Ketubot 41a — the Talmud in English

A. One who admits to a monetary obligation imposed upon him is obligated to pay—“the admission of a litigant is equivalent to one hundred witnesses”—and this is learned from the verse: “that he shall say: This is it.” But one who admits to an obligation of a fine [before they brought him to court and obligated him to pay the fine] is exempt—“one who admits to a fine is exempt,” as it is stated in the section concerning double payment, which is a fine: “whom the judges shall condemn,” and the verse came to exclude: “excluding one who condemns himself.”

B. The double payment for which the thief is obligated is composed of the principal, which is money, and the double payment, which is a fine. If the thief slaughtered or sold it, he adds two for a sheep or three for an ox, and these are fines.

C. The payments of the owners for the damage caused by their ox are a monetary obligation, and likewise the ransom that the owners are obligated to pay when their ox killed a person is a monetary obligation;

But when their ox killed a slave, and his owners became obligated 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 blemish

alone

on the basis of 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 to a fine is exempt,” for this is what the Torah said concerning a fine: “whom the judges shall condemn,” and we expound: excluding one who condemns himself.

Likewise,

one who

admits and

says: I stole

and it is found that he is obligated for the principal and the double payment, he

pays the principal

alone

on the basis of his own admission,

since it is a monetary obligation—

But

nevertheless

he does not pay double payment

for the theft that he admitted,

and

not

fourfold and fivefold payments

for slaughter and sale, which are also a fine.

Likewise, one who admits and says:

My ox killed so-and-so

and I am obligated for ransom,

or

my ox killed

so-and-so’s ox,

and I am obligated for the damage to the ox,

he pays on the basis of his own admission,

because these are “money.”

But one who admits and says:

My ox killed

the

slave of so-and-so

and I am obligated [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 rule:

Anyone who pays

even

more than what he damaged,

meaning: the Torah fixed the amount of the payment and obligated him to pay it even if the value of the damage is less than the fixed amount, 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 blemish on the basis of his own admission, but does not pay the fine on the basis of his own admission:

The Gemara deduces from the wording of the Mishna, which we learned as “I seduced” so-and-so’s daughter, even though this law is also true concerning one who raped another’s daughter, and asks:

And let it teach

in our Mishna: One who says

“I raped”

so-and-so’s daughter!? And we answer:

It states the nonessential case,

meaning: Certainly, if he said, “I raped,” he is believed to obligate himself for humiliation and blemish, and he is exempt from the fine; rather, the Mishna teaches us a novelty: even when he said, “I seduced,” we believe him to obligate him for humiliation and blemish. And this is the intention of the Mishna:

It is unnecessary

for one who admits and says

“I raped”—

for he does not blemish her,

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

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

But

one who admits and says

“I seduced”—he does blemish her,

she becomes blemished if the court believes him and obligates him in payments;

I might say that he does not pay on the basis of his own admission,

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 humiliation and blemish from him.

And the Gemara explains:

The Mishna

our Mishna is

not according to this tanna!

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even humiliation and blemish he does not pay on the basis of his own admission,

because

it is not within his power to blemish so-and-so’s daughter,

to bring upon her the slander that she fornicates in the city.

Said

Rav Pappa raised a doubt

to Abaye:

If

she herself is amenable to it,

if the daughter prefers to bear the slander in order to gain the money of humiliation and blemish,

what

is the law according to Rabbi Shimon? Is he believed and obligated to pay humiliation and blemish?

Abaye said to him: He is not believed, because

perhaps her father is not amenable to it,

perhaps her father is not amenable to the slander that has gone out concerning his family.

Rav Pappa asked again: And if

he is amenable to it

also,

what is the law for her father?

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 are not amenable to this, the court must not do anything that strengthens their shame.

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 the country overseas who is not amenable to it.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who says, “I stole,” pays the principal,

etc.; “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 a non-attested ox [before its owners had been warned concerning the ox’s damages] that caused damage by goring was the subject of a dispute between Rav Pappa and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua:

Rav Pappa said: It is money

and not a fine, and 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.

And the Gemara explains the reasoning of each one:

Rav Pappa said: Half-damage is money,

because

he holds:

Ordinary oxen do not stand with an assumed status of being guarded

by themselves

they stand,

they are not guarded by themselves from causing damage if the owners do not guard them; rather, they cause even damages that are not their usual manner, such as goring, and therefore the obligation of guarding rests upon their owners—

And

if so,

by right he should pay all of it,

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

but the Merciful One had compassion upon it,

the Torah spared him from paying the whole of it, since

his ox has not yet been attested

his ox has not yet been attested, but what he pays, he pays by right; and if so, it is “money.”

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

because

he holds:

Ordinary oxen stand with an assumed status of being guarded

by themselves

they stand,

so as not to cause damages that are not their usual manner, such as goring, even if the owners do not guard them.

And

if so,

by right they should not pay,

the owners

anything at all, but the Merciful One imposed a fine upon them,

upon the owners,

so that they would guard their ox,

so that they would increase their guarding of the ox; and if so, it is a fine.

A mnemonic

for the Gemara’s four proofs according to Rav Pappa’s view that “half-damage is money”:

a.

The injured party:

b.

What;

c.

And he killed;

d.

Rule.

a.

The injured party:

We learned

in the Mishna in Bava Kamma:

The injured party and the damager

participate

in the payments

of the damage. That is, the damager does not receive the entire value of his damage, and it is as though he participates in the payments [and it proceeds to explain this].

Granted, according to the one who says [

Rav Pappa]:

half-damage is money; this is why the injured party belongs in the payments,

for he loses half the value of his property, which by right should have been collected from the damager.

But according to the one who says [

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua]:

half-damage is a fine,

and by right he should receive nothing, this is difficult: How does the tanna call this “the injured party participates in the payments”? For:

Now, since he takes what is not his [

for even what the injured party receives, he does not receive by right, and he takes what belongs to his fellow, the damager], can it be said that

he is included in the payments [

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

And we answer: When we learned “the injured party and the damager participate in the payments,” the intention is not to the half-damage that the injured party loses, but that with regard to that half-damage that the Torah granted him, he does not receive all of it, and it is as though he participates in the payments—

and

it was necessary only for the depreciation

of the value of the

carcass

from the time of the damage until the time of standing before the court , for the damager pays only the difference between the value of the carcass at the time of the damage and its value before the damage, but the damager does not pay the depreciation of its value until the time of standing before the court, and the injured party bears this loss; it follows that it is as though the injured party participates in the payments. The Gemara objects: Can the Mishna be explained as referring to

depreciation of a carcass!?

But earlier, in that Mishna in Bava Kamma, where we learned, “The injured party and the one who caused the damage share the obligation to pay,” we already learned: “And when he caused damage, the one who caused it is liable to pay compensation for the damage from the best land.”

And

we already learned

in the beraita an explanation of the wording of the Mishna: “to pay

payment for damage,”

rather than the tanna’s wording: “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. 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 this law twice, because

one applies to

an unacquainted ox,

and one applies to

an

muad.

ox.

The Mishna therefore needs

to teach that the loss from the decrease in the value of the carcass is borne by the injured party, both in the case of an unacquainted ox and in the case of an established ox!

If it had taught

this law only with regard to an

unacquainted

ox, I might have said that this law was stated only with regard to such an ox

because it has not yet been established

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

But

with regard to an

established

ox, the one who caused the damage had already

been established as dangerous,

and the one who caused the damage had been warned,

I might say that it is not

the injured party who bears the decrease in value, but rather the one who caused the damage.

And if it had taught

this law only with regard to an

muad,

ox, I might have said that the decrease is not imposed on the one who caused the damage

because he pays the entire amount

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

But

an

tam,

ox, for which the one who caused the damage pays only half the damage,

I might say that it is not

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

Therefore,

it is necessary to teach both cases!

b.

What.

Consider a proof

from the following teaching in support of Rav Pappa, who said that half-damages are a monetary obligation:

As we learned:

What is the difference between an unacquainted ox and an established ox?

An unacquainted ox pays half the damage

and only

from its own body

—from the value of the ox that caused the damage. If the ox is not worth half the value of the damage, the injured party bears the loss—

whereas an established ox pays the full damage,

and pays it

from the owner’s general assets

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

And

yet

it does not teach

another difference between them:

“An unacquainted ox does not pay on the basis of its owner’s own admission, whereas an established ox pays on the basis of its owner’s own admission.”

This implies that even an unacquainted ox pays on the basis of its owner’s own admission, because the payment is a monetary obligation. But this is difficult for Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who holds that half-damages are a penalty!?

And we answer:

The tanna,

a sage of the Mishnaic era, taught one difference between an unacquainted ox and an established ox,

and left out

another difference, namely, payment on the basis of the owner’s own admission.

But

what

other difference between an unacquainted ox and an established ox

did

the tanna leave out, that it should be said

that this

—the difference concerning payment on the basis of the owner’s own admission—was also

left out?

And we explain:

The tanna left out

another difference between an unacquainted ox and an established ox, namely,

half the ransom payment!

An established ox pays a ransom payment when it kills a person, whereas an unacquainted ox does not pay even half a ransom payment—as is its rule in other cases of damage—when it kills a person.

The Gemara continues to resolve a hidden difficulty:

According to Rav Pappa, who said that half-damages are a monetary obligation, and according to his view the only omission in that Mishna besides the half-ransom payment is this one, the following difficulty arises: What else did the tanna leave out, such that it could be said that this was left out as well!?

And we answer:

If the issue is half the ransom payment, it is not considered an omission,

meaning: The tanna did not leave out even the law of “half the ransom payment,” which an unacquainted ox does not pay. Thus, the question “What else did he leave out that he left this out?” no longer arises, because: