Ketubot 37b — the Talmud in English

And one

verse—“because of his guilt

with death and lashes.”

And it is necessary

for the Torah to teach us this law, both with death and money and with death and lashes, that he is not punished with both!

For if it had taught us

only with

death and money,

I would say

because one

punishment [death] is

in his body, and one

punishment is

in his money,

therefore

we do not do

[we do not impose both punishments upon him].

But with death and lashes, since both this and that,

both the death and the lashes, are punishments

in his body, let it be said,

I would say that the two punishments together are like

one extended death

[it is an extended death], and they are not considered two separate punishments,

and

therefore

we should do upon him

both of them.

And if it had taught us

only with

death and lashes,

I would say that it is because

we do not do two things in his body,

we do not impose two bodily punishments.

But death and money, since one

punishment is

in his body, and one

punishment is

in his money—

let us do upon him

both of them.

Therefore

it is necessary

to have these two verses!

Since it was explained in our Mishna that from “and there shall be no harm” we learn that the death exempts from the money, the Gemara now explains additional verses whose apparent meaning was that they innovated the law of “he is placed with the greater of them,” and it explains why these verses are needed. And through the explanation of these verses, the matter develops into the explanation of other verses.

A. That which the Torah said

“And you shall not take a ransom for the soul of a murderer

”—whose apparent meaning is that if you kill the person liable for death, you shall no longer punish him with a monetary punishment——

why do I need

to say this? We have already learned this law from “and there shall be no harm”!

And we explain: the intention of the verse is not to exempt him from money because he receives the punishment of death, but

that

thus

the Merciful One said: Do not take money from him

[do not take a monetary ransom from the murderer]

and exempt him from execution!

So that he should not redeem himself from death through a monetary payment. B. That which the Torah said

“You shall not take a ransom for one who flees

[that is, for one who fled]

to his city of refuge

”—whose apparent meaning is that if he killed unintentionally and became liable for exile, he is not liable to pay a monetary ransom—

why do I need

to say this? We already knew that those liable for unintentional deaths are exempt from money from the derivation of the school of Tanna of Hezekiah [above, 33a]!

And we explain: this verse too does not come to exempt him from the money, but

that

thus

the Merciful One said: Do not take money from him,

from one who killed unintentionally,

and exempt him

through this

from exile.

And two verses—

that we should not take a ransom in order to be exempt from death or from exile—

why do I need them?

And we explain:

one

verse is for one who kills

unintentionally.

And one

verse is for a murderer

intentionally.

And they are necessary

to have both verses, to teach us that both intentionally and unintentionally we do not take a monetary ransom from him to exempt him from death or from exile!

For if it had taught us

only concerning a murderer

intentionally,

that the murderer is not exempted from the punishment of death through a monetary ransom, I would say that only a murderer cannot be exempted through ransom

because its prohibition is severe,

for it is a severe prohibition, that he murdered intentionally.

But unintentionally, since its prohibition is not severe, I would say not

that the Torah was particular if we take a ransom from him and thereby exempt him from exile.

And if it had taught us

only concerning

unintentionally, because there is no loss of life

for the killer, since we are coming to impose upon him only exile.

But intentionally, since there is loss of life

for the killer,

I would say not

that the Torah was particular if we take a ransom from him in order not to destroy his life.

Therefore

it is necessary

for the Torah to teach us both intentionally and unintentionally!

C. And since we explained the verse “And you shall not take a ransom for the soul of a murderer,” that it comes to say that we should not take a ransom in order to exempt him from death, the following statement in the passage of the heifer whose neck is broken becomes difficult [which they bring when a slain person is found near the city, and it is not known who struck him]—

“And the land shall not be atoned for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it

”—and the meaning of the verse is that the blood that was shed is not atoned for by giving money, but only by killing the killer—

why do I need

to say this? We have already learned this law from “And you shall not take a ransom for the soul of a murderer”!

And we explain:

it is needed

for the verse “And the land shall not be atoned for blood,” in the passage of the heifer whose neck is broken,

as it was taught:

From where

that if

the heifer

was killed by breaking its neck over a slain person who was found near the city and it was not known who struck him,

and afterward the killer was found, from where is it that they do not exempt him

from the obligation of death to which he is liable, and we do not say: since the heifer atones for the uncertainty, the murderer has already been atoned for while the matter was uncertain, but they make him liable for death like every murderer?

As it is stated: “And the land shall not be atoned for the blood that is shed in it

—except by the blood of the one who shed it.”

D. And at the end of the passage of the heifer whose neck is broken, where it says

“And you shall remove the innocent blood from your midst

”—whose meaning is that the murderer is to be judged with death even if the heifer’s neck was broken—

why do I need

to say this? We have already learned this law from “And the land shall not be atoned for”!

And we explain:

it is needed

for the verse to write, “And you shall remove the innocent blood from your midst,”

as it was taught:

From where is it established concerning those executed by the sword,

such as a murderer, whose obligation of death is by the sword,

that he is

executed by cutting with a sword

from the neck?

The text says

in the passage of the heifer whose neck is broken:

“And you shall remove the innocent blood from your midst.”

All the shedders of blood

who are punished with death by the sword

were compared to the

law of

the heifer whose neck is broken—

Just as there,

with the heifer whose neck is broken,

from the neck

they would break its neck,

so too the shedders of blood, from the neck

they execute them.

And we raise an objection:

If just as there,

with the heifer whose neck is broken,

with a cleaver

[an axe]

and opposite the nape,

[at the back of the neck, below the nape] they would break its neck,

so too here

with execution by the sword,

with a cleaver and opposite the nape,

and not with a knife and from the side of the windpipe and gullet?

Rav Naḥman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said: The verse says, “And you shall love your fellow as yourself”—choose a beautiful death for him!

And cutting with a knife is a beautiful death for him compared with cutting with an axe. And when they cut the windpipe and the gullet, he dies quickly, and this is a beautiful death.

E. And concerning that which is stated:

“Every devoted thing that is devoted

[as in: “One who sacrifices to the gods shall be devoted,” that is, they shall kill him]

from man

—that a person became liable to be devoted—

shall not be redeemed,”

whose meaning is that one who became liable for death shall not give money to redeem himself from death,

why do I need

to say this? We have already learned this law from “And you shall not take a ransom for the soul of a murderer”!

And we explain:

it is needed

for the verse to write, “Every devoted thing that is devoted from man shall not be redeemed,”

as it was taught:

From where is it established concerning one going out to be executed

by an Israelite court,

and

one

person

said concerning the one going out to be executed:

“His valuation is upon me,” from where is it established that he has said nothing,

that he need not give the valuation of a person [which is fixed in the Torah in the passage of Bechukotai]?

As it is stated: “Every devoted thing that is devoted from man

—shall not be redeemed”!

And the term “devoted thing” means a consecrated object, and the intention of the verse “every devoted thing” is to say that if one consecrates the valuation of a person when he is about to be executed [“that is devoted from man”], it is not necessary to pay his valuation [“shall not be redeemed”].

Could it be even before his verdict was completed,

that is, of one who became liable for a court-imposed death, the law would be

so,

that if a person said concerning him, “His valuation is upon me,” he has said nothing?

The text says: “Every devoted thing that is devoted

from man”

—

and not every person!

And according to Rabbi Ḥanania ben Akavia, who says:

the one going out to be executed is

valued, because his value is fixed

in the Torah according to years and not according to his market value, and therefore even though he is worth nothing if they were to place him for sale in the marketplace as a slave, since he is going out to be executed, the one who values him becomes liable to pay his valuation.

This “every devoted thing

”—what does he do with it?

And we explain:

it is needed—

for Rabbi Ḥanania ben Akavia to write, “Every devoted thing that is devoted from man shall not be redeemed”—

as it was taught:

Rabbi Ishmael, the son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says:

Since we find concerning “those executed at the hands of Heaven

”—such as an ox that killed a person, concerning which the Torah said, “and its owner shall also be put to death” —

that they give

the executed ones

money and it atones for them, as it is stated

concerning an ox that killed a person, “and its owner shall also be put to death.

If

[that is, but his owner is not actually to be put to death, rather]

a ransom shall be imposed upon him.”

Could it be even

those executed

at human hands likewise,

that they give a ransom and become exempt?

The text says: “A devoted thing from man

—that is, a person who became liable to be devoted—

shall not be redeemed.”

And I have only severe deaths, whose unintentional transgression was not given for atonement,

for they have no obligation of karet apart from the death, and therefore they have no sin-offering when they committed the transgression unintentionally.

Those liable for

lesser deaths, whose unintentional transgression was given for atonement,

that is, those who have an obligation of karet [when they were not warned so as to make them liable for death], and in these cases there is an obligation of a sin-offering when they acted unintentionally,

from where

is it established that he cannot give money in order to achieve atonement and become exempt from these deaths?

The verse states: “Every thing devoted".

And the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the basic explanation of the verse, “Every thing devoted that is devoted from among man shall not be redeemed,” which comes to say that he shall not give money so that he may achieve atonement and be exempt:

And

because

not automatically, from “You shall not take a ransom

for the life of a murderer",

do you learn from it: you shall not take money from him and release him?! And surely from there one can learn even regarding those liable to death penalties whose inadvertent act was given [a means] for atonement, for the verse speaks of a murderer, and when he killed unintentionally, he goes into exile—

After all, this can be learned from there even concerning those liable to death penalties whose inadvertent acts are subject to atonement, since the verse speaks about a murderer, and when he kills inadvertently, he is exiled—

And if so

“Every thing devoted

which teaches that very matter—

why do I need it?!

Rami bar Hama said: It is necessary also to have the verse “Every thing devoted,” and [it is] in order to teach that even those liable to death penalties whose inadvertent act was given [a means] for atonement do not give a ransom and become exempt.

to have the verse “Every person condemned to death” as well, in order to teach that even those liable to death penalties whose inadvertent acts are subject to atonement do not pay a ransom and thereby become exempt.

And regarding what is difficult for you—surely the life of a murderer, for which the Torah excluded the ransom, his inadvertent act too was given [a means] for atonement—this is not difficult—