Ketubot 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

The law of the four death penalties -

has not ceased.

That is, a punishment resembling one of the four death penalties has not ceased.

And this is what is meant:

a.

One who was liable for stoning,

and according to the law he should be thrown from the roof of the stoning court, which was two stories high, ultimately

either falls from the roof,

and is killed by the fall.

Or a wild animal

throws him to the ground, and

tramples him

[killing him by trampling].

b.

And one who was liable for burning,

by pouring boiling lead into his throat, ultimately

either 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, ultimately

either is handed over to the kingdom,

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

Or bandits come upon him,

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

d.

And one who was liable for strangulation.

Ultimately, he

either drowns in a river,

and his death comes through strangulation.

Or dies of seronkhi

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

It is thus evident that when a lion comes upon a person, it is in place of stoning; and when thieves come upon a person, it is because he was liable for execution by the sword. Therefore, bandits [thieves] come upon him. If so, these are at the hands of Heaven.

Rather, reverse

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

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 traps,

which are

at the hands of man

?

It follows that Jacob's “disaster” was a disaster at the hands of man, and one cannot derive from it the law of a disaster at the hands of Heaven, which exempts one from monetary liability.

Rava said: The reason for Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana -

who exempts those liable for karet from monetary payments - is

from here,

as it is derived from this verse:

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

[and do not put him to death as prescribed],

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

The Torah said: My karet -

is

like your death!

It takes the place of death, and it is its substitute.

Just as your death,

one who is liable for it is

exempt from monetary payments, so too my karet,

one who is liable for it is

exempt from monetary payments.

a. One who steals or robs an object from another is obligated to return it. If he does not return it—for example, if it was lost—he is obligated 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 regard to the stolen object. For example, he lifted the object from its place in order to steal or rob it, and by lifting the object he intended

to acquire it for himself.

However, stealing an object merely by removing it from the owner's possession, without performing an act of acquisition, is only a prohibited act; it does not create an obligation to return its monetary value [although if the object still exists, there is an obligation to return it, since it still belongs to its owner]. “

The thief's or robber's act of acquisition” with regard to the stolen object has two implications: one concerning the thief's right, and the other concerning his obligation:

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

the thief

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

without performing any further act of acquisition.

The second implication of the act of acquisition concerns the thief's obligation: he is obligated to pay the value of the object he stole even if the object was lost through circumstances beyond his control. Since, by virtue of the thief's acquisition of the object, the stolen object is considered his, he cannot exempt himself by claiming that the owner's object was lost through circumstances beyond his control.

c. One who eats another's object, in a manner that does not make him liable for damaging it or for stealing it [for any reason], is obligated to pay the value of his benefit from the food, since he benefited from another's object.

This obligation applies when his throat and intestines benefited.

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

And if he ate another's teruma -

If he stole it and “acquired” the teruma by lifting it or in a similar manner before eating it, he is liable as a robber. But if he ate it without performing an act of acquisition through theft, he is liable as one who benefits from the consumption of another's property, and must pay him the value of his benefit.

And the Gemara explains:

What difference is there between Rava,

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

and Abaye,

who derives this law from “disaster, disaster”?

The difference between them

concerns liability to death at the hands of Heaven: Does it exempt one from monetary payments according to Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana?

For example,

a non-kohein who ate teruma

belonging to another intentionally, for which he is liable to death at the hands of Heaven.

According to Abaye -

who derives every disaster at the hands of Heaven through a gezeira shava from a disaster at the hands of man - he is

exempt

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

But

if

according to Rava -

who derives from the verse only that the punishment of karet is like court-imposed death and exempts one from monetary payments - he is

liable

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

But

if

according to Abaye,

indeed,

he is exempt

from paying the other the value of the stolen property when a non-kohein eats another's teruma?!

But Rav Ḥisda said: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana concedes,

who exempts those liable for karet from monetary payments,

in the case of one who steals another's forbidden fat and eats it -

that he is liable

to pay for the theft, even though he became liable to karet for eating the forbidden fat.

There is no exemption here of kim lei bedirabba minei, since the two acts did not occur at the same time:

he had already become liable

at the moment he lifted it

for

the payment of the value of the

theft -

even

before he came to

the punishment for the

prohibition

of eating

forbidden fat,

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

Evidently,

it is proven that once

from the moment he lifted it -

he acquired it

[from the moment he lifted the stolen object, he acquired it and became liable for its payment]. But

he becomes liable to lose his life

through liability for karet

only once he eats it.

It follows that the two liabilities did not come upon him simultaneously; therefore the karet does not exempt the monetary obligation.

If so,

here -

in the case of one who steals another's teruma and eats it -

also

we should say that the death does not exempt him from the obligation incurred for stealing it, since here too,

at the moment he lifted

another's teruma,

he acquired it

and became liable for its payment. But

he does not become liable to lose his life until he eats it.

The statement we made according to Abaye—that a non-kohein who eats teruma is exempt from paying for stealing the teruma from another—would therefore be difficult!?

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? For example, his fellow thrust

the teruma

into his mouth,

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

Since his entire liability is for the benefit to his intestines, at the very moment he derives that benefit he also becomes liable to death at the hands of Heaven [since a non-kohein 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 why we exempt a non-kohein who ate teruma in this manner from monetary liability as a robber:

Ultimately,

even if his fellow thrust it into his mouth,

once he chewed it -

he acquired it.

Once he chewed the teruma, he acquired it and became liable to pay for it -

But

he does not become liable to lose his life

for eating teruma

until he swallows it,

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

The difficulty nevertheless remains: How can the later liability to death exempt him from the earlier liability for theft?!

And we answer: Here we are dealing with

a case where his fellow thrust it

into

the place of swallowing,

as the Gemara continues and explains.

What are the circumstances?

In what manner, and to what point in his place of swallowing, did his fellow thrust it?

If he is able to return it,

if, even after his fellow thrust it into the place of swallowing, he can return the teruma and vomit it out -

if so, the difficulty is:

Let him return it

[let him return it]!

That is: he should have returned it rather than swallowed it, and if he swallowed it, he became liable to pay for it. But

if

we are dealing with a case where his fellow thrust it deeply into the place of swallowing, so that

he is unable to return it

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

The difficulty is:

Why is he liable

to the punishment of death at the hands of Heaven for this benefit? The teruma was swallowed into his intestines under duress, and “one who acts under duress—the Merciful One exempts him”!

Since he is exempt from death at the hands of Heaven, according to everyone there is no case here of kim lei bedirabba minei to exempt him from monetary payment for the benefit to his throat and intestines from the teruma.

And we answer:

It is not necessary.

That is: it is possible for him to become liable to death at the hands of Heaven for eating the teruma, without becoming liable for having stolen it and failed to return it, in a case where his fellow thrust the teruma into the place of swallowing, as far as the point

where he is able to return it

[the eater can return it] only

with difficulty -

At this point, where he can return it only with difficulty, the teruma has already become repulsive, and he is not liable monetarily for swallowing it and not returning it. Nevertheless, since ultimately he can return it, he is not considered under duress with regard to swallowing it, and he is liable to death at the hands of Heaven.

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 derives benefit, at the moment when his intestines benefited from the teruma, therefore the liability to death [which likewise arises when his intestines benefited] exempts him from the monetary liability.

Rav Pappa said,

This is how it should be resolved, so that there will be no difficulty from the statement of Rav Ḥisda regarding one who steals his forbidden fat:

There is no difference between Abaye and Rava with regard to a non-priest who “ate” teruma; they differ only with regard to a non-priest who drank liquids of teruma. And do not raise against this the objection: “Once he lifted it, he acquired it, whereas if he were liable to death, he would not become liable until he drank it”—

for it is speaking of

a case such as

one in which he did not first lift the teruma, but rather

his fellow forced liquids of teruma into his mouth,

and even though he did not push them deep into his swallowing cavity—for since the liquids become repulsive as soon as they enter his mouth, he cannot be held liable for failing to return them, and he becomes liable only when they enter his intestines, under the law of one who derives benefit [as in the case of a person eating food that his fellow forced into a place from which he cannot return it except with difficulty]. Thus, at the moment of his deriving benefit, he becomes liable to death at the hand of Heaven, and this exempts him from the monetary liability.

Rav Ashi said

to resolve the matter, so that there would be no difficulty from the statement of Rav Ḥisda:

The difference between them is

with regard to a non-priest who ate teruma belonging to him—

which he inherited from his maternal grandfather, who was a kohen. We are not discussing payment for the teruma, because it is his; nevertheless, he becomes liable to death at the hand of Heaven, since he is a non-priest.