Ketubot 41b — the Talmud in English

Whom does this represent? —

This Mishna is

that of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, who says: A harmless ox pays half a kofer.

3.

Killed.

Come and hear

in accordance with the words of Rav Pappa, who holds: Half-damages are monetary payment—from our Mishna:

If my ox killed so-and-so or

his

ox belonging to so-and-so, behold, he pays

damages

on the basis of his own admission.

And

is it not so that

our Mishna is speaking

of a

ox

that is harmless

that killed or caused damage, so it follows that even the half-damages of a harmless ox he pays on the basis of his own admission, because it is not a fine but monetary payment; and this is a difficulty against Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua!?

And we answer:

No,

not as you interpreted our Mishna, that it is dealing with a harmless ox, but rather

with a

ox

that is forewarned.

The Gemara is astonished:

But as for a harmless ox, what

will the law

be? It does not pay on the basis of its own admission!?

If so,

rather than teaching in the latter clause: “

My ox killed the

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

and this is because it is a fine—

let the

tanna

distinguish

between monetary payment and a fine

in that very case,

namely, in the killing of a free man, and in the damages caused by an animal, of which the tanna spoke; and why did he skip to the killing of a slave? And the tanna should distinguish as follows:

In what circumstances is this said? With regard to a forewarned ox; but

with regard to a

harmless ox, it does not pay on the basis of its own admission!?

And we answer:

The entire matter is speaking of a forewarned ox,

the tanna distinguishes between monetary payment and a fine only with regard to a forewarned ox!

That is to say: You should not ask why the tanna skipped from a free man and an animal to a slave, and should have taught his distinction within those cases themselves, between a harmless ox and a forewarned ox; for even if he had distinguished within those cases themselves between a harmless ox and a forewarned ox, this would have been a skipping from a forewarned ox to a harmless ox, and “a free man and an animal” are not more appropriate for “that very case” than “a forewarned ox.”

4.

A general rule.

Come and hear

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

This is the general rule: Anyone who pays more than what he damaged

is a fine and

does not pay on the basis of his own admission.

And it implies:

If

he pays

less than what he damaged—

such as a harmless ox—then he

pays on the basis of his own admission,

so this is not a fine; and this is a difficulty against Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua!?

And we answer:

Do not say,

do not infer precisely

“if less than what he damaged”

he pays on the basis of his own admission!

Rather, say

that you should infer as follows:

If

he pays

as much as what he damaged,

then he

pays on the basis of his own admission;

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

The Gemara is astonished:

But less

than what he damaged,

what

will the law be?

He does not pay on the basis of his own admission!?

But if so,

let him teach: This is the general rule: Anyone who does not pay as much as what he damaged does not pay on the basis of his own admission, which implies less

than what he damaged,

and implies

also

more

than what he damaged!?

And we conclude:

A refutation

of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, who holds: Half-damages are a fine!

And

the Gemara adds and establishes

the halakha: Half-damages are a fine.

The Gemara is astonished: How is it possible to say that there is

a refutation and

nevertheless this is

the halakha!?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, although we raised a difficulty against this position, nevertheless it is the halakha, because the difficulty is not a difficulty, for:

For what reason was

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua refuted, when he said that half-damages are a fine?

Because he did not teach “

Anyone who pays

as much as what he damaged

pays on the basis of his own admission,” so that it would be understood that anyone who pays less or more than what he damaged does not pay on the basis of his own admission—and this refutation is not a refutation, because

it is not definitive for him,

the matter is not absolute in this way!

Since there is

another case in which he does not pay as much as what he damaged, namely:

half-damages

of

pebbles

stones], that is, an animal was walking and caused stones to be projected, and the pebbles broke vessels; since it was the force of the animal and not its body itself, it pays only half-damages—

for it was received as a halakha

that is to say, it is to be learned from a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai

that it is monetary payment

and not a fine; and

for this reason he did not teach “

Anyone who pays as much as what he damaged.”

The Gemara adds another halakhic ruling concerning this matter:

And now that you have said

and now that it has been clarified that the halakha is in accordance with Rav Pappa, that

half-damages are a fine:

If so,

this dog that ate lambs [

a dog that strangled live sheep and ate them]

and this cat that ate chickens [

a cat that ate chickens, that is, killed them and ate them]

large ones [

large] — these damages, with regard to them,

are unusual,

and since they are unusual, they are a derivative of a harmless “horn,” and they pay only half-damages, and it is a fine—

And

therefore

we do not collect

these damages

in Babylonia,

for cases involving fines are not judged in Babylonia.

And they said this only when they ate large lambs and chickens.

But

if the dog or the cat ate lambs and chickens

small ones [

small],

it is its usual manner,

and they are a derivative of “tooth,”

and we collect

them in Babylonia, for they are monetary cases, which are judged even in Babylonia.

And

even with regard to large ones,

if the injured party seizes

the damaging party

we do not take it away from him [

they do not take it away from him].

And if

the injured party did not seize, and

said

the injured party to the court:

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

make the damaging party go with me to litigate before the judges of the Land of Israel, who are ordained and able to judge, 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,

the court acts according to the request of the injured party.

And if he does not go,

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

we excommunicate him,

the damaging party; the court imposes excommunication upon the damaging party.

Either way,

whether the court set a time to go to the Land of Israel or not—

we excommunicate him,

the damaging party,

for we say to him

that the court says to him:

Remove your damage, in accordance with Rabbi Natan,

as it explains and proceeds; that is to say, the court threatens the damaging party with excommunication if he does not comply with their words and remove the damaging thing that caused the damage, and he is obligated to remove it because of the words of Rabbi Natan—

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not raise a dangerous dog inside his house, nor place a defective ladder inside his house?

As it is stated: “And you shall not place bloodguilt in your house.”

We have returned to you, chapter “These are the young women.”

In this chapter are explained the laws of the payments of one who violates a virgin maiden, and of one who entices a virgin maiden.

The violator pays four payments: the fixed fine prescribed in the Torah, of fifty shekels. And three further payments, for humiliation, defect, and pain.

The fixed fine that the violator pays is for the pleasure of intercourse, whereas the other three payments are like those of anyone who injures his fellow, who pays damage, pain, medical expenses, humiliation, and loss of work, except that in violation there is no payment for medical expenses or for cessation from work.

The assessment of humiliation is according to the one who humiliates and according to the one who is humiliated, and they assess how much money it is fitting to give for the humiliation caused to her by the act of violation, and to her father, and to her family.

The assessment of the defect is like the assessment of damage everywhere: they assess how much she would have been fit to be sold in the marketplace as a virgin maidservant, and how much her value decreased as a non-virgin maidservant. And the value of a virgin maidservant is greater than the value of a non-virgin maidservant, since the master is prepared to pay a high sum for a virgin maidservant in order to give her as a wife to a slave whom he wishes to gratify.

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

The violator pays the fine to the father of the maiden as long as she is under his authority, until she matures and comes under her own authority.

And likewise he must also pay the payments of humiliation and defect to her father.

And two explanations were stated as to why the father receives the payments of humiliation and defect.

The first: that these payments too are included in the “increase of youth,” which comes to the father of the maiden [Rashi 39b, s.v. “her father”; Rambam, Maiden, Virgin, 2:8].

And the second: because it is in her father’s power to cause her defect and humiliate her by handing her over to a repulsive person afflicted with boils, he is considered the owner of the money of humiliation and defect [the Raavad in his glosses to the Laws of One Who Injures and Causes Damage 4:14, according to the conclusion of the Gemara below, 40b].

The payment of pain too is included in the “increase of youth” that comes to the father [Rashi 41b, s.v. “and the pain”], but there are those who hold that the pain belongs to her [Tur and Kesef Mishneh in the name of the Raavad].

In the Mishna below it will be explained when the father acquires the payments, and when she herself acquires them.

Our Sages discussed extensively the question of whether, when the father acquires these payments, she first acquires these payments and her father acquires them from her, or whether they are payments that the violator or the enticer is obligated to pay directly to the father.

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

Mishna:

A maiden who was enticed

[whom a man enticed, and had intercourse with her], the payments of

her humiliation, her defect, and her fine –

belong to her father

they , and do not belong to her.

And

likewise the payment of

the pain in the case of a seized woman

[that is, a maiden who was violated. And she is called “seized” on account of the verse, “and he seized her, and lay with her”], which the violator must pay for having caused her pain [unlike an enticed woman, since she acted willingly]—the one who acquires the payment of the pain is her father.

If

the maiden

stood in court

to collect the payments from the enticer

before the father died –

they are

those payments,

the father’s.

And if, after the enticed woman sued the enticer in court [while she was a maiden],

the father died,

whether she matured before the father died or did not mature before her father’s death,

they are

those payments,

the brothers’

of the maiden. Since she stood to sue for these payments in court, the father acquired them, and her brothers are the heirs of her father’s property.

But if

the daughter did not manage

to

stand in court before the father died,

and the father did not manage to acquire them –

they belong to her herself .

Because since she did not stand in court before he died, the payments are not considered the father’s property, to be inherited by his sons . And we say below [folio 43] that a person cannot bequeath to his son a right that the Torah granted him concerning his daughter . And he derives this from a verse.

And likewise, if

she stood in court

to sue for the payments while she was a maiden,

before she matured –

they belong to the father.

And if

the father died

afterward, when he had already acquired the payments –

they belong to the brothers.

But if

she did not manage to stand in court before she matured –

they belong to her herself.

Rabbi Shimon says:

even if she stood in court before the father died,

if she did not manage to collect

her payments

before the father died –

they belong to her herself.

And in the Gemara the reason is explained.