## Ketubot Daf 30a

###### Ketubot 30a:1
[Ketubot 30a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/30a:1)

חַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה, מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
intercourse with women for which one is **liable for** violating a **positive** mitzva, e.g., **an Egyptian** convert **and an Edomite** convert (see Deuteronomy 23:8–9). If he raped a first- or second-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert, even Rabbi Yeshevav agrees that the child is not a *mamzer*, as the betrothal takes effect. On the other hand, it is prohibited for him to sustain her as a wife.


###### Ketubot 30a:2
[Ketubot 30a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/30a:2)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב, אִי לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִטַּעְמָא דְּרַבִּי סִימַאי קָאָתֵי — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי טַעְמָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָאָמַר, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בִּיאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר — וַאֲפִילּוּ חַיָּיבֵי עֲשֵׂה! מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This** works out **well according to Rabbi Yeshevav if he is coming to reject the opinion of Rabbi Simai.** If Rabbi Yeshevav merely takes issue with Rabbi Simai, who said that all offspring of forbidden relations are *mamzerim* according to Rabbi Akiva except for those resulting from relations between a widow and a High Priest, then it may **well** be explained that Rabbi Yeshevav holds that Rabbi Akiva rules that betrothal does not take effect and that there is *mamzerut* when one violates the prohibitions of the priesthood. **However, if he is stating his own opinion,** independent of Rabbi Simai’s statement, his ruling is more comprehensive and leads to the conclusion that in the case of relations with **anyone who does not have** the possibility of permitted **relations among the Jewish people, the child is a *mamzer*, and** this is true **even** of women for relations with whom one is **liable for** violating **positive** mitzvot, e.g., Egyptian or Edomite converts. In that case, **what is** the difference **between** the opinions of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya?


###### Ketubot 30a:3
[Ketubot 30a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/30a:3)

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ בְּעוּלָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. וּמַאי שְׁנָא? דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה בַּכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference **between them** in the case of **a non-virgin** raped **by a High Priest. And** the Gemara asks: Here, too, she is a woman for relations with whom one is liable for violating a positive mitzva, as the High Priest fails to fulfill the mitzva “But a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife” (Leviticus 21:14). If Rabbi Akiva rules that betrothal does not take effect when a positive mitzva is violated, **what is different** about this case? The Gemara answers: It is different **because it is a positive** mitzva **whose** application **is not equal for all.** There are two lenient aspects to this mitzva: It is a positive mitzva and not a prohibition, and it applies only to the High Priest and not to all Jews. Even Rabbi Yeshevav would agree that according to Rabbi Akiva, a child born from relations between a High Priest and a non-virgin is not a *mamzer*. However, the High Priest may not sustain the woman as his wife. Therefore, this case is the practical difference between the statements of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya.


###### Ketubot 30a:4
[Ketubot 30a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/30a:4)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבָא עַל הַנִּדָּה שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם קְנָס. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֲוָיָה — הָא נָמֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֲוָיָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר רְאוּיָה לְקַיְּימָהּ — הָא נָמֵי רְאוּיָה לְקַיְּימָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥisda said: Everyone agrees with regard to one who engaged in** forced **intercourse with a menstruating woman that he pays** the **fine.** He elaborates: **According to the one who says** that the criterion is whether **there is betrothal,** for **this** woman **too there is betrothal. According to the one who says** that the criterion is whether the woman is **suitable for** him to **sustain, this** woman **is suitable for** him to **sustain.**


###### Ketubot 30a:5
[Ketubot 30a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/30a:5)

וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה אֶת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כַּשַּׁבָּת לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. מָה שַׁבָּת — מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ וּפָטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין, אַף יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ וּפָטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara comments: **And** the mishna’s ruling that one who has relations with his sister is liable to pay the fine comes **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment** for damages. **Just as** one who intentionally desecrates **Shabbat is liable to** receive the **death** penalty **and** is therefore **exempt from** the obligation of **payment** for damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, **so too,** one who intentionally desecrates **Yom Kippur is liable to** receive the **death** penalty **and** is therefore **exempt from** the obligation of **payment** for damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur.


###### Ketubot 30a:6
[Ketubot 30a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/30a:6)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נֶאֱמַר ״אָסוֹן״ בִּידֵי אָדָם. וְנֶאֱמַר ״אָסוֹן״ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. מָה ״אָסוֹן״ הָאָמוּר בִּידֵי אָדָם — פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין, אַף ״אָסוֹן״ הָאָמוּר בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם — פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the rationale** for the opinion **of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana? Abaye said: It states** the word **harm at the hands of man,** in the verse “But if any harm follow, then you shall give a soul for a soul” (Exodus 21:23) and **it states** the word **harm at the hand of Heaven,** in the verse in which Jacob states: “My son shall not descend with you…and harm befalls him on the way” (Genesis 42:38). **Just as** with regard to **harm that is stated at the hands of man,** e.g., one who kills and is liable to be executed, one is **exempt from the** associated **payment, so too,** with regard to **harm that is stated at the hand of Heaven,** one is **exempt from the** associated **payment.**


###### Ketubot 30a:7
[Ketubot 30a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/30a:7)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: מִמַּאי דְּכִי קָא מַזְהַר לְהוּ יַעֲקֹב לִבְנֵיהּ, עַל צִינִּים וּפַחִים דְּבִידֵי שָׁמַיִם נִינְהוּ? דִּלְמָא עַל אַרְיָא וְגַנָּבֵי דְּבִידֵי אָדָם נִינְהוּ?! אַטּוּ יַעֲקֹב אַהָא אַזְהַר, אַהָא לָא אַזְהַר? יַעֲקֹב עַל כֹּל מִילֵּי אַזְהַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava** strongly **objects to this: From where** is it derived **that when Jacob is warning his sons** he is warning them **about cold and heat [*tzinim paḥim*], which are at the hand of Heaven? Perhaps** he was warning them **about a lion and thieves, which are** harm **at the hands of man,** meaning that unlike heat and cold, these dangers are not calibrated by God. The Gemara refutes this: **Is that to say** that **Jacob warned** them **about this** harm at the hand of man, but **about that** harm at the hand of Heaven **he did not warn** them? **Jacob warned** them **about all** potentially harmful **matters** that might befall Benjamin, not merely one particular form of catastrophe.


###### Ketubot 30a:8
[Ketubot 30a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/30a:8)

וְצִינִּים פַּחִים בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם נִינְהוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַכֹּל בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם חוּץ מִצִּינִּים פַּחִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צִינִּים פַּחִים בְּדֶרֶךְ עִיקֵּשׁ שׁוֹמֵר נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְחַק מֵהֶם״! וְתוּ אַרְיָא וְגַנָּבֵי בִּידֵי אָדָם נִינְהוּ? וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף וְכֵן תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּטְלוּ סַנְהֶדְרִין, אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ. לֹא בָּטְלוּ?! הָא בָּטְלוּ לְהוּ! אֶלָּא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And are cold** and **heat at the hand of Heaven? Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **All** matters are **at the hand of Heaven except for cold** and **heat, as it is stated: “Cold** and **heat are on the path of the crooked, he who guards his soul shall keep far from them”** (Proverbs 22:5)? This indicates that cold and heat are forms of harm caused by man, from which one can protect himself. **And furthermore, are a lion and thieves** forms of harm **at the hands of man? But didn’t Rav Yosef say, and similarly,** didn’t **Rabbi Ḥiyya teach** a *baraita*: **From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin was abolished** the **four death** penalties **were not abolished?** The Gemara asks: Were they **not abolished?** It is clear **that they were abolished,** as today there is neither Sanhedrin nor capital punishment. **Rather,** it means that although there are no court-imposed executions,