## Ketubot Daf 38a

###### Ketubot 38a:1
[Ketubot 38a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:1)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי, הֵיכָא דַּהֲרָגוֹ דֶּרֶךְ עֲלִיָּיה, שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה שִׁגְגָתוֹ לְכַפָּרָה. אֲבָל הֲרָגוֹ דֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה, דְּנִיתְּנָה שִׁגְגָתוֹ לְכַפָּרָה, אֵימָא: נִישְׁקוֹל מָמוֹנָא מִינֵּיהּ וְנִיפְטְרֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**this** principle, that one cannot pay in lieu of execution, **applies only when one** intentionally **killed him in an upward motion, for which no atonement is designated** in the Torah **for its unwitting** performance. **However,** with regard to one who intentionally **killed him in a downward motion, for which atonement,** i.e., exile, **is designated** in the Torah **for its unwitting** performance, **say: Let us take money from him and exempt him.** Therefore, the phrase “any *ḥerem*” **teaches us** that even in that case there is no payment in lieu of execution.


###### Ketubot 38a:2
[Ketubot 38a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הָא מִדְּתַנָּא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה נָפְקָא. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: ״מַכֵּה אָדָם״ וּ״מַכֵּה בְהֵמָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: That** principle **is derived** from that which the Sage **of the school of Ḥizkiyya taught, as** the Sage **of the school of Ḥizkiyya taught:** The verse juxtaposes the cases of **one who smites a person, and one who smites an animal** (Leviticus 24:21).


###### Ketubot 38a:3
[Ketubot 38a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:3)

מָה מַכֵּה בְהֵמָה לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בּוֹ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג לְמֵזִיד, בֵּין מִתְכַּוֵּין לְשֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין, בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה לְדֶרֶךְ עֲלִיָּיה — לְפוֹטְרוֹ מָמוֹן אֶלָּא לְחַיְּיבוֹ מָמוֹן. אַף מַכֵּה אָדָם לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג לְמֵזִיד, בֵּין מִתְכַּוֵּין לְשֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין, בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה לְדֶרֶךְ עֲלִיָּה — לְחַיְּיבוֹ מָמוֹן אֶלָּא לְפוֹטְרוֹ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Just as in** the case of one **who smites an animal, you did not distinguish between** one who did so **unwittingly and** one who did so **intentionally; between** one who acted **with intent and one who** acted **with no intent; between** one who smites **in** the course of **a downward motion and** one who smites **in** the course of **an upward motion;** and in all those cases it is not **to exempt** him from paying **money but rather to obligate him to** pay **money; so too in** the case of one **who smites a person: Do not distinguish between** one who did so **unwittingly and** one who did so **intentionally; between** one who acted **with intent and one who** acted **with no intent; between** one who smites **in** the course of **a downward motion and** one who smites **in** the course of **an upward motion;** and in all those cases it is not **to obligate him** to pay **money but rather to exempt him** from paying **money.** Apparently, one who kills another in any manner is exempt from payment, and therefore no additional verse is required to derive that principle.


###### Ketubot 38a:4
[Ketubot 38a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:4)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, אִיצְטְרִיךְ: סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּסִימֵּא אֶת עֵינוֹ וַהֲרָגוֹ בָּהּ. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּסִימֵּא אֶת עֵינוֹ וַהֲרָגוֹ בְּדָבָר אַחֵר, אֵימָא נִישְׁקוֹל מָמוֹנָא מִינֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הָא נָמֵי מֵאִידַּךְ תַּנָּא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה נָפְקָא. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה: ״עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן״, וְלֹא עַיִן וְנֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת עַיִן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rami bar Ḥama said** that the phrase “any *ḥerem*” (Leviticus 27:29) is **necessary, as it might enter your mind to say** that **this** *halakha*, that one who is liable to be executed is exempt from payment, **applies only** in a case **where one blinded** another’s **eye and killed him with** that same blow. **However,** in a case **where one blinded** another’s **eye and killed him by** means of a **different** blow, **say: Let us take money from him** to pay the damage inflicted to the eye. Therefore, the verse teaches that this is not the case. **Rava said to him: This** case of one who blinded another’s eye and killed him **is also derived from** that which **another *tanna*** of **the school of Ḥizkiyya** taught, **as** the Sage **of the school of Ḥizkiyya taught** that the verse states: **“An eye for an eye”** (Exodus 21:24), from which it may be inferred, **but not an eye and a life for an eye.** When he gives his life for killing another while blinding him, he need not pay the worth of the eye as well.


###### Ketubot 38a:5
[Ketubot 38a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וְחִידּוּשׁ הוּא שֶׁחִידְּשָׁה תּוֹרָה בִּקְנָס, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיקְּטִיל מְשַׁלֵּם, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. וּלְרַבָּה דְּאָמַר חִידּוּשׁ הוּא שֶׁחִידְּשָׁה תּוֹרָה בִּקְנָס, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיקְּטִיל מְשַׁלֵּם, הַאי ״כׇּל חֵרֶם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? סָבַר לַהּ כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא דְּרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** after the Gemara rejected the above explanations, **Rav Ashi said:** The phrase “any *ḥerem*” is nonetheless **necessary,** as **it might enter your mind to say: Since it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to** the payment of **a fine,** which is not payment for any damage caused but is a Torah decree, in that case, **even though he is killed he pays** the fine. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that one who is executed is exempt from payment of the fine. The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabba, who said** that this is indeed the *halakha*: Since **it is a novel element that the Torah introduced with regard to** the payment of **a fine, even though he is killed he pays** the fine, **what does** he **do with this** phrase: **“Any *ḥerem*”?** The Gemara answers: Rabba **holds** with regard **to** this matter **in accordance with** the opinion of **the first *tanna*,** who disagrees with **Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya** and explains that the phrase “Any *ḥerem*” teaches that the vow one takes to donate the valuation of one being taken to his execution is not binding.


###### Ketubot 38a:6
[Ketubot 38a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** נַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה — רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: אֵין לָהּ קְנָס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס, וּקְנָסָהּ לְעַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a young woman who was betrothed and divorced,** and then raped, **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: She does not** receive payment of a **fine** for her rape. **Rabbi Akiva says: She** receives payment of a **fine** for her rape **and her fine** is paid **to herself,** not her father, as since she was betrothed and divorced she is no longer subject to her father’s authority.


###### Ketubot 38a:7
[Ketubot 38a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי — אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָשָׂה״, הָא אוֹרָסָה — אֵין לָהּ קְנָס. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָשָׂה״ — לְאָבִיהָ, הָא אוֹרְסָה — לְעַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **What is the rationale** for the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?** It is as **the verse states:** “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin **who was not betrothed”** (Deuteronomy 22:28), from which it may be inferred: If **she was betrothed she does not have** a **fine** for rape. The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rabbi Akiva** explain this verse? The Gemara answers that the verse states: If it is a young woman **who was not betrothed,** the fine is paid **to her father,** from which it may be inferred: If **she was betrothed,** the fine is paid **to** the betrothed woman **herself.**


###### Ketubot 38a:8
[Ketubot 38a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:8)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״נַעֲרָה״ וְלֹא בּוֹגֶרֶת, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּלְעַצְמָהּ? ״בְּתוּלָה״ וְלֹא בְּעוּלָה, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּלְעַצְמָהּ? אֶלָּא לִגְמָרֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי לִגְמָרֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if** that is **so,** that the inference from the verse is that the fine is levied on one who rapes **a young woman and not** on one who rapes **a grown woman, so too,** there is the *halakha* in the latter case that the fine is paid **to** the grown woman **herself.** Similarly, with regard to the inference that the fine is levied on one who rapes **a virgin and not** on one who rapes **a non-virgin, so too,** there is the *halakha* that in the latter case the fine is paid **to** the non-virgin **herself.** A distinction of that kind has never been encountered. **Rather,** with regard to a grown woman and a non-virgin, the rapist is **completely** exempt from paying the fine; **here too,** with regard to a betrothed woman, the rapist is **completely** exempt from paying the fine.


###### Ketubot 38a:9
[Ketubot 38a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:9)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הַאי ״לָא אוֹרָשָׂה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָשָׂה״ — פְּרָט לְנַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה, שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קְנָס, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס, וּקְנָסָהּ לְאָבִיהָ. וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: הוֹאִיל וְאָבִיהָ זַכַּאי בְּכֶסֶף קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ, וְאָבִיהָ זַכַּאי בְּכֶסֶף קְנָסָהּ. מָה כֶּסֶף קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה — לְאָבִיהָ, אַף כֶּסֶף קְנָסָהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה — לְאָבִיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Akiva** could have **said to you** that **this** verse: **“Who was not betrothed,” is required by him** to teach another *halakha* **that is taught** in a different *baraita*. **“Who was not betrothed”** (Deuteronomy 22:28) comes to **exclude a young woman who was betrothed and divorced** and establish **that she does not** receive payment of a **fine** for her rape; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: She** receives payment of a **fine** for her rape, **and her fine** goes **to her father,** contrary to the ruling attributed to Rabbi Akiva in the mishna. **And** ostensibly, no verse is required to derive this *halakha*, as **logic dictates** that it is so: **Since her father is entitled to the money of her betrothal** if she is betrothed before she becomes a grown woman, **and** likewise **her father is entitled to the money of her fine; just as the money of her** subsequent **betrothal** as a young woman, **even though she was betrothed and divorced,** is paid **to her father, so too, the money of her fine, although she was betrothed and divorced,** is paid **to her father.**


###### Ketubot 38a:10
[Ketubot 38a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:10)

אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָשָׂה״ — מוּפְנֶה, לְהַקִּישׁ לוֹ וְלָדוּן הֵימֶנּוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָשָׂה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָשָׂה״. מָה כָּאן חֲמִשִּׁים — אַף לְהַלָּן חֲמִשִּׁים, וּמָה לְהַלָּן שְׁקָלִים — אַף כָּאן שְׁקָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If so,** and the *halakha* can be logically inferred, **why does the verse state: “Who was not betrothed”?** This verse is **free,** as it is superfluous in its own context, **and** it is written **to liken** another case to it, **and to derive from it a verbal analogy: It is stated here** with regard to a woman who was raped: **“Who was not betrothed,” and it is stated below:** “And if a man seduce a virgin **who was not betrothed”** (Exodus 22:15). **Just as here,** with regard to rape, the Torah specifies that the payment is **fifty** silver pieces (Deuteronomy 22:29), **so too below,** with regard to seduction, the payment is **fifty. And just as below,** with regard to seduction, the payment is in **shekels,** as it is written: “He shall weigh [*yishkol*] money” (Exodus 22:16), **so too here,** the payment is in **shekels.**


###### Ketubot 38a:11
[Ketubot 38a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/38a:11)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מַאי חָזֵית דַּ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא אוֹרָשָׂה״ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, וּ״בְתוּלָה״ לְמַעוֹטֵי בְּעוּלָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Akiva, what did you see** that led you to utilize the phrase: **“Who was not betrothed” for a verbal analogy, and** the term **“virgin” to exclude a non-virgin** from the fine?