Ketubot 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

A. One who admits an obligation to pay money imposed upon him is obligated to pay, since “the admission of a litigant is equivalent to one hundred witnesses.” This is derived from the verse: “which he says, ‘This is it’” (Exodus 21:8). But one who admits an obligation to pay a fine [before he was brought to court and adjudged liable to pay the fine] is exempt, since “one who admits liability for a fine is exempt,” as it is stated with regard to the double payment, which is a fine: “whom the judges find guilty” [the court] (ibid.), and the verse comes to exclude: “except one who renders himself guilty.”

B. The double payment for which a thief is liable consists of the principal, which is a monetary obligation, and the double payment, which is a fine. If the thief slaughtered or sold the animal, he adds two sheep or three oxen, respectively, and these payments are fines.

C. The payments imposed upon owners for damage caused by their ox are a monetary obligation. Likewise, the ransom that the owners are obligated to pay when their ox kills a person is a monetary obligation.

But when their ox kills a slave, and his owners become liable to pay thirty shekels to the master of the slave, this obligation is a fine.

Mishna:

One who

admits and

says: I seduced so-and-so’s daughter

he

pays humiliation and depreciation

only

on his own admission,

because the admission of a litigant concerning a monetary obligation is equivalent to one hundred witnesses.

But

nevertheless

he does not pay

the

fine, even though he admitted, because “one who admits liability for a fine is exempt,” as the Torah stated concerning a fine: “whom the judges find guilty” [the court], and we derive: “except one who renders himself guilty.”

Likewise,

And likewise

one who

admits and

says: I stole

and it is discovered that he is liable for the principal and the double payment,

he pays the principal

only

on his own admission,

because it is a monetary obligation—

But

nevertheless

he does not pay the double payment

for the theft that he admitted to,

and

he does

not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment

for slaughtering or selling, which are also fines.

And likewise, one who admits and says:

My ox killed so-and-so

and I am liable for ransom,

or

my ox killed

so-and-so’s ox,

and I am liable for the damage to the ox,

he pays on the basis of his own admission,

because these are monetary obligations.

But one who admits and says:

My ox killed

the

slave of so-and-so

and I am liable to pay thirty sela to the master of the slave,

he does not

pay

on the basis of his own admission,

since the thirty sela are a fine.

This is the general rule

Whenever one pays

even

more than the amount of the damage he caused,

that is, the Torah fixed the amount of the payment and obligated him to pay it even when the value of the damage is less than the fixed amount, it is called a “fine,” and

he does not pay on the basis of his own admission.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who says, “I seduced so-and-so’s daughter,” pays humiliation and depreciation on the basis of his own admission, but does not pay the fine on the basis of his own admission:

The Gemara infers from the wording of the Mishna, which teaches, “I seduced” so-and-so’s daughter, although this law is also true with regard to one who raped another’s daughter, and it raises an objection:

And let it teach

in our Mishna: One who says,

“I raped

so-and-so’s daughter”! And we answer:

It is stating, ‘It is not necessary.’

That is, certainly, if he said, “I raped,” he is believed to obligate himself to pay humiliation and depreciation, and he is exempt from the fine. Rather, the Mishna teaches us a novel point: Even when he said, “I seduced,” we believe him and obligate him to pay humiliation and depreciation. This is the intention of the Mishna:

It is not necessary

for one who admits and says

“I raped”—

for he does not cause her depreciation,

he does not disparage her so greatly with his words, since she was raped against her will—

he pays humiliation and depreciation on the basis of his own admission.

But

one who admits and says,

“I seduced her,” for he does cause her depreciation,

she is stigmatized if the court believes him and obligates him to pay,

one might say that he does not pay on the basis of his own admission: One might have said that we should not believe him in order to take humiliation and depreciation from him and bring upon her a reputation as a promiscuous woman in the city, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the beraita cited immediately below.

I might say that we should not believe him so as to take humiliation and blemish from him and bring upon her the name of one who fornicates in the city, as Rabbi Shimon holds in the beraita brought immediately below.

It teaches us

our Mishna that even one who says, “I seduced so-and-so’s daughter,” is believed, and the court takes from him payment for humiliation and depreciation.

And the Gemara explains:

The Mishna

our Mishna is

not in accordance with this tanna!

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: He does not pay even humiliation and depreciation on the basis of his own admission,

because

he has no authority to cause so-and-so’s daughter depreciation,

to bring upon her a slanderous reputation as a promiscuous woman in the city.

Rav Pappa

was uncertain and

presented the following dilemma to Abaye:

If

she herself is amenable to it,

if the daughter prefers to bear the slander in order to obtain the money for humiliation and depreciation,

what

would the law be according to Rabbi Shimon? Would he be believed and become liable to pay humiliation and depreciation?

Abaye said to him: He is not believed, because

perhaps her father is not amenable to it,

perhaps her father does not want the slander that has emerged concerning his family.

Rav Pappa asked again: And if

he is amenable to it

as well,

what is the law?

Abaye said to him:

Perhaps the members of the family are not amenable to it,

and since it is possible that the members of the family do not want this, the court should not do anything that would reinforce their disgrace.

And he asked again: And if

the members of the family are amenable to it, what is the law?

He said to him:

It is impossible that there is not one

of the family members

in a distant land who is not amenable to it.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who says, ‘I stole,’ pays the principal

and so on; if he says, “My ox killed so-and-so or so-and-so’s ox,” he pays on the basis of his own admission:

It was stated: Half-damage,

the half-damage paid by an innocuous ox [before its owners had been forewarned concerning the ox’s damage] that injured through goring, was the subject of a dispute between Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

Rav Pappa said: It is a monetary obligation

and not a fine. If the owner of the ox admits to the damage, he pays on the basis of his own admission.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is a fine,

and its owners do not pay on the basis of their own admissions.

The Gemara explains the reasoning of each one:

Rav Pappa said: Half-damage is a monetary obligation,

because

he holds:

Ordinary oxen are not presumed to be guarded

on their own; they

stand

in a state in which they will cause damage unless their owners guard them. Rather, they cause even damage that is not characteristic of them, such as goring. Therefore, the obligation to guard them rests upon their owners—

And

if so,

by law he should pay the entire amount,

for the owner should pay all the damage if he did not guard the ox,

but the Torah took pity on him,

the Torah took pity on him so that he should not pay the entire amount, since

his ox has not yet been forewarned

the owner’s ox has not yet been forewarned. Nevertheless, he pays what he is legally obligated to pay, and therefore it is a monetary obligation.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Half-damage is a fine,

because

he holds:

Ordinary oxen are presumed to be guarded

on their own; they

stand

in a state in which they will not cause damage that is not characteristic of them, such as goring, even if their owners do not guard them.

And

if so,

by law they should not pay

the owners

anything at all, but the Torah imposed a fine upon them

the owners,

so that they will guard their ox,

so that they will increase their supervision of the ox. Therefore, it is a fine.

Mnemonic

for the four proofs that the Gemara brings in support of Rav Pappa’s position that “half-damage is a monetary obligation”:

1.

The injured party:

2.

What;

3.

And he killed;

4.

General rule.

1.

The injured party:

We learned

in a Mishna in Bava Kamma:

The injured party and the one who caused the damage

participate

in the payment

of the damage. That is, the one who caused the damage does not receive the entire value of his damage, as though he participates in the payment. [The Gemara proceeds to explain this.]

Granted, according to the one who says [

Rav Pappa ]:

Half-damage is a monetary obligation; this is why the injured party participates in the payment,

for he loses half the value of his property, which by law should have been paid to him by the one who caused the damage.

But according to the one who says [

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua ]:

Half-damage is a fine, and by law he should receive nothing, the following difficulty arises: How can the tanna call this a case in which the injured party participates in the payment? After all:

Now that he is not taking what belongs to him

Now that he is not taking what belongs to him,

[for even what the injured party receives, he receives without legal entitlement, and he is taking what belongs to his fellow, the one who caused the damage], is he

included in the payment

[can it be said that he participates in the payment when he does not receive the full value of all his damage]!?

And we answer: When we learned, “the injured party and the one who caused the damage participate in the payment,” the reference is not to the half of the damage that the injured party loses. Rather, it means that with regard to the half-damage that the Torah granted him, he does not receive all of it, as though he participates in the payment—

And

it is necessary only with regard to the depreciation

in the value of the

carcass

from the time of the damage until the time of the court hearing. The one who caused the damage pays only the difference between the value of the carcass at the time of the damage and the value of the animal before the damage; but he does not pay for the decline in its value until the time of the court hearing, and the injured party bears this loss. It follows that the injured party appears to participate in the payment. The Gemara wonders: Is it possible to explain the Mishna as referring to

the depreciation of a carcass!?

But earlier, in that Mishna in Bava Kamma in which we learned, “The injured party and the one who caused the injury are subject to payment,” we already learned: “And when he caused damage, the one who caused the damage is liable to pay compensation for the damage from the best of the land”.

And

we already learned

in the beraita to explain the wording of the Mishna: “to pay

compensation for damage

”; and the tanna did not teach: “He pays the damage”—

which

teaches that the owners

of the carcass—that is, the injured party—

handle the carcass

and sell it, because it belongs to them and not to the one who caused the damage, and he is liable only for the difference between the value of the live animal and that of the carcass. And if its value decreased after the damage, the one who caused the damage does not bear this loss!? And we answer: The Mishna needs to teach us this law twice, because

one involving a

ox,

and one involving a

ox

that was forewarned

.

And it is necessary

for the Mishna to teach us that the depreciation of the carcass is the injured party’s loss, both in the case of a tam ox and in the case of a forewarned ox!

If it had taught us

this law only with regard to an ox

that was a tam

, I would have said that this law was taught only in that case

because it had not yet been forewarned

[the one who caused the damage had not yet been warned and cautioned].

But

with regard to a

forewarned

ox, the one who caused the damage had already

been forewarned

,

I would say that it is not

the injured party who bears the depreciation, but rather the one who caused the damage.

And if it had taught us

this law only with regard to a

forewarned

ox, I would have said that the depreciation is not imposed on the one who caused the damage

because he pays it in full

—he pays the entire damage, and this loss is sufficient for the one who caused the damage.

But

in the case of a

tam

ox, where the one who caused the damage pays only half the damage,

I would say that it is not

only the owners who handle the carcass; rather, half the depreciation should be imposed on the one who caused the damage.

Therefore

it is necessary!

b.

What?

Come and hear

support for Rav Pappa’s statement that half-damage is a monetary payment:

As we learned:

What is the difference between a tam ox and a forewarned ox?

A tam ox pays half the damage

and only

from its body

—from the body of the ox that caused the damage. And if the ox is not worth half the value of the damage, the injured party suffers the loss;

whereas a forewarned ox pays the full damage

, and pays it

from the superior property

[that is, from the pocket] of the one who caused the damage.

And

behold, it

does not teach

another distinction between them:

“A tam ox does not pay on the basis of its owner’s own admission, whereas a forewarned ox pays on the basis of its owner’s own admission”;

and this implies that even a tam ox pays on the basis of its owner’s own admission, because it is a monetary obligation. This is difficult for Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, who holds: Half-damage is a fine!?

And we answer:

The tanna

taught one distinction between a tam ox and a forewarned ox

and omitted

one distinction, namely, payment on the basis of the owner’s own admission.

But

what

other distinction between a tam ox and a forewarned ox did the tanna

omit

that we should say

this one

[the distinction concerning payment on the basis of the owner’s own admission] was also

omitted?

And we explain:

He omitted

another distinction between a tam ox and a forewarned ox, namely:

half a ransom!

A forewarned ox pays a ransom when it kills a person, whereas a tam ox does not pay even half a ransom—as is its law with regard to other damages—when it kills a person.

The Gemara continues to resolve a latent difficulty, namely:

For Rav Pappa, who said: Half-damage is a monetary payment, and according to him the only other omission in that Mishna is half a ransom, this is difficult: What other distinction did the tanna omit, that he omitted this one [half a ransom]!?

And we answer:

If it is because of half a ransom, it is not an omission

—that is, the tanna did not omit even the law of “half a ransom,” which a tam ox does not pay. Thus, there is no longer a difficulty of: What other distinction did he omit, that he omitted this one? Because: