## Ketubot Daf 33a

###### Ketubot 33a:1
[Ketubot 33a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33a:1)

חוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ נָמֵי, אִם כֵּן בִּטַּלְתָּ ״לֹא יוֹסִיף פֶּן יוֹסִיף״! עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין נָמֵי, אִם כֵּן בִּטַּלְתָּ ״וְהָיָה אִם בִּן הַכּוֹת הָרָשָׁע״! אֶלָּא: עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין, אֶפְשָׁר לְקַיּוֹמַהּ בְּבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה וּבֶן חֲלוּצָה. חוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ נָמֵי, אִיכָּא לְקַיּוֹמַהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכָּהוּ הַכָּאָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Based on that reasoning, the same would hold true for **one who injures another as well; if so,** if he pays and is not lashed, **you have rendered moot** the prohibition “Forty he shall strike him; **he shall not exceed, lest if he should exceed”** (Deuteronomy 25:3). The same would hold true for **conspiring witnesses as well; if so, you have rendered moot** the verse interpreted as addressing the matter of conspiring witnesses: **“And it shall be if the wicked man deserves to be flogged”** (Deuteronomy 25:2). **Rather,** with regard to **conspiring witnesses,** that verse **can be fulfilled** in the case **of the son of a divorcée or the son of a *ḥalutza*.** If witnesses testified that a priest is the son of a divorcée or a *ḥalutza* and were discovered to be conspiring witnesses, there is no payment and they are flogged. With regard to **one who injures another as well,** the verse **can be fulfilled** in a case **where he struck him** with **a blow that** does **not** cause damage amounting to **the value of a *peruta*.**


###### Ketubot 33a:2
[Ketubot 33a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33a:2)

אֲחוֹתוֹ נָמֵי, אִיכָּא לְקַיּוֹמַהּ בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ בּוֹגֶרֶת! אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַאי ״תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִינָּהּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְאַבָּיֵי. דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִינָּהּ״. הַאי ״תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִינָּהּ״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, with regard to **one’s sister as well,** the lashes **can be fulfilled** in the case of one who had forced relations **with his sister** who is **a grown woman.** Since there is no fine in that case, he is flogged and the verse is not moot. The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Yoḥanan** could have **said to you** that he does not agree with Ulla because **this** verse: **“Because he tormented her”** (Deuteronomy 22:29), is not available for a verbal analogy, as **he requires it to** derive **in accordance with that** which **Abaye** said, **as Abaye said** that **the verse states:** The fine of fifty dinar is payment **“because he tormented her”; by inference** one may conclude **that** beyond the fine, **there is** compensation for **humiliation and degradation.**


###### Ketubot 33a:3
[Ketubot 33a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33a:3)

וְעוּלָּא? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשּׁוֹכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף״, הֲנָאַת שְׁכִיבָה חֲמִשִּׁים, מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Ulla,** who uses this verse to derive a verbal analogy, from where does he derive the *halakha* stated by Abaye? The Gemara answers: **He derives it from** the statement of **Rava,** who derives that *halakha* from the same verse, **as Rava said** that **the verse states: “And the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver”** (Deuteronomy 22:29). The superfluous phrase “who lay with her” teaches that it is for **the pleasure of lying** with her that he pays **fifty** shekels, i.e., fifty *sela*; **by inference** one may conclude **that** beyond the fine, **there is** compensation for **humiliation and degradation.**


###### Ketubot 33a:4
[Ketubot 33a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33a:4)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין מָמוֹנָא מְשַׁלְּמִי וּמִילְקָא לָא לָקֵי, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו בְּנֵי הַתְרָאָה נִינְהוּ. אָמַר רָבָא: תִּדַּע. נַיתְרֵי בְּהוּ אֵימַת? נַיתְרֵי בְּהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא — אָמְרִי: אִישְׁתְּלִין. נַיתְרֵי בְּהוּ בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה — פָּרְשִׁי וְלָא מַסְהֲדִי. נַיתְרֵי בְּהוּ לְבַסּוֹף — מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Eliezer says:** The reason that **conspiring witnesses pay money but are not flogged** is **due to** the fact **that they are not subject to forewarning,** and without forewarning there are no lashes. **Rava said: Know** that this is true, since there is no practical manner to forewarn them, as **when** would **we forewarn them?** Perhaps **let us forewarn them initially,** before they come to testify; in that case, the forewarning would be ineffective because they could **say: We forgot** the forewarning. Then **let us forewarn them at the moment of the action,** just before they testify; in that case they will **leave and not testify** at all, as concern for potential repercussions will intimidate them into silence. Or, **let us forewarn them at the end** after their testimony; in that case **that which was, was,** and forewarning at that point is pointless.


###### Ketubot 33a:5
[Ketubot 33a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33a:5)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְנַיתְרֵי בְּהוּ בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר? מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: וְנַיתְרֵי בְּהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא וּנְרַמֵּז בְּהוּ רַמּוֹזֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye** strongly **objects to this: And let us warn them within** an interval **equivalent** to the time **of speaking,** during the brief period after they completed their statements, at which time the testimony is not yet considered to have concluded. Since they can still retract or amend their testimony during that period, a warning delivered at that point would be timely and effective. **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika,** also strongly **objects to this: And let us forewarn them initially,** before they testify, **and gesture to them** during the actual testimony, reminding them of the forewarning so they will be unable to claim that they forgot it.


###### Ketubot 33a:6
[Ketubot 33a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33a:6)

הֲדַר אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי. אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין צְרִיכִין הַתְרָאָה, כִּי לָא מַתְרִינַן בְּהוּ לָא קָטְלִינַן לְהוּ. מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאִינְהוּ בָּעוּ קָטְלִי בְּלָא הַתְרָאָה, וְאִינְהוּ בָּעוּ הַתְרָאָה? הָא בָּעֵינַן ״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו״, וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye then said: That which I stated is not** a significant **matter.** Instead, **if it enters your mind** that **conspiring witnesses require forewarning, when we do not forewarn them we do not kill them.** However, **is there a matter in which they sought to kill** the defendant **without forewarning** him, as their testimony was false, **and** in order to punish them **they require forewarning? Don’t we require** that their punishment reflect the verse **“And you shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brother”** (Deuteronomy 19:19)? **And** if they require forewarning that **is not** the case.


###### Ketubot 33a:7
[Ketubot 33a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33a:7)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב סַמָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יִרְמְיָה: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה וּבֶן חֲלוּצָה, דְּלָא מִ״כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם״ קָא מִיתְרַבֵּי — לִיבְעֵי הַתְרָאָה! אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״, מִשְׁפָּט הַשָּׁוֶה לְכוּלְּכֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Samma, son of Rav Yirmeya,** strongly **objects to this: However, if** what you say is **so,** when witnesses falsely accuse a priest of being **the son of a divorcée or the son of a *ḥalutza*, as they are not included in** the verse **“As he conspired”** but rather they are punished for violating the prohibition “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” **let them require forewarning.** The Gemara answers that **the verse states: “You shall have one manner of law”** (Leviticus 24:22), meaning that there must be **a law equal for all of you.** Since in standard cases of conspiring witnesses no forewarning is required, even in exceptional cases like testimony that a priest is the son of a divorcée or a *ḥalutza*, forewarning is not required.


###### Ketubot 33a:8
[Ketubot 33a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33a:8)

רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי אָמַר: חוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ נָמֵי, מָמוֹנָא מְשַׁלֵּם וּמִילְקָא לָא לָקֵי, מֵהָכָא: ״וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּמַצּוּת שֶׁבְּמִיתָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה וְנָתַתָּ נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said:** The fact that in the case of **one who injures another as well he pays money and is not flogged** is derived not by means of a verbal analogy but **from here: “If men quarrel and hurt a pregnant woman so that her child departs from her,** and yet no harm follow, he shall be punished as imposed upon him by the woman’s husband” (Exodus 21:22). **And Rabbi Elazar said: The verse is speaking of a quarrel that involves death,** i.e., they sought to kill each other, **as it is written: “And if any harm follow, then you shall give a soul for a soul”** (Exodus 21:23).


###### Ketubot 33a:9
[Ketubot 33a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33a:9)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — אַמַּאי מִיקְּטִיל? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ, וּמוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר חָמוּר, הָוֵי מוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר הַקַּל. וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case? **If they did not forewarn one** not to kill the other, **why is he killed** if the death of his opponent ensues? **Rather, obviously** it is a case **where they forewarned him, and** the principle is that **one who is forewarned with regard to a severe matter,** murdering his counterpart, **is forewarned with regard to a lesser matter,** injuring his counterpart. **And** although he is forewarned against injuring another, which violates a prohibition and is punishable by lashes, **the Merciful One states: “And yet no harm follow, he shall be punished”** (Exodus 21:22), indicating that one pays and is not flogged.


###### Ketubot 33a:10
[Ketubot 33a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33a:10)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ, רַב אָשֵׁי: מִמַּאי דְּמוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר חָמוּר הָוֵי מוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר הַקַּל? דִּלְמָא לָא הָוֵי?! אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הָוֵי, מִמַּאי דְּמִיתָה חֲמוּרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi** strongly **objects to this** proof. First of all, with regard to your initial assumption, **from where** do you ascertain **that one who is forewarned with regard to a severe matter is forewarned with regard to a lesser matter? Perhaps he is not** considered forewarned with regard to the lesser matter. Furthermore, even **if you say** that one **is** in fact forewarned with regard to a lesser matter, **from where** do you ascertain **that** the **death** penalty is a more **severe** punishment than lashes?