Ketubot 41b (מא:) — the Talmud in English

Whose opinion is this? —

This Mishna is

that of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: An innocuous ox pays half a kofer.

3.

Killed.

Come and hear

in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, who holds that half-damages are monetary payment, from our Mishna:

If my ox killed so-and-so or

the

ox of so-and-so, he must pay

the damage

on the basis of his own admission.

And

is it not so that

our Mishna is speaking

of an

ox that is

innocuous

that killed or caused damage, thus indicating that even the half-damages of an innocuous ox are paid on the basis of his own admission, because they are not a fine but monetary payment? This would be a difficulty against Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua!?

And we answer:

No,

not as you interpreted our Mishna, that it is dealing with an innocuous ox, but

with

an ox that is

forewarned.

The Gemara is surprised:

But in the case of an innocuous ox, what

will the law

be? Is he not liable to pay on the basis of his own admission!?

If so,

when it teaches in the latter clause: “

My ox killed the

slave of so-and-so; he does not pay on the basis of his own admission,”

because it is a fine—

let the tanna distinguish

between

and teach

a distinction between monetary payment and a fine

in that very case,

that is, in the case of killing a free person, and in the case of damage caused to an animal, which the tanna discussed, rather than skipping to the case of killing a slave. The tanna could have made the following distinction:

In what case is this statement said? In the case of a forewarned ox. But

in the case of an

innocuous ox, he does not pay on the basis of his own admission!?

And we answer:

The entire statement is speaking of a forewarned ox;

the tanna makes a distinction between monetary payment and a fine only in the case of a forewarned ox!

That is to say: You should not ask why the tanna skipped from the case of a free person and an animal to that of a slave, and should have taught the distinction between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox within those very cases. For even had he made the distinction within those cases between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox, it would still have been a jump from forewarned to innocuous; “a free person and an animal” are no more appropriate subjects for the distinction than “forewarned.”

4.

The general principle.

Come and hear

in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, that half-damages are monetary payment—from the end of our Mishna:

This is the general principle: Anyone who pays more than the amount of the damage he caused

is liable for a fine and

does not pay on the basis of his own admission.

And it is inferred:

If

he pays

less than the amount of the damage he caused—

such as in the case of an innocuous ox—then

he pays on the basis of his own admission,

indicating that this is not a fine. This would be a difficulty against Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua!?

And we answer:

Do not say—

do not infer precisely that

“if he pays less than the amount of the damage he caused,”

he pays on the basis of his own admission!

Rather, say that you should infer as follows:

that you should infer as follows:

If

he pays

the amount of the damage he caused,

then

he pays on the basis of his own admission;

whereas one who pays less than the amount of the damage he caused is also subject to a fine and does not pay on the basis of his own admission.

The Gemara is surprised:

But in the case of paying less

than the amount of the damage he caused,

what

will the law be? Is he

not liable to pay on the basis of his own admission!?

But if so,

let it teach: “This is the general principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount of the damage he caused does not pay on the basis of his own admission,” which implies ‘less’

than the amount of the damage he caused,

and it also implies

that

more

than the amount of the damage he caused!?

And we conclude:

Tiyuvta

of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who holds that half-damages are a fine!

And

the Gemara adds and establishes

the halakha: Half-damages are a fine.

The Gemara asks: How can it be said that there is

a t破uvta and

nevertheless

the halakha is so!?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, although we raised a difficulty against this opinion, nevertheless it is the halakha, because the difficulty is not conclusive. For:

Why was Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, refuted

when he said that half-damages are a fine?

Because it does not teach: “Anyone who pays

Anyone who pays

the amount of the damage he caused

pays on the basis of his own admission,” which would imply that anyone who pays less or more than the amount of the damage he caused does not pay on the basis of his own admission. This refutation is not a conclusive refutation, because

it is not unequivocal for him;

the matter is not invariably so!

Since there is

another case in which one does not pay the amount of the damage he caused, namely

half-damages

of

pebbles [stones],

that is, an animal was walking and propelled stones, and the pebbles broke utensils. Since this damage was caused by the animal’s force and not directly by its body, the owner pays only half-damages—

for it is a received halakha

that is, it is learned as a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai

that it is monetary payment

and not a fine;

therefore it does not teach: “Anyone who pays the amount of the damage he caused.”

Anyone who pays the amount of the damage he caused.”

The Gemara adds another halakha concerning this matter:

And now that you have said

and it has now been clarified that the halakha follows Rav Pappa, that

half-damages are a fine:

If so,

in the case of this dog that ate lambs

[a dog that strangled live lambs and ate them]

and a cat that ate chickens

[a cat that ate chickens, meaning that it killed them and ate them]

large ones

[large animals] — these damages, for those animals,

are unusual,

and since the conduct is unusual, they are a derivative of an innocuous “Horn,” and they pay only half-damages, which is a fine—

And

therefore

we do not collect

these damages

in Babylonia,

as fines are not adjudicated in Babylonia.

They said this only when the dog and cat ate large lambs and chickens.

But

if the dog or cat ate lambs and chickens

small ones

[small],

it is its usual manner,

and they are a derivative of “Tooth,”

and we collect

the payment for them in Babylonia, since they are monetary cases, which are adjudicated even in Babylonia.

And

even in the case of large animals,

if the injured party seized

the damaging party’s property,

we do not take it away from him

[we do not take it from him].

And if

the injured party did not seize the property, and

said

to the court:

Set a date for me to go to the Land of Israel,

have the damaging party go with me to litigate before the judges of the Land of Israel, who are ordained and able to adjudicate, and set a time for us at which the damaging party will come with me to litigate before them—

we set a date for him,

and the court complies with the injured party’s request.

And if he does not go,

the damaging party—if the damaging party does not heed the court’s instruction to go to the Land of Israel—

we place him under a ban,

and the court places the damaging party under a ban.

In either case,

whether the court set a date for going to the Land of Israel or not,

we place him under a ban,

the damaging party,

as we say to him,

for the court says to him:

Remove your damaging object, in accordance with Rabbi Natan,

as will be explained: The court threatens the damaging party with a ban if he does not comply with its instruction to remove the damaging object that caused the damage, and he is obligated to remove it by virtue of Rabbi Natan’s statement—

As it is taught in a beraita, Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not raise a dangerous dog inside his house or place a defective ladder inside his house?

As it is stated: “You shall not place blood in your house.”

We shall return to you, chapter “These are the young women.”

This chapter explains the laws governing the payments owed by one who rapes a virgin maiden and by one who seduces a virgin maiden.

One who rapes her pays four payments: the fixed fine prescribed by the Torah, of fifty shekels, and three additional payments for humiliation, degradation, and pain.

The fixed fine paid by the rapist is for the pleasure of intercourse, whereas the other three payments are like those of anyone who injures another, who pays for damage, pain, medical treatment, humiliation, and loss of work; except that in the case of rape there is no payment for medical treatment or for time lost from work.

The assessment of humiliation depends on both the one who humiliates and the one who is humiliated. The amount of money that it would be appropriate to pay for the humiliation caused to her by the act of rape is assessed—for her, for her father, and for her family.

The assessment of degradation is like the assessment of damage in every other case: they assess how much she would have been worth in the marketplace as a virgin maidservant and how much her value decreased as a maidservant who had undergone intercourse. The value of a virgin maidservant is greater than that of one who had undergone intercourse, because the master is prepared to pay a higher sum for a virgin maidservant in order to give her as a wife to a slave whom he wishes to favor.

The assessment of pain is an estimate of how much the father would have been prepared to pay so that his daughter would not suffer the pain of intercourse with this man.

The rapist pays the fine to the maiden's father as long as she is under his authority, until she reaches majority and comes under her own authority.

Likewise, he must pay the payments for humiliation and degradation to her father.

Two explanations were given as to why the father receives the payments for humiliation and degradation.

One is that these payments too are included in the “benefit of youth” that belongs to the maiden's father [Rashi 39b, s.v. “her father”; Rambam, Laws of a Virgin Maiden 2:8].

The second is that since her father has the power to degrade and humiliate her by handing her over to a disgraceful man afflicted with leprosy, he is considered the owner of the money due for humiliation and degradation [Ra'avad in his glosses to Laws of One Who Injures and Causes Damage 4:14, according to the conclusion of the Gemara below, 40b].

The payment for pain is also included in the “benefit of youth” that belongs to the father [Rashi 41b, s.v. “and pain”], although some maintain that the pain belongs to her [Tur and Kesef Mishneh in the name of the Ra'avad].

The Mishna below will explain when the father acquires the payments and when she herself acquires them.

Our Sages discussed at length whether, when the father acquires these payments, she first acquires them and her father acquires them from her, or whether these are payments that the rapist or seducer is directly obligated to pay to the father.

See the words of Rabbi Chaim Halevi in Laws of a Virgin Maiden, and the words of Birkat Shmuel on tractate Ketubot, in this chapter.

Mishna:

A maiden who was seduced

by a man and had intercourse with him—the payments for

her humiliation, degradation, and fine—

belong to her father

and not to her.

And

so too, the payment for

pain in the case of a captive woman

that is, a maiden who was raped. She is called “captive” on account of the verse, “and he seizes her and lies with her”—for which the rapist must pay because he caused her pain [unlike a seduced woman, who acted of her own will]—the one who acquires the payment for pain is the father.

If

the maiden

appeared in court

to collect the payments from the seducer

before her father died—

they

those payments,

belong to the father.

But if, after the seduced woman brought the seducer to court [while she was still a maiden],

the father died,

whether she had reached majority before her father's death or had not reached majority before her father's death,

they

those payments

belong to the brothers

of the maiden. Since she had begun legal proceedings to claim these payments, the father acquired them, and her brothers are the heirs of their father's property.

But if the daughter

did not manage

to

appear in court before her father died,

and the father did not manage to acquire them—

they belong to her herself.

Since she did not appear in court before he died, the payments are not considered the father's property, which could be inherited by his sons. And we say below [43a] that a person cannot bequeath to his son a right that the Torah granted him with regard to his daughter. And this is derived from a verse.

Likewise, if she

appeared in court

to claim the payments while she was a maiden,

before she reached majority—

they belong to the father.

And if

the father died

afterward, once he had already acquired the payments—

they belong to the brothers.

But if she

did not manage to appear in court before she reached majority—

they belong to her herself.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Even if she appeared in court before her father died,

if she did not manage to collect

her payments

before her father died—

they belong to her herself.

And the Gemara explains the reason.