## Ketubot Daf 30b

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

דִּין אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת לֹא בָּטְלוּ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב סְקִילָה — אוֹ נוֹפֵל מִן הַגָּג, אוֹ חַיָּה דּוֹרַסְתּוֹ. וּמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׂרֵיפָה — אוֹ נוֹפֵל בִּדְלֵיקָה, אוֹ נָחָשׁ מַכִּישׁוֹ. וּמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב הֲרִיגָה — אוֹ נִמְסָר לַמַּלְכוּת, אוֹ לִיסְטִים בָּאִין עָלָיו. וּמִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב חֶנֶק — אוֹ טוֹבֵעַ בַּנָּהָר, אוֹ מֵת בִּסְרוֹנְכֵי?! אֶלָּא, אֵיפוֹךְ: אַרְיָא וְגַנָּבֵי בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, צִינִּים וּפַחִים בִּידֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the **punishment** of the **four death** penalties **was not abolished.** How so? **One who was liable** to be executed by **stoning either falls from the roof or a beast tramples him.** That is similar to stoning, which involves being pushed off an elevated place and then stoned. **And one who was liable** to be executed by **burning either falls into a conflagration or a snake bites him,** which creates a burning sensation. **And one who was liable** to be executed by **decapitation** is **either handed over to the** ruling **monarchy** for execution by sword, **or bandits attack** and kill **him. And one who was liable** to be executed by **strangulation either drowns in a river, or dies of diphtheria [*serunki*]. Rather, reverse** the order of the previous statement: **A lion and thieves** are cases of harm **at the hand of Heaven,** while **cold and heat** are cases of harm **at the hands of man.**


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

רָבָא אָמַר, טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה מֵהָכָא: ״וְאִם הַעְלֵם יַעְלִימוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם מִן הָאִישׁ הַהוּא בְּתִתּוֹ מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמּוֹלֶךְ. וְשַׂמְתִּי אֲנִי אֶת פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְהִכְרַתִּי אוֹתוֹ״, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: כָּרֵת שֶׁלִּי כְּמִיתָה שֶׁלָּכֶם, מָה מִיתָה שֶׁלָּכֶם — פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין. אַף כָּרֵת שֶׁלִּי — פָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** an additional explanation: **The rationale** for the opinion **of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana is from here.** It is written that one who gives his children to Molech is liable to be executed by stoning: **“And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed to Molech,** and do not put him to death; **then I will set My face against that man and against his family, and will cut him off [*vehikhrati*]”** (Leviticus 20:4–5). Through the juxtaposition in this verse **the Torah said: My *karet*** is **like your death** penalty; **just as** one who is liable to receive **your death** penalty **is exempt from the** associated **payments, so too,** one who is liable to receive **My *karet* is exempt from the** associated **payments.**


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

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רָבָא לְאַבָּיֵי? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ זָר שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה — לְאַבָּיֵי פָּטוּר, וּלְרָבָא חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** practical difference **is there between** the opinions of **Rava and Abaye** with regard to the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana? The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference **between them** with regard to **a non-priest who** intentionally **ate *teruma*.** According **to Abaye** he is **exempt** from paying the priest the value of the *teruma*, as a non-priest who ate *teruma* is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Abaye maintains that the legal status of all forms of death at the hand of Heaven is equivalent to that of death at the hands of man, and therefore, one is exempt from payment. **And** according **to Rava,** who derives the rationale from the juxtaposition between *karet* and death at the hands of man, since a non-priest who ate *teruma* is not liable to receive *karet*, he is **liable** to pay the priest for the *teruma* that he ate.


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

וּלְאַבָּיֵי פָּטוּר?! וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה בְּגוֹנֵב חֶלְבּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב — שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁבָּא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר חֵלֶב. אַלְמָא דְּמֵעִידָּנָא דְּאַגְבְּהֵיהּ קַנְיֵיהּ, מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ לָא הֲוָה עַד דְּאָכֵיל לֵיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּאַגְבְּהֵיהּ — קַנְיֵיהּ, מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ לָא הָוֵי עַד דְּאָכֵיל לֵיהּ! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁתָּחַב לוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ לְתוֹךְ פִּיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Abaye,** is a non-priest actually **exempt** from payment for the *teruma*? **But didn’t Rav Ḥisda say** that **Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana concedes with regard to** one who **steals another’s** forbidden **fat and eats it that he is obligated** to pay for the fat, even though he is liable to receive *karet*, **as he was already liable for theft before he came** to violate **the prohibition** against eating forbidden **fat? Apparently, from the moment he lifts** the fat to steal **it he acquired it,** and he bears responsibility to repay it, but **he is liable to** receive the **death** penalty **only when he eats it. Here, too,** with regard to a non-priest who ate *teruma*, **at the moment he lifts** the *teruma* **he acquired it** and is responsible to repay it, and **he is liable to** receive the **death** penalty **only when he eats it.** The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** It is a case **where another inserted** the *teruma* **into his mouth.** In that case, acquisition and liability to receive the death penalty are simultaneous.


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

סוֹף סוֹף כֵּיוָן דְּלַעֲסֵיהּ קַנְיֵיהּ, מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ לָא הָוֵי עַד דְּבַלְעַהּ! כְּגוֹן שֶׁתָּחַב לוֹ לְתוֹךְ בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּמָצֵי לְאַהְדּוֹרַהּ — נֶיהְדַּר. אִי לָא מָצֵי לְאַהְדּוֹרַהּ — אַמַּאי חַיָּיב? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּמָצֵי לְאַהְדּוֹרַהּ עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Ultimately, once he chewed** the *teruma* **he acquired it** and is liable to pay, and **he is liable to** receive the **death** penalty **only when he swallows it.** Since the two are not simultaneous, he should be liable to pay. The Gemara answers: It is a case **where** another **inserted it into the pharynx,** so the liability for payment and liability for the death penalty were both achieved through swallowing. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** it is **possible to retrieve** the *teruma* by removing it without ruining it, **let him retrieve** it. If one does so, he would not be liable to pay. If he fails to do so, liability or payment precedes liability for the death penalty. **If** it is **not possible to retrieve** the *teruma*, **why** is he **liable?** He did nothing; another person inserted the food in his throat. The Gemara answers: It is **necessary only** in a situation **where** it is **possible to retrieve** the *teruma* **under duress,** with great effort.


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

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁתָּחַב לוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ מַשְׁקִין שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה לְתוֹךְ פִּיו. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּזָר שֶׁאָכַל תְּרוּמָה מִשֶּׁלּוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** It is referring to a case **where another inserted liquids of *teruma* into his mouth.** As soon as the liquid enters his mouth, it is ruined. Therefore, the acquisition and his enjoyment are simultaneous. **Rav Ashi said:** It is referring **to a non-priest who partook of his own *teruma*,** e.g., if the non-priest inherited *teruma* from a priest, or acquired ownership from a priest. In that case, he did not steal the *teruma* and there is no payment for it, but he is liable to receive the death penalty for eating *teruma*,