## Ketubot Daf 37b

###### Ketubot 37b:1
[Ketubot 37b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:1)

וַחֲדָא בְּמִיתָה וּמַלְקוֹת. וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מִיתָה וּמָמוֹן, מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲדָא בְּגוּפֵיהּ וַחֲדָא בְּמָמוֹנֵיהּ לָא עָבְדִינַן. אֲבָל בְּמִיתָה וּמַלְקוֹת, דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּגוּפֵיהּ, אֵימָא מִיתָה אֲרִיכְתָּא הִיא, וְנַעְבֵּיד בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and one** derivation is **with regard to death and lashes,** exempting one liable to be executed from lashes. The Gemara comments: **And** both verses **are necessary, as if** the Torah **taught us** this *halakha* only with regard to **death and monetary** payment, one would assert that the exemption from payment is **due to** the fact **that we do not administer one** punishment **to his body and one to his money. However, with regard to death and lashes, that both this,** death, **and that,** lashes, are administered **to his body, say it is an extended death** penalty **and let us administer** lashes and then the death penalty **to him** so that his death will ensue from affliction.


###### Ketubot 37b:2
[Ketubot 37b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:2)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מִיתָה וּמַלְקוֹת, דְּתַרְתֵּי בְּגוּפֵיהּ לָא עָבְדִינַן. אֲבָל מִיתָה וּמָמוֹן, דַּחֲדָא בְּגוּפֵיהּ וַחֲדָא בְּמָמוֹנֵיהּ, אֵימָא נַעֲבֵיד בֵּיהּ. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the Torah **taught us** this *halakha* only with regard to **death and lashes,** one would assert that the exemption from lashes is **due to** the fact **that we do not administer two** punishments **to his body. However,** with regard to **death and money, where one** is administered **to his body and one** is administered **to his money, say: Let us administer** both **to him.** Therefore, both verses are **necessary,** to teach that one receives only one punishment in both cases.


###### Ketubot 37b:3
[Ketubot 37b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:3)

״וְלֹא תִקְחוּ כוֹפֶר לְנֶפֶשׁ רוֹצֵחַ״ לְמָה לִי? דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לָא תִּשְׁקוֹל מָמוֹנָא מִינֵּיהּ וְתִפְטְרֵיהּ מִקְּטָלָא. ״לֹא תִקְחוּ כוֹפֶר לָנוּס אֶל עִיר מִקְלָטוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לָא תִּשְׁקוֹל מָמוֹנָא מִינֵּיהּ וְתִפְטְרֵיהּ מִן גָּלוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to the verse **“And you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer,** who is guilty of death” (Numbers 35:31), which means that one does not take payment from a person sentenced to death, **why do I** require this verse, if that principle was already derived from another verse? The Gemara explains **that the Merciful One says: Do not take money from him and exempt him from** the **death** penalty. Similarly, the following verse: “And **you shall take no ransom for him that is fled to his city of refuge”** (Numbers 35:32), **why do I** require this verse? The Gemara explains **that the Merciful One says: Do not take money from him and exempt him from exile.**


###### Ketubot 37b:4
[Ketubot 37b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:4)

וּתְרֵי קְרָאֵי לְמָה לִי! חַד בְּשׁוֹגֵג וְחַד בְּמֵזִיד. וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מֵזִיד, מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲמִיר אִיסּוּרֵיהּ. אֲבָל שׁוֹגֵג, דְּלָא חֲמִיר אִיסּוּרֵיהּ — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שׁוֹגֵג, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיכָּא אִיבּוּד נְשָׁמָה. אֲבָל מֵזִיד, דְּאִיכָּא אִיבּוּד נְשָׁמָה — אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And why do I** require **two verses** to teach the same principle? The Gemara explains: **One** verse refers **to** one who killed **unwittingly, and one** verse refers **to** one who killed **intentionally.** The Gemara comments: **And** both verses **are necessary, as if** the Torah **taught us** this *halakha* only with regard to **an intentional** murderer, one would assert that payment is not accepted **due to** the fact **that** the **prohibition** that **he** violated **is severe. However,** with regard to **an unwitting** killer, **where** the **prohibition is not severe, say no,** he may pay in lieu of exile. **And if** the Torah **taught us** this *halakha* only with regard to **an unwitting** killer, one would assert that payment is not accepted **due to** the fact **that there is no loss of life,** as the killer is not executed, and therefore, there is no reason to allow payment in lieu of exile. **However,** with regard to **an intentional** killer, **where there is loss of life,** as he will be executed, **say no,** he may pay in lieu of execution. Therefore, both verses are **necessary.**


###### Ketubot 37b:5
[Ketubot 37b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:5)

״וְלָאָרֶץ לֹא יְכוּפַּר לַדָּם אֲשֶׁר שׁוּפַּךְ בָּהּ כִּי אִם בְּדַם שׁוֹפְכוֹ״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to the following verse: **“And no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it”** (Numbers 35:33), which also indicates that he cannot be exempted by money, **why do I** require another verse to teach that one cannot absolve himself from the death penalty by means of payment?


###### Ketubot 37b:6
[Ketubot 37b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:6)

מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם נִתְעָרְפָה עֲגָלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצָא הַהוֹרֵג, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלָאָרֶץ לֹא יְכוּפַּר לַדָּם אֲשֶׁר שׁוּפַּךְ בָּהּ וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **It is necessary to** teach **that which is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the matter of the calf that is beheaded. If a corpse whose murderer is unknown is found between two towns, the elders of the town nearest to the corpse bring a heifer and behead it in a riverbed, after which they pray for atonement for this murder. The *baraita* states: **From where** is it derived **that if the calf was beheaded and the murderer was found thereafter,** it is derived **that one does not exempt him** from punishment? It is **as it is stated: “And no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein,** but by the blood of him that shed it” (Numbers 35:32), from which it is inferred: And not by the blood of the calf.


###### Ketubot 37b:7
[Ketubot 37b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:7)

״וְאַתָּה תְּבַעֵר הַדָּם הַנָּקִי מִקִּרְבֶּךָ״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְמוּמָתִים בְּסַיִיף שֶׁהוּא מִן הַצַּוָּאר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאַתָּה תְּבַעֵר הַדָּם הַנָּקִי מִקִּרְבֶּךָ״ — הוּקְשׁוּ כׇּל שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים לְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, מַה לְהַלָּן מִן הַצַּוָּאר — אַף שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים מִן הַצַּוָּאר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: What about the following verse, from the conclusion of the chapter of the heifer: The verse **“And so shall you put away the innocent blood from your midst”** (Deuteronomy 21:9) appears to be teaching the very same *halakha*, that a murderer must be executed. **Why do I** need it? The Gemara answers that **it is necessary to** teach **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that** with regard to **those executed by sword,** e.g., murderers, their execution **is** administered **from the neck,** and nowhere else? **The verse states: “And so shall you put away the innocent blood from your midst”** (Deuteronomy 21:9), **likening all spillers of blood to the beheaded calf** brought for an unresolved murder. **Just as there,** the calf is beheaded **from the neck, so too, murderers** are beheaded **from the neck.**


###### Ketubot 37b:8
[Ketubot 37b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:8)

אִי מָה לְהַלָּן בְּקוֹפִיץ וּמִמּוּל עוֹרֶף, אַף כָּאן בְּקוֹפִיץ וּמִמּוּל עוֹרֶף? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״, בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, just as there,** in the case of the beheaded calf, it is beheaded **with a cleaver [*kofitz*] and at the nape of the neck, here too** the court executes murderers **with a cleaver and at the nape of the neck. Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said** that **the verse says: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself”** (Leviticus 19:18), from which it is derived: **Choose for him an agreeable death.** It is prohibited to abuse a guilty person while executing him, and chopping off his head with a cleaver is an unseemly death. The murderer is beheaded from the neck, not with a cleaver, and not by the other methods employed in beheading the calf.


###### Ketubot 37b:9
[Ketubot 37b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:9)

״כׇּל חֵרֶם אֲשֶׁר יׇחֳרַם מִן הָאָדָם לֹא יִפָּדֶה״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לַיּוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג, וְאָמַר אֶחָד ״עֶרְכּוֹ עָלַי״, מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר כְּלוּם —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to the following verse: **“Anything dedicated [*ḥerem*], that may be dedicated of men, shall not be redeemed;** he shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 27:29), which is interpreted here as: Anyone sentenced to be executed shall not be redeemed; this appears to teach the same *halakha* as above, so **why do I need** it? The Gemara explains: **It is necessary** to teach **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **with regard to** one **taken to be executed, and one** person **said: His valuation is upon me** to donate to the Temple, **that he did not say anything** and his vow is not binding?


###### Ketubot 37b:10
[Ketubot 37b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:10)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם אֲשֶׁר יׇחֳרַם מִן הָאָדָם לֹא יִפָּדֶה״. יָכוֹל אַף קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הָאָדָם״ — וְלֹא כׇּל הָאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is derived **as it is stated: “Anything dedicated [*ḥerem*], that may be dedicated of men [*yoḥoram*], shall not be redeemed”** (Leviticus 27:29). This verse is taken to mean that anything dedicated, through which a man who is condemned [*yoḥoram*] is valuated, shall not be redeemed, as the person in question is already considered dead. One **might** think that **even before his verdict** is issued this should be **so,** and that one who said: The valuation of so-and-so on trial for murder is upon me, said nothing of consequence. Therefore, **the verse states:** “That may be dedicated **of men,”** implying “of men,” **but not entire men.** If it is valuation of an entire man, one not yet sentenced to death, it is binding. If it is valuation of a partial man, one sentenced to death, it is not binding.


###### Ketubot 37b:11
[Ketubot 37b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:11)

וּלְרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא, דְּאָמַר: נֶעֱרָךְ — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָיו קְצוּבִין, הַאי ״כׇּל חֵרֶם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya,** who **said** that even a person taken to his execution **is valuated,** and the vow is binding, **because** the **money** of **his** valuation **is fixed.** The sum of the valuation established in the Torah is not based on the worth of the individual; rather, there is a fixed sum determined by age and gender. Therefore, one may be valuated as long as he is alive. According to that opinion, the question remains with regard to **this** verse: **“Anything dedicated,” what does** he derive from **it?**


###### Ketubot 37b:12
[Ketubot 37b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:12)

מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ לְמוּמָתִים בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לָהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם כּוֹפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו״. יָכוֹל אַף בִּידֵי אָדָם כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״חֵרֶם מִן הָאָדָם לֹא יִפָּדֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He requires it** to teach **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: Because we found with regard to those executed at the hand of Heaven,** and not through court-administered execution, **that they give money and their** sins **are atoned, as it is stated:** “The ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death. **If there be laid upon him a ransom** then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him” (Exodus 21:29–30). One whose ox kills a person is essentially liable to receive the death penalty at the hand of Heaven, and pays money instead. You **might** think that **even** with regard to those liable to receive the death penalty **at the hands of man** it is **so,** and one can pay in lieu of execution. Therefore, **the verse states: “Dedicated of men shall not be redeemed”** (Leviticus 27:29). One who is executed by man cannot be redeemed with money.


###### Ketubot 37b:13
[Ketubot 37b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:13)

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִיתוֹת חֲמוּרוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה שִׁגְגָתָן לְכַפָּרָה, מִיתוֹת קַלּוֹת שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה שִׁגְגָתָן לְכַפָּרָה, מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And I have** derived this restriction **only** with regard to prohibitions punishable by **severe** penalties of **death,** e.g., striking one’s father, **for which no atonement is designated** in the Torah **for their unwitting** violation. However, with regard to prohibitions punishable by **less severe** penalties of **death,** e.g., performing labor on Shabbat, **for which atonement,** a sin-offering, **is designated** in the Torah **for their unwitting** violation, **from where** is it derived that there is no payment in lieu of execution? **The verse states: “Anything dedicated,”** to include all prohibitions punishable by court-administered execution.


###### Ketubot 37b:14
[Ketubot 37b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/37b:14)

וְלָא מִמֵּילָא מִ״לֹּא תִּקְחוּ כּוֹפֶר״ שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ — לָא תִּשְׁקוֹל מָמוֹנָא מִינֵּיהּ וְתִיפְטְרֵיהּ? ״כׇּל חֵרֶם״ לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And didn’t you incidentally learn** the following conclusion **from** the verse **“And you shall take no ransom** for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death” (Numbers 35:31): **Do not take money from him and exempt him** from death? **Why,** then, **do I** require the phrase: **Any *ḥerem*? Rami bar Ḥama said:** It is **necessary,** as **it might enter your mind to say**