## Ketubot Daf 34b

###### Ketubot 34b:1
[Ketubot 34b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34b:1)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם אִית לֵיהּ, מֵת וּמְשַׁלֵּם לֵית לֵיהּ. וְשָׁאנֵי הָנֵי, דְּחִידּוּשׁ הוּא שֶׁחִידְּשָׁה תּוֹרָה בִּקְנָס, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיקְּטִיל — מְשַׁלֵּם. וְאַזְדָּא רַבָּה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: הָיָה גְּדִי גָּנוּב לוֹ, וּטְבָחוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת. גָּנַב וְטָבַח בְּשַׁבָּת — פָּטוּר, שֶׁאִם אֵין גְּנֵיבָה, אֵין טְבִיחָה וְאֵין מְכִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and 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 these** *halakhot* **are different, as it is a novel element that the Torah innovated with regard to** the halakhic category of **fines; although he is killed, he pays. And Rabba followed his** line of **reasoning** stated elsewhere, **as Rabba said:** If one **had a stolen kid** in **his** possession that he had stolen previously, **and he slaughtered it on Shabbat,** he is **liable** to pay five times the principal for slaughtering the kid, **as he was already liable for stealing before he came to** violate **the prohibition** against performing labor on **Shabbat.** Although he slaughtered the goat on Shabbat, a capital crime, he is liable for the payment because it is a fine. However, if **he stole** the goat **and slaughtered** it **on Shabbat,** he is **exempt** from the payment of five times the principal **as, if** there is **no** payment for **theft,** due to his liability to receive the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat, and his obligation to repay the theft is not a fine, there is **no** liability for **slaughter and** there is **no** liability for **sale.**


###### Ketubot 34b:2
[Ketubot 34b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34b:2)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: הָיָה גְּדִי גָּנוּב לוֹ וּטְבָחוֹ בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת — חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר מַחְתֶּרֶת. גָּנַב וְטָבַח בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת — פָּטוּר, שֶׁאִם אֵין גְּנֵיבָה, אֵין טְבִיחָה וְאֵין מְכִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba said:** If one **had a stolen kid** in **his** possession that he had stolen previously, **and he slaughtered it in** the course of an act of **burglary,** he is **liable** to pay four or five times the principal, **as he was already liable for theft before he came to** violate **the prohibition** against **burglary.** However, if **he stole and slaughtered** an animal **in** the course of an act of **burglary,** he is **exempt.** Because the owner of the house is permitted to kill the burglar, the status of the burglar is tantamount to one liable to receive the death penalty. **As, if** there is **no** payment **for theft,** there is **no** liability for **slaughter and** there is **no** liability for **sale.** Rabba’s statements indicate that one pays the fines for slaughter or sale even if he is liable to receive the death penalty.


###### Ketubot 34b:3
[Ketubot 34b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34b:3)

וּצְרִיכָא. דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שַׁבָּת — מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיסּוּרָהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם. אֲבָל מַחְתֶּרֶת, דְּאִיסּוּר שָׁעָה הוּא — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מַחְתֶּרֶת — מִשּׁוּם דְּמַחְתַּרְתּוֹ זוֹ הִיא הַתְרָאָתוֹ. אֲבָל שַׁבָּת, דְּבָעֲיָא הַתְרָאָה — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** it was **necessary** for Rabba to state this *halakha* with regard to both Shabbat and burglary; **as, if he** had **taught us** that one is exempt from payment only with regard to **Shabbat,** it is **because** Shabbat is severe since punishment for violation of **its prohibition is an eternal prohibition,** as whenever witnesses testify that one desecrated Shabbat, he can be executed. **However,** in the case of **burglary,** as punishment for violating its **prohibition is transitory,** e.g., it is permitted for the homeowner to kill the burglar only as long as the burglar remains on his property, **say** that he is **not** exempt from payment. **And if he taught us** the exemption only with regard to **burglary,** that would be **because his burglary is his forewarning.** Because he certainly intends to kill the homeowner, it is permitted for the homeowner to kill him without forewarning. In that respect, burglary is a severe prohibition and exempts one from payment. **However, Shabbat, which requires forewarning,** is a less severe prohibition, and in that case, **say** that one **is not** exempt from payment. Therefore, it was **necessary** for Rabba to state the exemption in both cases.


###### Ketubot 34b:4
[Ketubot 34b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34b:4)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָיְתָה פָּרָה גְּנוּבָה לוֹ, וּטְבָחָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב, שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְחַיֵּיב בִּגְנֵיבָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי אִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת. הָיְתָה פָּרָה שְׁאוּלָה לוֹ, וּטְבָחָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת — פָּטוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: רַב פָּפָּא, פָּרָה אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** If one **had a stolen cow** in **his** possession that he had stolen previously **and he slaughtered it on Shabbat,** he is **liable** to pay four or five times the principal **as he was already liable for theft before he came to** violate **the prohibition of Shabbat.** If **a cow was lent to him and he slaughtered it on Shabbat,** he is **exempt** from paying the fine. **Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:** Is **Rav Pappa coming to teach us** the case of **a cow?** In other words, what did Rav Pappa add that was not already clear from Rabba’s statement? The same principle applies with regard to both a kid and a cow. If one was liable to pay for the theft when he stole the animal, he is liable to pay the fine for slaughter as well, even if he is liable to receive the death penalty.


###### Ketubot 34b:5
[Ketubot 34b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַב פָּפָּא, שְׁאוּלָה אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִשְּׁעַת מְשִׁיכָה הוּא דְּאִתְחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, הָכָא נָמֵי: מִשְּׁעַת שְׁאֵלָה אִתְחַיַּיב בְּאוּנְסֶיהָ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him: Rav Pappa is coming to teach us** the *halakha* with regard to a **borrowed** cow, as **it could enter your mind to say** that **since Rav Pappa said:** It is **from the moment of pulling** the animal into his domain **that** the borrower **is obligated to** provide the animal’s **sustenance,** then **here too, from the moment of borrowing he is liable** to pay **for its unavoidable accidents.** From that point, the animal is legally in his possession and therefore, even if he slaughtered the animal on Shabbat he should be liable. Therefore, **he teaches us** that one assumes liability for unavoidable accidents only when they actually occur, and if that is on Shabbat, he is exempt.


###### Ketubot 34b:6
[Ketubot 34b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34b:6)

אָמַר רָבָא: הִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן פָּרָה שְׁאוּלָה — מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בָּהּ כׇּל יְמֵי שְׁאֵלָתָהּ, מֵתָה — אֵין חַיָּיבִין בְּאוֹנְסָהּ. כִּסְבוּרִין שֶׁל אֲבִיהֶם הִיא וּטְבָחוּהָ וַאֲכָלוּהָ — מְשַׁלְּמִין דְּמֵי בָשָׂר בְּזוֹל. הִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים — חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** If **their father** died and **left them a borrowed cow, they may use it** for **the entire** duration of the **period** for which **it was borrowed.** The right to use a borrowed article continues even after the borrower himself dies. However, if the cow **died, they are not liable** to pay **for its unavoidable accident,** as they did not borrow the animal themselves. Similarly, if **they thought** the cow **was their father’s and they slaughtered it and ate it, they pay only a reduced** assessment of the **price of the meat.** They are required to pay only for the benefit they received, not the damage they caused the owner. However, if **their father left them property** as a **guarantee** for return of the borrowed item, i.e., there was a lien on the father’s property during his lifetime, **they are obligated to pay** the entire sum of the damage.


###### Ketubot 34b:7
[Ketubot 34b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34b:7)

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא. מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַסֵּיפָא — וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב פָּפָּא. וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, אֲבָל אַרֵישָׁא לָא — וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Some teach this** statement, that if the father left property as a guarantee his heirs are liable to pay the entire damage, **with regard to the first clause** of this *halakha*, **and some teach it with regard to the latter clause.** The Gemara elaborates: According to the **one who teaches it with regard to the first clause,** when the animal died, **all the more so** would he teach this *halakha* **with regard to the latter clause,** as since they slaughtered the animal they must pay full damages. **And** this approach **differs** with the opinion **of Rav Pappa,** who said that a borrower is liable for accidents only when the incident occurs. **And** according to the **one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause,** this *halakha* applies only when they slaughtered and ate it; **however, with regard to the first clause,** when it died, they would **not** be liable, as the *tanna* too maintains that liability for unavoidable accidents begins only when the incident occurs, not from when the cow was borrowed. **And this is** consistent with the ruling **of Rav Pappa.**


###### Ketubot 34b:8
[Ketubot 34b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34b:8)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּקָא מוֹקֵים לָהּ כְּרַבָּנַן. אֶלָּא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אָמַר לָךְ: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — פָּטוּר, כִּי לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — נָמֵי פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Several possible solutions were proposed to resolve the apparent contradiction between the mishna here that says that one who rapes his sister pays a fine and the mishna in *Makkot* that says that he is flogged. The Gemara comments: **Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who explains the mishna as referring to a case where he was not forewarned, **did not state** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Reish Lakish,** who explains that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, **as he establishes** the mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** a preferable option, as that aligns the unattributed mishna with the *halakha*. **However, what is the reason** that **Reish Lakish didn’t state** his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan?** The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could have **said to you: Since if they forewarned him** he is **exempt** from payment, **when they did not forewarn him,** he is **exempt as well.**


###### Ketubot 34b:9
[Ketubot 34b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34b:9)

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ. דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת שׁוֹגְגִין, וְחַיָּיבֵי מַלְקִיּוֹת שׁוֹגְגִין וְדָבָר אַחֵר — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּטוּר. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר חַיָּיב — דְּהָא לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּטוּר — כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — פָּטוּר, כִּי לָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ — נָמֵי פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish each **follow their** standard lines of **reasoning** in this regard, **as when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he said:** With regard to **those** who **unwittingly** performed a transgression for which one is **liable to** receive the **death** penalty, or **those** who **unwittingly** performed a transgression for which one is **liable** to receive **lashes, and** that transgression also involved **another matter,** monetary payment, **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** He is **liable** to pay; since he sinned unwittingly he did not receive the severe punishment. **And Reish Lakish said** he is **exempt.** The Gemara clarifies the rationales for their statements. **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** he is **liable; since they did not forewarn him,** he sinned unwittingly. **Reish Lakish said** he is **exempt; since if they forewarned him** he is **exempt** from payment, **when they did not forewarn him,** he is **exempt as well.**


###### Ketubot 34b:10
[Ketubot 34b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34b:10)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan** from the following verse, which describes a case where two people fought and during their struggle they hurt a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry: **“And yet no harm follow, he shall be punished** as imposed upon him by the woman’s husband” (Exodus 21:22).