Ketubot 30b — the Talmud in English

The law of the four deaths -

has not been abolished.

That is, a punishment resembling the four deaths has not been abolished.

And this is:

a.

One who was liable for stoning,

and according to the law he should be thrown from the roof of the stoning house, which was two stories high, in the end he is -

either he falls from the roof,

and is killed by the fall.

Or an animal

throws him onto the ground, and

tramples him

[killing him by trampling].

b.

And one who was liable for burning,

by pouring boiling lead into his throat. In the end he is -

either he falls into a conflagration.

Or a snake bites him,

and the snake’s venom burns him.

c.

And one who was liable for execution

by the sword, in the end he is -

either he is delivered to the kingdom,

and they sever his head with a sword, according to their custom.

Or brigands come upon him,

and they kill him with a sword, according to their custom.

d.

And one who was liable for strangulation.

In the end he is -

either he drowns in a river,

and his death comes through strangulation.

Or he dies of saronkhi

[the disease of askara], which strangles him in the throat from within.

It is thus explained that a lion that comes upon a person is in place of stoning, and thieves who come upon a person are because he was liable for execution by the sword; therefore brigands [thieves] come upon him. If so, these are [punishments] at the hands of Heaven.

Rather, reverse

the words of Rav Adda bar Ahava, and this is what he challenged:

From where [do we know] that when Jacob warned his sons about

lions and thieves,

that they are

at the hands of Heaven? Perhaps [he warned them] about

perhaps he was warning them about

thorns and pitfalls,

which are

at the hands of man.

?

And it follows that Jacob’s “disaster” is a disaster at the hands of man, and you cannot learn from it regarding a disaster at the hands of Heaven, which exempts one from monetary payment.

Rava said: The reason of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKanah -

who exempts those liable for karet from payments - is

from here,

from this verse it is learned:

“And if the people of the land hide their eyes from that man when he gives of his offspring to Molekh

[and do not put him to death as his law requires],

then I shall set My face against that man and against his family, and I shall cut him off”” -

The Torah said: My karet -

it is

like your death!

It comes in the place of death, and it is its replacement.

Just as your death,

one who became liable for it is

exempt from payments, so too my karet,

one who became liable for it is

exempt from payments.

a. One who steals or robs something from his fellow is liable to return it. If he does not return it, for example, because it was lost, he is liable to pay its value.

b. The obligation to pay the value of the stolen object applies only when the thief or robber performed an act of acquisition with the stolen object. For example, they lifted the object from its place in order to steal or rob it, and by lifting the object they intended

to acquire it for themselves.

But stealing an object merely by removing it from the owner’s possession, without performing an act of acquisition, is only a forbidden act; it does not obligate him to return its monetary value [although, if the object exists, there is an obligation to return it, since it still belongs to its owners]. “The act of acquisition” of the thief or robber with the stolen object has two meanings, one regarding the thief’s right, and the other regarding his obligation:

The first meaning of the act of acquisition is the creation of a certain ownership right

the

of the thief

in the object. For example, if a change occurs in the object, the thief becomes its absolute owner,

without any further act of acquisition on his part.

The second meaning of the act of acquisition concerns the thief’s obligation: he is liable to pay the value of the object stolen by him even if the object was lost through unavoidable circumstances. For, by virtue of the thief’s acquisition of the object, the stolen object is considered his, and he cannot exempt himself by claiming that the owners’ object was lost through unavoidable circumstances.

c. One who eats something belonging to his fellow, in a manner in which he cannot be held liable for damaging it or for robbing it [for whatever reason], is liable to pay the value of his benefit from the food, since he “benefited” from something belonging to his fellow.

This liability applies when his throat and intestines benefited.

d. A non-koen who intentionally eats teruma is liable for death at the hands of Heaven.

And if he ate his fellow’s teruma -

if he stole it and “acquired” the teruma by lifting it or the like before eating it, he is liable according to the law of a robber. If he ate it without performing an act of acquisition of theft with it, then he is liable according to the law of one who benefits from the consumption of his fellow’s property, who must pay him the value of his benefit.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the difference between Rava,

who learns that karet exempts from payments from “my karet is like your death,”

and Abaye,

who learns this law from “disaster, disaster”?

There is a difference between them

regarding liability for death at the hands of Heaven: does it exempt one from payments according to Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKanah -

For example,

a non-koen who ate teruma

belonging to his fellow intentionally, so that he is liable for death at the hands of Heaven for eating the teruma!

According to Abaye -

who learns every disaster at the hands of Heaven from a gezera shava of a disaster at the hands of man - he is

exempt

from paying for robbing the teruma, since he became liable for death at the hands of Heaven.

But

if

according to Rava -

who derives from the verse only the punishment of karet, to make it like death by the court and to exempt from payments - he is

liable

to pay for the robbery, since liability for death at the hands of Heaven does not exempt him from payments. And the Gemara asks:

But

when

according to Abaye

indeed

exempt,

is a non-koen who eats his fellow’s teruma exempt from paying him the value of the robbery?!

But Rav Ḥisda said: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKanah agrees,

who exempts those liable for karet from payments,

in the case of one who steals his fellow’s khelev and eats it -

that he is liable

for payment for the theft, even though he became liable for karet for eating the khelev.

And here there is no exemption of kim lei be-rabba minei, since the two acts were not performed at the same time, because

he had already become liable

at the time of lifting it

for

payment of the value of the

theft -

already

before he came to

the punishment for the

prohibition

of eating

khelev, since he becomes liable for it only at the time when his throat and intestines benefit.

for which he becomes liable only when his throat and intestines benefit.

Apparently,

it is demonstrated that since

from the time that he lifted it -

he acquired it

[from the time that he lifted the stolen object, he acquired it so as to become liable for its payment]. But

he becomes liable with his life

for liability of karet

only once he eats it.

And it follows that the two liabilities did not come upon him together; therefore the karet does not exempt the money.

And if so,

here -

in the case of one who steals his fellow’s teruma and eats it -

also

we should say that the death does not exempt the liability that he incurs for robbing it, since here too,

at the time that he lifted

his fellow’s teruma,

he acquired it

to become liable for its payment. But

he does not become liable with his life until he eats it.

And what we said according to Abaye is difficult: a non-koen who eats teruma is exempt from payment for robbing the teruma from his fellow?!

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case in which his fellow thrust it

the teruma

into his mouth,

and the eater did not lift the teruma to become liable for robbing it through acquisition by lifting; he is liable only because he “benefited” from his fellow’s teruma when he swallowed it.

And since his entire liability is for the benefit to his intestines, at that same benefit he becomes liable at that time for death at the hands of Heaven [for a non-koen who eats teruma is liable]; therefore the death exempts him from the liability of one who “benefits” from eating the teruma.

The Gemara still asks about our exempting a non-koen who ate teruma in this manner from payment by the law of a robber:

Ultimately,

even if his fellow thrust it into his mouth,

since he chewed it -

he acquired it.

Since he chewed the teruma, he acquired it then, becoming liable for its payment. -

But

he does not become liable with his life

for eating teruma

until he swallows it

the teruma, when his throat and intestines benefited from the teruma, for the chewing itself is not considered a transgression of eating teruma.

And it is still difficult: how can the later liability for death exempt the earlier liability for the robbery?!

And we answer: here we are dealing with

a case in which his fellow thrust it

into

the place of swallowing,

as the Gemara continues and explains.

What are the circumstances?

In what manner, and up to what place in his swallowing passage, did his fellow thrust it into him?

If he can return it,

if even after his fellow thrust it into his swallowing passage he can return the teruma and vomit it from his swallowing passage -

If so, it is difficult:

let him return it

[let him return it]!

That is, he should have returned it and not swallowed it; and if he swallowed it, he became liable for its payment. And

if

we are dealing with a case in which his fellow thrust it deeply into his swallowing passage, so that

he cannot return it

[the person cannot return it], and it is swallowed into his intestines against his will, therefore you cannot impose monetary liability upon him for not returning it; rather, you impose monetary liability upon him for the benefit of his throat and intestines, and for this benefit he is also liable for death at the hands of Heaven.

It is difficult:

Why is he liable

for the punishment of death at the hands of Heaven for this benefit? After all, the teruma was swallowed into his intestines against his will, and “in a case of compulsion, the Merciful One exempts”!

And since he is exempt from death at the hands of Heaven, according to everyone there is no kim lei be-rabba minei here to exempt him from payment for the benefit of his throat and intestines from the teruma.

And we answer:

It is not necessary,

that is, there is a possibility that he will become liable for death at the hands of Heaven for eating the teruma, but will not become liable for having robbed it and not returned it, in a case in which his fellow thrust the teruma into his swallowing passage, up to the place

where he can return it

[the eater can return it] only

with difficulty -

And in this place, where he can return it only with difficulty, the teruma has already become repulsive, and he is not liable for money for swallowing it and not returning it. However, since ultimately he can return it, he is not considered under compulsion regarding its swallowing, and he is liable for death at the hands of Heaven.

And since he did not become liable under the law of a robber or a damager before his intestines benefited from the teruma, and you can obligate him only under the law of one who benefits, at the time when his intestines benefited from the teruma, therefore the liability for death [which likewise comes when his intestines benefited] exempts the liability for payment.

Rav Pappa said,

this can be resolved so that there will be no difficulty from the words of Rav Hisda in the case of one who steals his fat:

There is no difference between Abaye and Rava regarding a non-koen who “ate” teruma, but only regarding a non-koen who drank liquids of teruma. And let it not be difficult for you: “Since he lifted it, he acquired it, whereas if he were liable for his life, it would not be until he drank it”" —

For it is speaking of

a case such as

that he did not first lift the teruma, but

his fellow forced liquids of teruma into his mouth,

and although he did not insert them deeply into the place of swallowing—for since the liquids become repulsive immediately when they enter his mouth, there is no longer liability for his failure to return them, and he is liable only when they entered his intestines under the law of one who benefits [and as in the case of food that his fellow forced into a place from which he cannot return it except with difficulty]—behold, at the time of his benefit he becomes liable for death at the hands of Heaven, and it exempts him from liability for payment.

Rav Ashi said

to resolve it, so that there will be no difficulty from the words of Rav Hisda:

The difference between them is

in the case of a non-koen who ate teruma belonging to him—

which he inherited from his maternal grandfather, the koen, and we are not discussing payment for the teruma, because it is his; but he became liable for death at the hands of Heaven, since he is a non-koen.