## Ketubot Daf 41a

###### Ketubot 41a:1
[Ketubot 41a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר: ״פִּתִּיתִי אֶת בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״ — מְשַׁלֵּם בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, וְאֵין מְשַׁלֵּם קְנָס. הָאוֹמֵר: ״גָּנַבְתִּי״ — מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, וְאֵין מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. ״הֵמִית שׁוֹרִי אֶת פְּלוֹנִי״, אוֹ ״שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״ — הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. ״הֵמִית שׁוֹרִי עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״ — אֵין מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם יָתֵר עַל מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק — אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who says: I seduced the daughter of so-and-so, pays** compensation for **humiliation and degradation** based **on his own** admission, **but does not pay** the **fine.** Similarly, **one who says: I stole, pays the principal,** the value of the stolen goods, **based on his own** admission, **but does not pay** the **double payment and** the **payment four and five** times the principal for the slaughter or sale of the sheep or ox that he stole. Likewise if he confessed: **My ox killed so-and-so, or:** My ox killed **an ox** belonging to **so-and-so, this** owner **pays** based **on his own** admission. However, if he said: **My ox killed a slave** belonging to **so-and-so, he does not pay** based **on his own** admission as that payment is a fine. **This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than what he damaged,** the payments are fines and therefore **he does not pay** based **on his own** admission. He pays only based on the testimony of others.


###### Ketubot 41a:2
[Ketubot 41a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** וְלִיתְנֵי ״אָנַסְתִּי״! לָא מִבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִבַּעְיָא ״אָנַסְתִּי״, דְּלָא קָא פָּגֵים לַהּ, דִּמְשַׁלֵּם בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל ״פִּתִּיתִי״, דְּקָא פָּגֵים לַהּ, אֵימָא: לָא מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **And let** the *tanna* **teach** this *halakha* with regard to one who said: **I raped** the daughter of so-and-so. Why did the mishna cite the case of seduction? The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **is speaking** employing the style: **It is not necessary. It is not necessary** for the mishna to cite the case of one who says: **I raped** her, **where he does not tarnish her** reputation and merely incriminates himself, as it is obvious that **he pays** compensation for **humiliation and degradation** based **on his own** admission. **However,** in the case of one who says: **I seduced** her, **where he tarnishes her** reputation as he testifies that she willingly engaged in relations with him, and he is not deemed credible to do so, **say** that **he does not pay** based **on his own** admission. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that even in the case of seduction he pays compensation for humiliation and degradation based on his own admission.


###### Ketubot 41a:3
[Ketubot 41a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:3)

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אַף בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ — לֹא כׇּל הֵימֶנּוּ שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Even** the payments of **humiliation and degradation, he does not pay** them based **on his own** admission as **it is not within his power to tarnish** the reputation of **the daughter of so-and-so** based merely on his confession. Consequently, unless his account is corroborated by the testimony of others, his admission that she was complicit in her seduction is rejected.


###### Ketubot 41a:4
[Ketubot 41a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: נִיחָא לַהּ לְדִידַהּ, מַאי? דִּלְמָא לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ לְאָבִיהָ. נִיחָא לֵיהּ לְאָבִיהָ, מַאי? דִּלְמָא לָא נִיחָא לְהוּ לִבְנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה. נִיחָא לְהוּ לִבְנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה, מַאי? אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלֵיכָּא חַד בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם דְּלָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye:** According to Rabbi Shimon, if **she herself is amenable** to his claim, and admits that his version of the events is accurate, **what** is the *halakha*? Is he exempt from payments of humiliation and degradation in that case as well? Abaye responded: **Perhaps her father is not amenable** to his daughter’s reputation being tarnished. We therefore do not rely on his statement even in this case. Rav Pappa continued: If **her father is** also **amenable** to his claim, **what** is the *halakha*? Abaye responded: **Perhaps her** other **family members are not amenable,** as the reputation of the entire family would be tarnished. Rav Pappa asked: If the **family members** too are **amenable, what** is the *halakha*? Abaye answered: Even if all the local relatives are amenable, **it is impossible that there** will **not** be at least **one** relative **in a country overseas who is not amenable** to his claim.


###### Ketubot 41a:5
[Ketubot 41a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:5)

הָאוֹמֵר גָּנַבְתִּי מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְכוּ׳. אִיתְּמַר, פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא, רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא — מָמוֹנָא. רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא — קְנָסָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues. **One who says: I stole, pays the principal,** but does not pay the double payment and the payment four and five times the principal. **It is stated** that *amora’im* disagreed with regard to the payment of **half the damage** that the owner of an innocuous ox, which was not yet witnessed goring a person or an ox three times, must pay to the owner of the ox that he gored. **Rav Pappa said: Half the damage** is considered a payment of **money,** compensation for the damage caused. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said** that **half the damage** is considered payment of a **fine.**


###### Ketubot 41a:6
[Ketubot 41a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:6)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא מָמוֹנָא, קָסָבַר: סְתָם שְׁוָורִים לָאו בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁימּוּר קָיְימִי. וּבְדִין הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם כּוּלֵּיהּ, וְרַחֲמָנָא הוּא דְּחָיֵיס עִלָּוֵיהּ, דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא אִיַּעַד תּוֹרָא. רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא קְנָסָא, קָסָבַר: סְתָם שְׁוָורִים בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁימּוּר קָיְימִי. וּבְדִין הוּא דְּלָא לִישַׁלֵּם כְּלָל, וְרַחֲמָנָא הוּא דְּקַנְסֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנִינְטְרֵיהּ לְתוֹרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates. **Rav Pappa said: Half the damage** is considered a payment of **money,** as **he maintains: Standard oxen do not exist in the presumptive status of safety,** and therefore are likely to cause damage. **And by right,** the owner **should pay the entire** damage caused by his animal, **and it is the Merciful One that has compassion on him, as his ox is not yet forewarned** until it has gored a person or an animal three times. Fundamentally, the payment is for damage that the animal caused. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said** that **half the damage** is payment of a **fine,** as **he maintains: Standard oxen exist in the presumptive status of safety,** and are not dangerous. **And by right,** the owner **should not pay at all,** as the ox goring could not have been anticipated, and therefore the owner bears no responsibility. **And it is the Merciful One that penalized him so that he would guard his ox.** The sum that he pays is a fine.


###### Ketubot 41a:7
[Ketubot 41a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:7)

סִימָן: הִיזִּיק, מָה, וְהֵמִית, כְּלָל. תְּנַן: הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא מָמוֹנָא, הַיְינוּ דְּשָׁיֵיךְ נִיזָּק בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא קְנָסָא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָאו דִּידֵיהּ קָא שָׁקֵיל, בְּתַשְׁלוּמִין אִיתֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides **a mnemonic** for the proofs cited with regard to this dispute: **Damaged; what; and killed; principle. We learned** in a mishna that if an innocuous ox gored and killed another’s ox, both **the damaged and the damager** share **in the payments. Granted, according to the one who said** that **half the damage** is a payment of **money; that** is how the **damaged party shares in the payments.** By right, the owner of the dead ox should be compensated for his entire loss. However, since the ox that gored his ox was innocuous, the owner of the gored ox bears half the costs. The mishna characterizes him as sharing in the payments. **However, according to he who said** that **half the damage** is payment of **a fine,** by right, the injured party himself is entitled to nothing. **Now,** the owner **takes** half the damage **that** by right **is not his;** can **he** be characterized as sharing **in the payments?**


###### Ketubot 41a:8
[Ketubot 41a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:8)

לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִפְחַת נְבֵילָה. פְּחַת נְבֵילָה, תְּנֵינָא: תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִטַּפְּלִין בַּנְּבֵילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This *halakha* is **necessary only for the degradation of the carcass.** Initially, half the damage is assessed by calculating the difference between the value of a living ox and the value of its carcass when the owner of the ox that gored the other ox stands trial. The degradation in the value of the carcass from when it was gored until the owner is able to sell it is borne by the owner of the carcass. The owner thereby shares in the payment, as he loses that sum. The Gemara asks: **We** already **learned** the *halakha* with regard to **the degradation of the carcass** in a *baraita* in *Bava Kamma* (10b) in which it is taught that the passage in the mishna: I have become liable to pay **payments of damage, teaches that the owners tend to the carcass** and bear the costs of its degradation.


###### Ketubot 41a:9
[Ketubot 41a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:9)

חֲדָא בְּתָם וַחֲדָא בְּמוּעָד. וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן תָּם: מִשּׁוּם דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא אִיַּעַד, אֲבָל מוּעָד דְּאִיַּעַד — אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן מוּעָד: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מְשַׁלֵּם כּוּלֵּיהּ, אֲבָל תָּם — אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **One** of these *halakhot* is **with regard to an innocuous** ox **and one** is **with regard to a forewarned** ox. The Gemara adds: **And** it is **necessary** to teach both *halakhot*, **as if** the mishna **had taught us** only with regard to **an innocuous** ox, one would understand that its owner is treated with leniency and the owner of the carcass bears the cost of degradation **due to** the fact **that** the ox **has not yet been forewarned; however,** with regard to **a forewarned** ox, **that was forewarned, say no,** the owner of the carcass does not bear the cost of degradation. **And if** the mishna **had taught us** only with regard to **a forewarned** ox, one would understand that its owner is treated with leniency and the owner of the carcass bears the cost of degradation **due to** the fact **that he pays** for the **entire damage,** and therefore, the relatively insignificant cost of degradation is overlooked. **However,** with regard to **an innocuous** ox, **say no,** since the owner pays only half the damage, he must bear the cost of degradation. Therefore, it was **necessary** to state the *halakha* in both cases. Therefore, there is no proof from this mishna whether half the damage is payment of money or payment of a fine.


###### Ketubot 41a:10
[Ketubot 41a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מָה בֵּין תָּם לְמוּעָד, שֶׁהַתָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק מִגּוּפוֹ, וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מִן הָעֲלִיָּיה. וְלָא קָתָנֵי שֶׁהַתָּם אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, וּמוּעָד מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues. **Come** and **hear** an additional proof from a *baraita*: **What is** the difference **between an innocuous and a forewarned** ox? The difference is **that** the owner of **an innocuous** ox **pays half** of the **damage from its body.** Compensation for the damage may be collected only from the body of the ox that gored another ox. If the ox that gored another ox is worth less than half the damage, e.g., if an inexpensive ox killed an expensive one, the injured party receives less than half the damage. **And** the owner of **a forewarned** ox **pays the entire damage from the** owner’s **property,** and the value of the ox that gored another ox has no effect on the payment. The *tanna* **did not teach** an additional difference that the owner of **an innocuous** ox **does not pay** based **on his own** admission **and** the owner of **a forewarned** ox **pays** based **on his own** admission. Apparently, the half damage is a payment of money and not a fine.


###### Ketubot 41a:11
[Ketubot 41a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41a:11)

תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר: מַאי שַׁיֵּיר דְּהַאי שַׁיַּיר! שַׁיַּיר חֲצִי כוֹפֶר. אִי מִשּׁוּם חֲצִי כוֹפֶר — לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this claim: This *baraita* is no proof, as the *tanna* **taught** some cases **and omitted** others and did not list all the differences between innocuous and forewarned oxen. The Gemara asks: **What** else **did he omit that he omitted this?** The failure to include an item in a list can be deemed insignificant only if it is one of at least two omissions. If there is only one omission, apparently it was omitted advisedly. The Gemara replies: **He omitted** the *halakha* of the **half ransom** as well. If a forewarned ox killed a person, its owner pays a ransom, and if an innocuous ox killed a person, the owner does not pay even half the ransom. The Gemara rejects this claim: **If** it is **due to** the **half ransom** that the failure to list the difference with regard to payment based on one’s own admission is insignificant, it **is not an omission.**