš ื ื™ื–ืง ื‘ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืงื ืกื ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืœืื• ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืงื ืฉืงื™ืœ ื‘ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ืื™ืชื™ื”

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 anotherโ€™s 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?

ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื ืืœื ืœืคื—ืช ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ืคื—ืช ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ืชื ื™ื ื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื ื–ืง ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžื˜ืคืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื‘ื™ืœื”

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.

ื—ื“ื ื‘ืชื ื•ื—ื“ื ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ืื™ืขื“ ืื‘ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื“ืื™ืขื“ ืื™ืžื ืœื ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ืžืฉืœื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืชื ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ืœืžื•ืขื“ ืฉื”ืชื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืžื’ื•ืคื• ื•ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื” ื•ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื”ืชื ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื•

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 ownerโ€™s 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.

ืชื ื ื•ืฉื™ื™ืจ ืžืื™ ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื“ื”ืื™ ืฉื™ื™ืจ ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื—ืฆื™ ื›ื•ืคืจ ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืฆื™ ื›ื•ืคืจ ืœืื• ืฉื™ื•ืจื ื”ื•ื

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 oneโ€™s own admission is insignificant, it is not an omission.

ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืชื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื›ื•ืคืจ

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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื™ืช ืฉื•ืจื™ ืืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืื• ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืชื ืœื ื‘ืžื•ืขื“

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.

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชื ืžืื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืื“ืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื ื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืื‘ืœ ืชื ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื›ื•ืœื” ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืžื™ื™ืจื™

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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉืœื ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื”ื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืืœื ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื›ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื•

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.

ืื‘ืœ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ื›ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื“ืžืฉืžืข ืคื—ื•ืช ื•ืžืฉืžืข ื™ืชืจ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื

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.

ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืงื ืกื ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืื™ืชื•ืชื‘ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืœื ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื“ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื“ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืงืชื ื™

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.

ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจืช ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืงื ืกื ื”ืื™ ื›ืœื‘ื ื“ืื›ืœ ืื™ืžืจื™ ื•ืฉื•ื ืจื ื“ืื›ื™ืœ ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ ืจื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืžื’ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื‘ืœ ืื‘ืœ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื™ ืื•ืจื—ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื’ื‘ื™ื ืŸ

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.

ื•ืื™ ืชืคืก ืœื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืืงื‘ืขื• ืœื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื ืœืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืงื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ ืœื ืื–ื™ืœ ืžืฉืžืชื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื”

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.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืžืฉืžืชื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืกืœื™ืง ื”ื–ื™ืงืš ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ื’ื“ืœ ืื“ื ื›ืœื‘ ืจืข ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ืœื ื™ืขืžื™ื“ ืกื•ืœื ืจืขื•ืข ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืชืฉื™ื ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืชืš

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: โ€œAnd you shall make a parapet for your roof that you shall not place blood in your houseโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:8). It is prohibited to leave a potentially dangerous object in oneโ€™s house, and one who refuses to remove it is excommunicated.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืืœื• ื ืขืจื•ืช

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืขืจื” ืฉื ืชืคืชืชื” ื‘ื•ืฉืชื” ื•ืคื’ืžื” ื•ืงื ืกื” ืฉืœ ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ืฆืขืจ ื‘ืชืคื•ืกื” ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืžืช ื”ืื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืื‘ ืžืช ื”ืื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืื—ื™ืŸ

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 fatherโ€™s heirs, they inherit the money to which he was entitled before he passed away.

ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืงื” ืœืขืžื•ื“ ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืžืช ื”ืื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืขืฆืžื” ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื‘ื’ืจื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืื‘ ืžืช ื”ืื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืงื” ืœืขืžื•ื“ ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื‘ื’ืจื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืขืฆืžื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืงื” ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืžืช ื”ืื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืขืฆืžื”

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 fatherโ€™s 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 Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 41

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืคืชื™ืชื™ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžืฉืœื ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ืงื ืก ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื ื‘ืชื™ ืžืฉืœื ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื”ืžื™ืช ืฉื•ืจื™ ืืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืื• ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื”ืžื™ืช ืฉื•ืจื™ ืขื‘ื“ื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉืœื ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื•

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.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืื ืกืชื™ ืœื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืื ืกืชื™ ื“ืœื ืงื ืคื’ื™ื ืœื” ื“ืžืฉืœื ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืื‘ืœ ืคืชื™ืชื™ ื“ืงื ืคื’ื™ื ืœื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืฃ ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื•ืคื’ื ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื• ืฉื™ืคื’ื•ื ื‘ืชื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ื ื™ื—ื ืœื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ืœืื‘ื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ืœื‘ื ื™ ืžืฉืคื—ื” ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ืœื‘ื ื™ ืžืฉืคื—ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ื“ืœื™ื›ื ื—ื“ ื‘ืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื“ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื”

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 daughterโ€™s 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.

ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื ื‘ืชื™ ืžืฉืœื ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืžืžื•ื ื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืงื ืกื

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 amoraโ€™im 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.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืžืžื•ื ื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืกืชื ืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ืœืื• ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืฉื™ืžื•ืจ ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉืœื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื•ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื—ื™ื™ืก ืขืœื•ื™ื” ื“ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ืื™ืขื“ ืชื•ืจื ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืงื ืกื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืกืชื ืฉื•ื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ืฉื™ืžื•ืจ ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ืœื™ืฉืœื ื›ืœืœ ื•ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืกื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ื ื™ื ื˜ืจื™ื” ืœืชื•ืจื™ื”

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.

ืกื™ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื–ื™ืง ืžื” ื•ื”ืžื™ืช ื›ืœืœ ืชื ืŸ ื”ื ื™ื–ืง ื•ื”ืžื–ื™ืง ื‘ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืฉื™ื™ืš ื ื™ื–ืง ื‘ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืงื ืกื ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืœืื• ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืงื ืฉืงื™ืœ ื‘ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ืื™ืชื™ื”

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 anotherโ€™s 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?

ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื ืืœื ืœืคื—ืช ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ืคื—ืช ื ื‘ื™ืœื” ืชื ื™ื ื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื ื–ืง ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืžื˜ืคืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื‘ื™ืœื”

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.

ื—ื“ื ื‘ืชื ื•ื—ื“ื ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ืื™ืขื“ ืื‘ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื“ืื™ืขื“ ืื™ืžื ืœื ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื ืžืฉืœื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืชื ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ืœืžื•ืขื“ ืฉื”ืชื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืžื’ื•ืคื• ื•ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื” ื•ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื”ืชื ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื•

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 ownerโ€™s 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.

ืชื ื ื•ืฉื™ื™ืจ ืžืื™ ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื“ื”ืื™ ืฉื™ื™ืจ ืฉื™ื™ืจ ื—ืฆื™ ื›ื•ืคืจ ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืฆื™ ื›ื•ืคืจ ืœืื• ืฉื™ื•ืจื ื”ื•ื

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 oneโ€™s own admission is insignificant, it is not an omission.

ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืชื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื›ื•ืคืจ

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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื™ืช ืฉื•ืจื™ ืืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืื• ืฉื•ืจื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืชื ืœื ื‘ืžื•ืขื“

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.

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชื ืžืื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืื“ืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื ื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ื ื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืื‘ืœ ืชื ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื›ื•ืœื” ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ืงืžื™ื™ืจื™

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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉืœื ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื”ื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื ืชื™ืžื ื”ื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืืœื ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื›ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื•

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.

ืื‘ืœ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืื™ ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ื›ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื“ืžืฉืžืข ืคื—ื•ืช ื•ืžืฉืžืข ื™ืชืจ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื

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.

ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืงื ืกื ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืื™ืชื•ืชื‘ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง ืœื ืคืกื™ืงื ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื“ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื“ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืงืชื ื™

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.

ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจืช ืคืœื’ื ื ื™ื–ืงื ืงื ืกื ื”ืื™ ื›ืœื‘ื ื“ืื›ืœ ืื™ืžืจื™ ื•ืฉื•ื ืจื ื“ืื›ื™ืœ ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ ืจื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืžื’ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื‘ืœ ืื‘ืœ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื™ ืื•ืจื—ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื’ื‘ื™ื ืŸ

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.

ื•ืื™ ืชืคืก ืœื ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืืงื‘ืขื• ืœื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื ืœืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืงื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื™ ืœื ืื–ื™ืœ ืžืฉืžืชื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื”

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.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืžืฉืžืชื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืกืœื™ืง ื”ื–ื™ืงืš ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ื’ื“ืœ ืื“ื ื›ืœื‘ ืจืข ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ืœื ื™ืขืžื™ื“ ืกื•ืœื ืจืขื•ืข ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืชืฉื™ื ื“ืžื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืชืš

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: โ€œAnd you shall make a parapet for your roof that you shall not place blood in your houseโ€ (Deuteronomy 22:8). It is prohibited to leave a potentially dangerous object in oneโ€™s house, and one who refuses to remove it is excommunicated.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืืœื• ื ืขืจื•ืช

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืขืจื” ืฉื ืชืคืชืชื” ื‘ื•ืฉืชื” ื•ืคื’ืžื” ื•ืงื ืกื” ืฉืœ ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ืฆืขืจ ื‘ืชืคื•ืกื” ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืžืช ื”ืื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืื‘ ืžืช ื”ืื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืื—ื™ืŸ

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 fatherโ€™s heirs, they inherit the money to which he was entitled before he passed away.

ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืงื” ืœืขืžื•ื“ ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืžืช ื”ืื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืขืฆืžื” ืขืžื“ื” ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื‘ื’ืจื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืื‘ ืžืช ื”ืื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืื—ื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืงื” ืœืขืžื•ื“ ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื‘ื’ืจื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืขืฆืžื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืงื” ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืขื“ ืฉืžืช ื”ืื‘ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืขืฆืžื”

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 fatherโ€™s 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