Ketubot 69

Chapter 69

א מאי לאו אסון ממש לא דין אסון איכא דאמרי איתיביה רבי יוחנן לר"ל (שמות כא, כב) ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש מאי לאו דין אסון לא אסון ממש
1 Does this not refer to the law concerning “harm”? No, it refers to real “harm.” Some say: R. Yohanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: [It is written] “And if no harm follows, he shall be surely fined.” Does this not refer to the law concerning “harm”? No, it refers to real “harm.”
ב אמר רבא ומי איכא למ"ד חייבי מיתות שוגגין חייבים והא תנא דבי חזקיה מכה אדם ומכה בהמה
2 Rava said: Is there anyone who holds that he who committed unintentionally an act which, if he had committed it intentionally would have been punishable with death [and which is also punishable with the payment of money] is obligated [to pay money]? Has not the house of Hezekiah taught: [It is written] “He that kills a man . . . he that kills a beast:”
ג מה מכה בהמה לא חילקת בו בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין מתכוין לשאין מתכוין בין דרך ירידה לדרך עלייה לפוטרו ממון אלא לחייבו ממון אף מכה אדם לא תחלוק בו בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין מתכוין לשאין מתכוין בין דרך ירידה לדרך עלייה לחייבו ממון אלא לפוטרו ממון
3 Just as in [the case of] the killing of a beast you have made no distinction between [it being done] inadvertently and willfully, intentionally and unintentionally, by way of going down or by way of going up, so as to free exempt him [from the payment], but [to in any case] make him liable to pay, so also in [the case of] the killing of a person you shall make no distinction between [it being done] inadvertently and willfully, intentionally and unintentionally, by way of going down or by way of going up, so as to make him liable to pay money, but to free him from paying money?
ד אלא כי אתא רבין אמר חייבי מיתות שוגגין כולי עלמא לא פליגי דפטורין כי פליגי בחייבי מלקות שוגגין ודבר אחר רבי יוחנן אמר חייב חייבי מיתות איתקוש חייבי מלקיות לא איתקוש ריש לקיש אמר פטור בפירוש ריבתה תורה חייבי מלקיות כחייבי מיתות
4 Rather when Ravin came [from Eretz Yisrael], he said: Those who committed inadvertently an act which, if committed willfully, would have been punishable with death [and which is also punishable with the payment of money] — all agree that he is free [from the payment of money], they only disagree when the act committed inadvertently would, if committed willfully, have been punishable with lashes and something else. Yohanan says [that] he is liable [to pay, because] only with regard to those who commit an act punishable with death, those punishable by death have all been compared together, but those liable for lashes have not been compared together. [But] Resh Lakish says [that] he is free [from making the money payment, because] the Torah has expressly included those who commit an act punishable with lashes to be as those who commit an act punishable with death.
ה היכן ריבתה תורה אמר אביי אתיא (במדבר לה, לא) רשע (דברים כה, א) רשע רבא אמר אתיא מכה מכה אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא הי מכה אילימא (ויקרא כד, כא) ומכה בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת האי בקטלא כתיב אלא האי מכה (ויקרא כד, יח) מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה נפש תחת נפש וסמיך ליה ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו [כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו]
5 Where has the Torah included [them]? Abaye said: ” It comes from “that wicked man” (Numbers 35:31) and “that wicked man” (Deuteronomy 25:2), Rava said: It comes from “one who strikes” and “one who strikes. Papa said to Rava: Which “striking” [do you refer to]? If we say, “And he that strikes a beast shall pay for it, and he that strikes a man shall be put to death,” (Leviticus 24:21) this is written about death. Rather it this “striking”; “He that strikes a beast shall pay for it: life for life” and adjacent to it [comes the following verse] “And if a man wounds his neighbor, as he has done so shall it be done to him?” (Leviticus 24:18-19).
ו והאי לאו מכה היא אנן הכאה הכאה קאמרינן והא כי כתיב בחובל בחבירו הוא דכתיב וחובל בחבירו בר תשלומין הוא אם אינו ענין להכאה שיש בה שוה פרוטה תנהו ענין להכאה שאין בה שוה פרוטה
6 But here “striking” is not mentioned! We mean the effect of “striking.” But this verse refers to one who injures his fellow, and one who injures his fellow has to pay damages? If it does not refer to a “striking” in which there is the value of a perutah, teach it in reference to a “striking” in which there is not the value of a perutah.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter