## Ketubot Daf 35b

###### Ketubot 35b:1
[Ketubot 35b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/35b:1)

סוֹף סוֹף לָאו בַּר תַּשְׁלוּמִין הוּא? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּבַהֲדֵי דְּמַחְיֵיהּ, קְרַע שִׁירָאִין דִּילֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Ultimately,** one who injured another and is flogged **is not subject to payment,** as he inflicted damage worth less than a *peruta*. How then can a principle be derived that one who is liable to receive lashes does not pay even when he is not actually flogged? The Gemara answers: The juxtaposition of the verses is **necessary only** with regard to a situation **where at the** same **time that he struck him he tore his silk.** In that case, where he performed a transgression for which he is liable to be flogged and is also liable to pay damages, it is derived that he would be exempt from paying damages even if he is not actually flogged.


###### Ketubot 35b:2
[Ketubot 35b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/35b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִיָּיא לְרָבָא: וּלְתַנָּא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה דְּאָמַר ״מַכֵּה אָדָם״ וּ״מַכֵּה בְהֵמָה״, מִמַּאי דִּבְחוֹל כְּתִיב וְלֵיכָּא לְאִיפְּלוֹגֵי, דִּלְמָא בְּשַׁבָּת כְּתִיב דְּבִבְהֵמָה גּוּפַהּ אִיכָּא לְאִיפְּלוֹגֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥiyya said to Rava: And according to the** derivation **of** the ***tanna* of the school of Ḥizkiyya, who said:** The verse speaks of **one who smites a person, and** the verse speaks of **one who smites an animal. From where** does that *tanna* know **that it is written with regard to a weekday and** therefore **there is no** reason **to distinguish** between an unwitting and a purposeful sinner; **perhaps** this case **is stated with regard to** one who injured an animal on **Shabbat, when concerning the animal itself there is** reason **to distinguish** between one who did so unwittingly and one who did so intentionally. In the case of one who acted unwittingly, he is not liable to receive the death penalty and should therefore be obligated to pay, whereas one who acted intentionally is exempt from payment because he receives the death penalty for desecrating Shabbat. If so, there is no source to exempt from payment one who is not actually executed.


###### Ketubot 35b:3
[Ketubot 35b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/35b:3)

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה וּמַכֵּה אָדָם יוּמָת״. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּלָא אַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ, מַכֵּה אָדָם אַמַּאי יוּמָת? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאַתְרוֹ בֵּיהּ. וְאִי בְּשַׁבָּת, מַכֵּה בְּהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה?! אֶלָּא לָאו בְּחוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: That notion **should not enter your mind, as it is written: “And one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall die”** (Leviticus 24:21). **What are the circumstances** discussed in this verse? **If** it is a case **where** the witnesses **did not forewarn him,** i.e., when **one who smites a person** is not forewarned, **why should he be executed?** There is no corporal punishment, neither lashes nor execution, without forewarning. **Rather,** it is **obvious that they forewarned him. And if** the verse is referring to one who sinned **on Shabbat** after forewarning, would **one who smites an animal** be obligated to **pay for it?** He is executed and certainly exempt from payment. **Rather, isn’t** the verse clearly referring to a case **during the week?**


###### Ketubot 35b:4
[Ketubot 35b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/35b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: לְרַבָּה דְּאָמַר חִידּוּשׁ הוּא שֶׁחִידְּשָׁה תּוֹרָה בִּקְנָס, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיקְּטִיל, מְשַׁלֵּם, מַתְנִיתִין כְּמַאן מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אִי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, קַשְׁיָא בִּתּוֹ! אִי כְּרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה, קַשְׁיָא אֲחוֹתוֹ! אִי כְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק, קַשְׁיָא מַמְזֶרֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Rabba,** who **said: It is a novel element that the Torah innovated with regard to** the halakhic category of **fine, and even though he is executed he pays** the fine; **in accordance with whose** opinion **does** Rabba **establish the mishna? If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** it is **difficult;** why is he exempt if he raped **his daughter?** According to Rabba, Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that even one liable to receive the death penalty pays the fine. **If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana,** it is **difficult,** as why does the mishna rule that he pays the fine for raping **his sister?** Rabbi Neḥunya holds that one liable to receive *karet* is exempt from the fine, like those liable to receive the death penalty. **If** the mishna is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yitzḥak,** who rules that lashes are not administered to those liable to receive *karet* and therefore they are obligated to pay the fine; however, one who is flogged is exempt from payment, it is **difficult,** as why did the mishna rule that he is obligated to pay the fine for raping **a *mamzeret*,** for which he is liable to receive lashes?


###### Ketubot 35b:5
[Ketubot 35b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/35b:5)

הָנִיחָא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן — הוּא נָמֵי מְתָרֵץ לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֶלָּא אִי סָבַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, הֵיכִי מְתָרֵץ לַהּ? עַל כׇּרְחָךְ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** works out **well if** Rabba **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who says that one who did not receive forewarning is obligated to pay even if he performed a transgression for which he is liable to be flogged, as **he can explain** the mishna **as well, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** that he is obligated to pay in cases where there was no forewarning. **However, if he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Reish Lakish,** that one who violated a prohibition for which one is liable to be flogged is exempt from payment even if he was not forewarned, **how does** he **explain** the mishna? The mishna does not correspond to any of the aforementioned opinions. The Gemara answers: **You** must say **perforce** that **he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan** in this regard.


###### Ketubot 35b:6
[Ketubot 35b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/35b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מַתְנָא לְאַבָּיֵי, לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמַר: בְּפֵירוּשׁ רִיבְּתָה תּוֹרָה חַיָּיבֵי מַלְקִיּוֹת כְּחַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת, מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה? אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אִי רַבִּי יִצְחָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mattana said to Abaye: According to Reish Lakish, who said** that **the Torah explicitly included those** who are **liable to** receive **lashes** and accorded them legal status **like those** who are **liable to** receive the **death** penalty, unconditionally exempting them from payment; **who is the *tanna* who disagrees with Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana** and obligates one who is liable both to receive *karet* and to be flogged to pay, and the lashes do not exempt him from payment? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with **either Rabbi Meir,** who says that one who is liable to receive lashes is liable to pay a fine, **or Rabbi Yitzḥak,** who rules that those liable to receive *karet* are not flogged.


###### Ketubot 35b:7
[Ketubot 35b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/35b:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁנִיּוֹת לַעֲרָיוֹת — אֵין לָהֶן לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי. הַמְמָאֶנֶת — אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי. אַיְילוֹנִית — אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי, וְהַיּוֹצֵאת מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם רָע — אֵין לָהּ לֹא קְנָס וְלֹא פִּיתּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara turns its attention to a related issue. **The Sages taught:** Women who are **forbidden relatives and secondary forbidden relatives** receive **neither** payment of **a fine** for rape **nor** payment of a fine for **seduction.** Similarly, a girl **who refuses** to remain married to her husband receives **neither** payment of **a fine** for rape **nor** payment of a fine for **seduction.** Because she was married, she no longer has the presumptive status of a virgin. **A sexually underdeveloped woman [*ailonit*]** who will never reach puberty and therefore her legal status is not that of a young woman, receives **neither** payment of **a fine** for rape **nor** payment of a fine for **seduction. And one who leaves** her husband **due to a bad reputation** receives **neither** payment of **a fine** for rape **nor** payment of a fine for **seduction.**


###### Ketubot 35b:8
[Ketubot 35b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/35b:8)

מַאי ״עֲרָיוֹת״ וּמַאי ״שְׁנִיּוֹת לַעֲרָיוֹת״? אִילֵימָא ״עֲרָיוֹת״ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates. **What is** the meaning of **forbidden relatives, and what is** the meaning of **secondary forbidden relatives** in the context of this *baraita*? **If we say** that **forbidden relatives** means