## Ketubot Daf 33b

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

דִּלְמָא מַלְקוֹת חָמוּר? דְּאָמַר רַב: אִילְמָלֵי נַגְּדוּהּ לַחֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה — פְּלַחוּ לְצַלְמָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סַמָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַסִּי לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב סַמָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְלָא שָׁנֵי לָךְ בֵּין הַכָּאָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קִצְבָה לְהַכָּאָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קִצְבָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Perhaps** the punishment of **lashes is** more **severe, as Rav said: Had they flogged Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah** (see Daniel, chapter 3) instead of casting them into the fiery furnace, these three **would have** been induced to **worship the** graven **image.** Apparently, the punishment of lashes is more severe than death. **Rav Samma, son of Rav Asi, said to Rav Ashi, and some say Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi,** said **to Rav Ashi: And** is **there no difference to you between flogging that has a limit,** e.g., forty lashes by Torah law, which is a less severe punishment, **and flogging that does not have a limit,** i.e., flogging administered to induce compliance, which is more severe?


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יַעֲקֹב מִנְּהַר פְּקוֹד: הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי נֶפֶשׁ מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי דְּאָמַר מָמוֹן, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the basic proof from the case of the two men quarreling, **Rav Ya’akov from Nehar Pekod** strongly **objects to this. This** works out **well according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who said** that the verse “And you shall give a soul for a soul” (Exodus 21:23) is referring to **an actual life,** and that if he caused the woman’s death he is executed. **However, according to Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who said** that if he did not intend to injure the woman he is not liable to be executed and instead pays **money** as indemnity for causing her death, **what can be said?** According to that opinion, there was no forewarning for lashes at all, and the only liability is payment for injuring another.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יַעֲקֹב מִנְּהַר פְּקוֹד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, מֵהָכָא: ״אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה״, וְכִי תַּעֲלֶה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁזֶּה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּשּׁוּק, וְזֶה נֶהֱרָג? אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁחוֹבְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ, וְאִי מָיֵת — קָטְלִינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִי לָא מָיֵת — ״שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ya’akov from Nehar Pekod said in the name of Rava** that the *halakha* that one pays and is not flogged is derived **from here.** With regard to one who struck another with a stone or his fist and did not kill him but caused him to be bedridden, it is written: **“If he rises and walks outside with his staff, he who struck him is absolved”** (Exodus 21:19). **And could it enter your mind that this** victim **is walking in the marketplace and that** aggressor **is executed** as a murderer? **Rather,** the verse **teaches that one imprisons** the aggressor while the injured party recuperates, **and if he dies** due to the blow he received, **we kill him. And if he does not die** and recovers, the aggressor’s punishment is based on the verse **“His loss of livelihood he shall give, and he shall cause him to be thoroughly healed”** (Exodus 21:19).


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

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — אַמַּאי מִיקְּטִיל! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ, וּמוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר חָמוּר, מוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר הַקַּל, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **What are the circumstances? If** the witnesses **did not forewarn him, why is** the offender **killed** if the victim dies? **Rather, obviously** it is a case **where** the witnesses **forewarned him, and one who is forewarned for a severe matter,** such as the potential death penalty, **is** also **forewarned for** the **lesser matter** of injuring another, for which he is liable to be flogged, **and** nevertheless **the Merciful One states: “His loss of livelihood he shall give, and he shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.”** Apparently, despite his liability to be flogged, he pays and is not flogged.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִמַּאי דְּמוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר חָמוּר הָוֵי מוּתְרֶה לְדָבָר הַקַּל? דִּלְמָא לָא הָוֵי! וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הָוֵי, מִמַּאי דְּמִיתָה חֲמוּרָה? דִּלְמָא מַלְקוֹת חָמוּר? דְּאָמַר רַב: אִילְמָלֵי נַגְּדוּהּ לַחֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה, פְּלַחוּ לְצַלְמָא!

**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? **Perhaps** the punishment of **lashes is** more **severe, as Rav said: Had they flogged Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,** instead of casting them into the fiery furnace, **they would have** been induced to **worship the** graven **image.** Apparently, the punishment of lashes is more severe than death.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סַמָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַסִּי לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב סַמָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְלָא שָׁנֵי לָךְ בֵּין הַכָּאָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ קִצְבָה לְהַכָּאָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קִצְבָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Samma, son of Rav Asi, said to Rav Ashi, and some say Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi,** said **to Rav Ashi: And** is **there no difference to you between flogging that has a limit,** e.g., forty lashes by Torah law, which is a less severe punishment, **and flogging that does not have a limit,** administered to induce compliance, which is more severe?


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב מָרִי: מִמַּאי דִּבְמֵזִיד, ״וְנִקָּה״ — מִקְּטָלָא? דִּלְמָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג, ״וְנִקָּה״ — מִגָּלוּת? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mari** strongly **objects to this** proof that one pays and is not flogged: **From where** do you ascertain **that** this is referring to one who struck another **intentionally,** and that the verse “He who struck him shall be absolved” means that he **shall be absolved of** the **death** penalty? **Perhaps** the verse is referring to one who struck another **unwittingly, and** the verse means that he **shall be absolved of exile?** In that case, there would be no forewarning. Therefore, no proof may be cited from here that one who injures another pays and is not flogged. The Gemara concludes: This is **difficult,** and no proof may be cited from here.


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

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֲפִילּוּ בִּתּוֹ נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another resolution of the apparent contradiction between the mishna here, which obligates one who rapes his sister to pay a fine, and the mishna in *Makkot*, which rules him liable to be flogged. **Reish Lakish said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna taught? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who said: One is flogged and pays.** The Gemara asks: **If** the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, even** if one raped **his daughter** he should **also** be obligated to pay the fine. However, the mishna lists only those who raped women for whom one is liable to be punished for violating a prohibition or liable to receive *karet*, not those for whom one is liable to receive court-imposed execution.


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם — אִית לֵיהּ, מֵת וּמְשַׁלֵּם — לֵית לֵיהּ, וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: גָּנַב וְטָבַח בְּשַׁבָּת, גָּנַב וְטָבַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, גָּנַב שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל וּטְבָחוֹ — מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And lest you say** that **Rabbi Meir is of** the opinion that **one is flogged and pays,** but **is not of** the opinion that **one dies** by execution **and pays; and isn’t** he of the opinion that one who is executed pays? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If one **stole** an animal **and slaughtered** it **on Shabbat,** or **stole** it **and slaughtered** it **for idolatry,** or **stole an ox that** was sentenced to be **stoned,** from which one may derive no benefit and is therefore worthless, **and slaughtered it, he pays** the owner **a payment of four or five** times the principal, as he would in any case of stealing and slaughtering an animal? This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis exempt him** from payment because he is liable to receive the death penalty for slaughtering on Shabbat or for idolatry. Apparently, Rabbi Meir maintains that one is obligated to pay even when he is liable to receive the death penalty.


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

הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי אִילְעָא וְכֹל חֲבוּרָתָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: בְּטוֹבֵחַ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this: **Wasn’t it stated concerning** this *baraita* that **Rabbi Ya’akov said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and some say** that **Rabbi Yirmeya said** that **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said,** that **Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Ile’a and the entire group said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** That case is referring **to one who slaughters by means of another?** The thief himself did not slaughter the animal; rather, it was his agent. Consequently, the thief pays because the capital crime was committed by his agent. Therefore, this source is unrelated to Rabbi Meir’s opinion with regard to the question of whether one is executed and pays.


###### Ketubot 33b:11
[Ketubot 33b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33b:11)

וְכִי זֶה חוֹטֵא וְזֶה מִתְחַיֵּיב? אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״וּטְבָחוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ״, מָה מְכִירָה עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר, אַף טְבִיחָה עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation: **And does this** agent **sin and that** thief **is liable** to pay four and five times the principal? This violates the principle: There is no agent for matters of transgression. The Gemara explains that this is a *halakha* unique to this case. **Rava said** that **the Merciful One states:** “If a man steal an ox or a sheep **and slaughter it or sell it”** (Exodus 21:37). Based on the juxtaposition of slaughter and sale, Rava continues: **Just as sale** is performed **by means of another,** as there is no sale without a buyer, **so too,** one is liable to be punished for **slaughter by means of another.** Although there is no agent for transgression, here there is a Torah decree that one is liable by means of another.


###### Ketubot 33b:12
[Ketubot 33b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33b:12)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״אוֹ״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשָּׁלִיחַ. דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה תָּנָא: ״תַּחַת״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשָּׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** a different source for the *halakha* that one is liable for slaughter by means of an agent. It is written: “And slaughter it or sell it”; the term **“or”** comes **to include an agent.** The Sages **of the school of Rabbi Ḥizkiyya taught** a different proof from the same verse: “He shall pay…for an ox…for a sheep”; the term **“for”** comes **to include an agent.**


###### Ketubot 33b:13
[Ketubot 33b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33b:13)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר זוּטְרָא: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאִילּוּ עֲבַד אִיהוּ לָא מִיחַיַּיב, וְעָבֵיד שְׁלִיחַ וּמִחַיַּיב? אִיהוּ, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מִיחַיַּיב, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָם לֵיהּ בִּדְרַבָּה מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra** strongly **objects to this** *halakha*. **Is there** any **matter** with regard to **which if one performs** it himself, he is not **liable, and** yet if his **agent performs** it he is **liable?** Had he slaughtered the animal himself on Shabbat he would have been exempt from payment. How, then, is he liable if he does so by means of an agent? The Gemara answers: **He** is exempt **not due to** the fact **that he is not liable** for the slaughter; **rather,** he is exempt **due to** the fact **that he receives the greater of** the two punishments, the death penalty, for his desecration of Shabbat. He is liable for both the slaughter and the desecration of Shabbat. In practice, he receives the more severe punishment. However, when he appoints an agent, there is no liability for the desecration of Shabbat, and therefore he must pay for the slaughter.


###### Ketubot 33b:14
[Ketubot 33b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/33b:14)

אִי בְּטוֹבֵחַ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר, מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן דְּפָטְרִי? מַאן חֲכָמִים —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation of the *baraita*. **If** the *baraita* is referring to the case **of** one **who slaughtered by means of another, what is the** rationale for the opinion **of the Rabbis, who exempt** him from payment? As the thief did not perform a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, why is he exempt from payment for slaughtering the animal? The Gemara answers: **Who are the Rabbis** who disagree with Rabbi Meir in this case?