Ketubot 32b — the Talmud in English

Rather

the reason of

Ulla

is that he holds that in the case of one who has intercourse with a woman subject to karet, he pays the fine and does not receive lashes; and likewise, in every case involving both lashes and monetary liability, he pays and does not receive lashes:

because

he derives the fine of the rape from the case of one who injures another by means of a gezera shava, “under” from “under”:

the fine of the rape from the case of one who injures another by means of a gezera shava:

as

it is written here

with regard to the fine:

“under which he afflicted”—

and it is written there

in the section concerning one who injures another:

“eye for eye.”

And this gezera shava teaches us:

just as there

—in the case of one who injures another—the law is that

he pays money and does not receive lashes,

and its source is explained below.

so too, wherever there is monetary liability and lashes,

wherever the Torah imposed lashes and monetary payment, the law is that

he pays money and does not receive lashes.

And here the Gemara returns to the question that the Gemara raised at the beginning of the discussion against our Mishna, and to uphold our Mishna, which imposes a fine in cases involving those subject to karet, and the Mishna in Tractate Makkot, which imposes lashes in cases involving those subject to karet, together with the rule that “one does not receive lashes and pay”:

And here the Gemara returns to the question that the Gemara raised at the beginning of the discussion against our Mishna, and to uphold our Mishna, which imposes a fine in cases involving those subject to karet, and the Mishna in Tractate Makkot, which imposes lashes in cases involving those subject to karet, together with the rule that “one does not receive lashes and pay”:

Rabbi Yohanan said: Even if you say

that the Mishna in Makkot deals with

his sister who is a young woman [and not specifically with an adult woman, as Ulla said], it is still not difficult for the Mishna in Makkot because of the objection, “But one does not receive lashes and pay.” For although he is liable for a fine in her case, the money does not exempt him from the lashes; and the rule that “one does not receive lashes and pay” means that he is punished with lashes and not with money.

And if this is difficult for you: Since it is stated explicitly in the Mishna in Makkot that in cases involving those subject to karet there are lashes, how can our Mishna, which imposes a fine in such cases, be reconciled? It is not difficult:

because

here

in the Mishna in Makkot, where we learned concerning those subject to karet that they receive lashes, it is speaking when

they warned him.

Whereas

here

in our Mishna, where we learned that when he has intercourse with his sister he is liable to pay a fine, it is speaking when

they did not warn him,

and he is not liable for lashes; and since he does not receive lashes, he pays the fine.

about the lashes. He is therefore not liable to lashes, and since he is not flogged, he pays the fine.

Apparently

it is proven that

Rabbi Yohanan holds: wherever there is monetary liability and lashes, and they warned him [and warned him so that he would become liable for lashes],

he receives lashes and does not pay money.

And we raise an objection:

What is Rabbi Yohanan’s source for this?

From where does Rabbi Yohanan derive this?

The Gemara explains:

And the Gemara explains:

The verse says [Deuteronomy 25]: “Then the judge shall make him fall and strike him before him

according to his wickedness

in number.” And from there we learn:

For one wickedness you may make him liable, but you may not make him liable for two wickednesses,

so that if he became liable for lashes and money, he should not receive lashes and pay—

And it is adjacent to it,

adjacent to this verse: “[according to his wickedness in number]

forty shall he strike him,”

the verse comes to teach that if he becomes liable for lashes and money, he receives forty lashes and does not pay.

And the Gemara asks:

But what of one who injures another, where there is

monetary liability and lashes,

and the law is that

he pays money and does not receive lashes,

whereas according to Rabbi Yohanan, everywhere he receives lashes and does not pay!?

And if you will say,

perhaps you will say in order to reconcile it:

These words

—that one who injures another is liable for money even though there is also a liability for lashes—

apply where they did not warn him,

so that he does not actually become liable for lashes;

but

where they

warned him,

indeed,

he receives lashes

and

does not pay money,

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s view.

This cannot be used to reconcile Rabbi Yohanan’s position:

because

did Rabbi Ami not say in the name of Rabbi Yohanan

himself:

If he struck him with a blow that was not worth a peruta,

he

receives lashes.

But

what are the circumstances,

in what circumstances is Rabbi Yohanan speaking?

If they did not warn him,

if Rabbi Yohanan’s statement was made in a situation in which there was no warning for lashes,

why does he receive lashes?

After all, there are no lashes without warning.

Rather, it is obvious

that Rabbi Yohanan’s statement was made when they

warned him

for lashes,

and

nevertheless,

the reason is that it does not contain

in the blow

a peruta’s worth,

so that he did not become liable for money; therefore he receives lashes.

Had it contained

in the blow

a peruta’s worth,

the law would be that

he pays money and does not receive lashes.

It is thus explicit that Rabbi Yohanan’s own position is that in the case of one who injures another, he “pays and does not receive lashes.” This is difficult: Rabbi Yohanan holds that throughout the Torah he “receives lashes and does not pay”!

And we answer:

As Rabbi Ila’i said

with regard to conspiring witnesses:

the Torah explicitly included

the

conspiring witnesses for payment

and not for lashes.

So too here,

in the case of one who injures another,

the Torah explicitly included one who injures another for payment.

And the Gemara explains:

Where was Rabbi Ila’i’s statement said?

With regard to this,

with regard to the following Mishna taught in Tractate Makkot [4a], Rabbi Ila’i said his statement:

As we learned:

“We testify concerning so-and-so that he is liable to his fellow for two hundred dinars, and they were found

to be

conspiring witnesses.”

These witnesses

receive lashes

because they transgressed “You shall not bear false witness against your fellow.”

And they pay

money as well, as the Torah says: “And you shall do to him as he plotted to do to his brother.”

And therefore they are liable for both, since

the Name

[the verse]

that brings them to lashes

is not the same one that

brings them to payment.

Rather, they are liable for lashes because of “You shall not bear false witness,” whereas they are liable for money because of the verse, “And you shall do to him as he plotted to do to his brother.”

Rabbi Meir’s statement.

And the Sages say: Anyone who pays

money

does not receive lashes.

And we raise an objection:

Let us say: Anyone who receives lashes does not pay!?

And concerning this

Rabbi Ila’i said: The Torah explicitly included conspiring witnesses for payment.

And we explain:

Where did the Torah include

explicitly, concerning conspiring witnesses, that they should pay? Because:

Since it is written,

it is already written:

“And you shall do to him as he plotted to do to his brother,”

and the verse teaches that the conspiring witnesses are liable for everything that they sought to impose upon the one judged—

And if so, regarding what the verse says in that section, “Your eye shall not pity, life for life,

hand for hand,”

whose plain meaning is that witnesses who plotted to make a person liable in the law of one who injures another, by testifying against him that he severed the hand of his fellow and the one who injured him became liable to have his own hand severed, become liable as well to have their hand severed—

why do I need it,

why was it necessary for the verse to say it as well!?

Rather, the verse teaches: Anyone who injures another pays

something that can be given from hand to hand—and what is that? Money,

and even witnesses who plotted against a person and testified that he injured his fellow become liable for money, and they pay it even when they were warned so that they would receive lashes.

And just as Rabbi Ila’i said, “The Torah explicitly included conspiring witnesses for payment”—so too,

one who injures another as well

the Torah explicitly included for payment:

since,

for behold,

it is written

in the section concerning one who injures another [Leviticus 24]: “And when a man gives a blemish to his fellow,

as he did, so shall it be done to him.”

If so, regarding what the verse says [“fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he gives a blemish to a person,”]

so shall it be given to him—

why do I need it?

Rather, the verse teaches

something that involves giving—and what is that? Money,

even in a case where they warned him and he is liable for lashes.

And the Gemara explains:

And Rabbi Yohanan, what is the reason that he did not say like Ulla?

For

if so—

that one who has intercourse with his virgin sister pays a fine and is not flogged—

you have nullified “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister”",

for everywhere that the Torah said “no,” its intention is to obligate the one who transgresses to lashes, and if he is not flogged, you have nullified the written text.