## Ketubot Daf 32b

###### Ketubot 32b:1
[Ketubot 32b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/32b:1)

אֶלָּא עוּלָּא ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ גָּמַר. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן״. מָה הָתָם — מָמוֹנָא מְשַׁלֵּם, מִילְקָא לָא לָקֵי; אַף כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מָמוֹנָא וּמַלְקוֹת — מָמוֹנָא מְשַׁלֵּם, מִילְקָא לָא לָקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Ulla derives** the fact that one pays and is not flogged by means of a verbal analogy between the terms **for** and **for.** The verse **states** with regard to rape: “And the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and to him she shall be as a wife, **because [*taḥat*] he tormented her”** (Deuteronomy 22:29), **and it states there,** with regard to injury: **“An eye for [*taḥat*] an eye”** (Exodus 21:24). **Just as there,** with regard to injury, one **pays money** and **is not flogged,** so too, in **any** case **where there is** liability to both pay **money and** receive **lashes,** one **pays money** but **is not flogged.**


###### Ketubot 32b:2
[Ketubot 32b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/32b:2)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא אֲחוֹתוֹ נַעֲרָה: כָּאן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ, כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In proposing a different resolution to the apparent contradiction between the mishna here that rules that one pays a fine for raping his sister and the mishna in *Makkot* that rules that one is flogged in that case, **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if you say** that both *mishnayot* are referring to **his sister** who is **a young woman, there** it is referring to a case **where** the witnesses **forewarned him,** and therefore the rapist is flogged; **here,** it is referring to a case **where** the witnesses **did not forewarn him.** Since no lashes are administered without forewarning, the rapist pays the fine.


###### Ketubot 32b:3
[Ketubot 32b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/32b:3)

אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא מָמוֹן וּמַלְקוֹת וְאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — מִילְקָא לָקֵי, מָמוֹנָא לָא מְשַׁלֵּם. מְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ״, מִשּׁוּם רִשְׁעָה אַחַת אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעָיוֹת. וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״אַרְבָּעִים יַכֶּנּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara observes: **Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains** that in **any** case **where there is** liability to both pay **money and** receive **lashes, and** the witnesses **forewarned him, he is flogged** but does not **pay money.** The Gemara asks: **From where does Rabbi Yoḥanan** derive **this** principle? The Gemara explains that he derives it from that which **the verse states** with regard to one sentenced to lashes in the court: “The judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, **according to the measure of his wickedness”** (Deuteronomy 25:2), from which it is inferred: **For one** act of **wickedness,** i.e., punishment, **you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two** acts of **wickedness. And juxtaposed to** this it states: **“Forty he shall strike him”** (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that the punishment that is administered when one is liable to receive two punishments is lashes and not payment.


###### Ketubot 32b:4
[Ketubot 32b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/32b:4)

וַהֲרֵי חוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ, דְּאִיכָּא מָמוֹן וּמַלְקוֹת — מָמוֹנָא מְשַׁלֵּם, מִילְקָא לָא לָקֵי! וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ, אֲבָל אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — מִילְקָא לָקֵי, מָמוֹנָא לָא מְשַׁלֵּם, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִכָּהוּ הַכָּאָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — לוֹקֶה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ, אַמַּאי לוֹקֶה? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ, וְטַעְמָא — דְּלֵית בֵּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, הָא אִית בֵּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה — מָמוֹנָא מְשַׁלֵּם, מִילְקָא לָא לָקֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what of the case of **one who injures another where there is** liability to both pay **money and** receive **lashes,** in which case one **pays money** but **is not flogged? And lest you say** that **this applies only when** the witnesses **did not forewarn him, but if they forewarned him** before he struck his friend he **is flogged** but **does not pay money, didn’t Rabbi Ami say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If one **struck** another with **a blow that** does **not** cause damage that amounts to **the value of a *peruta*,** he is **flogged?** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of that case? **If** it is a case **where** the witnesses **did not forewarn him, why is he flogged?** No lashes are administered without forewarning. **Rather, obviously** it is a case **where they forewarned him, and the reason** he is flogged is that **there is not** damage that amounts to **the value of a *peruta*.** The damages are not quantifiable. The Gemara infers: However, if **there is** damage that amounts to **the value of a *peruta*,** he **pays money** and **is not flogged,** even though he was forewarned.


###### Ketubot 32b:5
[Ketubot 32b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/32b:5)

כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: בְּפֵירוּשׁ רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין לְתַשְׁלוּמִין, הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּפֵירוּשׁ רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה חוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי אִילְעָא — אַהָא: מְעִידִין אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁחַיָּיב לַחֲבֵירוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין — לוֹקִין וּמְשַׁלְּמִין, שֶׁלֹּא הַשֵּׁם הַמְּבִיאָן לִידֵי מַכּוֹת מְבִיאָן לִידֵי תַּשְׁלוּמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the fact that conspiring witnesses pay money can be explained **in accordance with that** which **Rabbi Ile’a said** in a different context: **The Torah explicitly amplified** the case of **conspiring witnesses** to include liability **for payment.** The Torah employed language indicating that conspiring witnesses who testified falsely in order to render one liable for payment must pay the sum and are not flogged. **Here, too,** with regard to injury, **the Torah explicitly amplified** the case of **one who injures another** to include liability **for payment.** The Gemara asks: **And where is this** statement **of Rabbi Ile’a stated?** The Gemara answers that it is stated **concerning this** mishna (*Makkot* 4a). If witnesses said: **We testify that so-and-so owes another two hundred dinar, and** these witnesses **were discovered** to be **conspiring** witnesses; **they are flogged and pay, as the source [*shem*] that brings them to** liability to receive **lashes does not bring them to** liability for **payment.** Each liability has an independent source; the source for lashes is: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” (Exodus 20:13) while the source for payment is: “You shall do unto him as he conspired” (Deuteronomy 19:19). This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Anyone who pays is not flogged.**


###### Ketubot 32b:6
[Ketubot 32b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/32b:6)

וְנֵימָא: כׇּל הַלּוֹקֶה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם! אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: בְּפֵירוּשׁ רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. הֵיכָן רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה? מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב: ״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו״, ״יָד בְּיָד״ לְמָה לִי? דָּבָר הַנִּיתָּן מִיָּד לְיָד, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to that mishna, the Gemara asks: **Let us say,** on the contrary, that **anyone who is flogged does not pay. Rabbi Ile’a said: The Torah explicitly amplified** the case of **conspiring witnesses for payment,** not lashes. The Gemara asks: **Where did the Torah amplify** the case of conspiring witnesses? The Gemara explains: **Now, since it states** with regard to conspiring witnesses: **“And you shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brother”** (Deuteronomy 19:19); **why do I** require the Torah to state in his punishment: **“A hand for a hand”** (Deuteronomy 19:21)? This indicates that the punishment that takes precedence is one in which there is **an item that is given from hand to hand, and what is that** item? It is **money.**


###### Ketubot 32b:7
[Ketubot 32b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/32b:7)

חוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ נָמֵי, מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לוֹ״, ״כֵּן יִנָּתֵן בּוֹ״, לְמָה לִי? דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נְתִינָה, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The same can be said with regard to **one who injures another. Now, since it states:** “And a man who places a blemish upon his counterpart, **as he has done so shall be done to him”** (Leviticus 24:19), **why do I** require the Torah to state: “As one who places a blemish upon a man, **so shall be placed [*yinnaten*] upon him”** (Leviticus 24:20)? This teaches that this is referring to **an item that involves giving [*netina*], and what is that** item? It is **money.**


###### Ketubot 32b:8
[Ketubot 32b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/32b:8)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּעוּלָּא? אִם כֵּן, בִּטַּלְתָּ ״עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹתְךָ... לֹא תְגַלֶּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason** that **he did not say** the same *halakha* **as Ulla,** that where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged? The Gemara answers: **If so,** if that were the case, **you have rendered moot** the prohibition **“The nakedness of your sister…you shall not uncover”** (Leviticus 18:9) in that contrary to the standard prohibitions, no lashes would be administered for its violation.