## Ketubot Daf 41b

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

הָא מַנִּי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי כוֹפֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As it can be explained: According to **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita* taught? **It is** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said:** The owner of **an innocuous** ox **pays half** the **ransom.** According to his opinion, the only differences between innocuous and forewarned oxen are those specified in the mishna.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הֵמִית שׁוֹרִי אֶת פְּלוֹנִי״, אוֹ ״שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. מַאי לָאו, בְּתָם! לָא, בְּמוּעָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an additional proof from the mishna. One who said: **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. **What, is** this **not** referring **to an innocuous** ox, for which he pays half the damage, proving that it is a payment of money and not a fine? The Gemara rejects the proof: **No,** the *tanna* is referring **to a forewarned** animal.


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

אֲבָל בְּתָם מַאי, אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ? אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, נִיפְלוֹג וְנִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמוּעָד, אֲבָל תָּם — אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ! כּוּלַּהּ בְּמוּעָד קָמַיְירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **However,** in the case **of an innocuous** ox, **what** is the *halakha*? If it is that **he does not pay** based **on his own** admission, then, **rather than teaching the latter clause** of the mishna: One whose ox **killed a slave** belonging to **so-and-so does not pay** based **on his own** admission, **let him distinguish and teach** the distinction **within the case itself: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is **with regard to a forewarned** ox; **however,** the owner of **an innocuous** ox **does not pay** based **on his own** admission. The Gemara rejects this proof: The **entire** mishna **is speaking of a forewarned** ox, and does not address the *halakha* of an innocuous ox at all. Therefore, no proof can be cited with regard to the nature of half the payment.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם יָתֵר עַל מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק — אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. הָא פָּחוֹת מִמַּה שֶּׁהִזִּיק — מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. לָא תֵּימָא הָא פָּחוֹת מִמַּה שֶּׁהִזִּיק, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הָא כְּמָה שֶׁהִזִּיק — מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an additional proof from the mishna: **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. The Gemara infers: If he pays **less than what he damaged, he pays** based **on his own** admission. Apparently, payment of half the damage is a payment of money, not a fine. The Gemara rejects this proof: **Do not** infer and **say:** If he pays **less than what he damaged,** he pays based on his own admission. Infer and **say:** If he pays precisely **what he damaged, he pays** based **on his own** admission.


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

אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מַאי, אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ? לִיתְנֵי, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם כְּמָה שֶׁהִזִּיק — אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, דְּמַשְׁמַע פָּחוֹת וּמַשְׁמַע יָתֵר! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to that explanation, if he pays **less** than the damage he caused, **what** is the *halakha*? If it is that **he does not pay** based **on his own** admission, **let** the *tanna* **teach** a more general principle: **This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay** the amount **that he damaged does not pay** based **on his own** admission, **as** that formulation both **indicates** one who pays **less and indicates** one who pays **more** than the damage he inflicted. The Gemara concludes: This is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, that payment of half the damage is a fine.


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

וְהִלְכְתָא: פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא קְנָסָא. תְּיוּבְתָּא וְהִלְכְתָא?! אִין: טַעְמָא מַאי אִיתּוֹתַב — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״כְּמָה שֶׁהִזִּיק״, לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ. כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חֲצִי נֶזֶק צְרוֹרוֹת, דְּהִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ דְּמָמוֹנָא הוּא, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further concludes: **And the *halakha*** is that payment of **half the damage** is **a fine.** The Gemara asks: Is there **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, **and** the ***halakha*** is in accordance with that opinion? The Gemara responds: **Yes,** the *halakha* is in accordance with his opinion, as, **what is the reason** that his opinion **was conclusively refuted?** It is **because** the *tanna* **does not teach:** This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount **that he damaged.** However, the reason the *tanna* did not employ that formulation **is not clear-cut for him, since there is** the payment of **half** the **damage** caused by **pebbles** dispersed by an animal proceeding in its usual manner. **As it is a *halakha* transmitted** to Moses from Sinai **that** the payment for pebbles **is a monetary** payment, not a fine; it is **due to that** fact that the *tanna* **did not teach** the principle: Anyone who does not pay the amount that he damaged does not pay based on his own admission. In the case of pebbles, although he does not pay the amount that he damaged, he pays based on his own admission.


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

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ פַּלְגָא נִיזְקָא קְנָסָא, הַאי כַּלְבָּא דְּאָכֵל אִימְּרֵי, וְשׁוּנָּרָא דְּאָכֵיל תַּרְנְגוֹלֵי רַבְרְבֵי, מְשׁוּנֶּה הוּא, וְלָא מַגְבֵּינַן בְּבָבֶל. אֲבָל זוּטְרֵי — אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא וּמַגְבֵּינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Based on that ruling, the Gemara concludes: **And now that you said** that payment of **half the damage** is **a fine, this dog that ate lambs, and a cat that ate large roosters, is unusual** damage, for which the owner is liable to pay only half the damage if the animal was innocuous, **and** therefore, **we do not collect** it **in Babylonia.** The payment for unusual damage is a fine, and fines cannot be collected in Babylonia, as there are no ordained judges authorized to adjudicate cases involving fines. **However,** if the cat ate **small** roosters, that **is its usual manner, and we collect** the damages in Babylonia, as it is a payment of money.


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

וְאִי תְּפַס — לָא מַפְּקִינַן מִינֵּיהּ. וְאִי אָמַר: אַקְבְּעוּ לִי זִימְנָא לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל — מַקְבְּעִינַן לֵיהּ. וְאִי לָא אָזֵיל — מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** in cases of fines, **if** the injured party **seized** property from the offender in the amount of the fine, even in Babylonia **we do not repossess it from him,** as according to the letter of the law he is entitled to that payment, and the party from whom he seized the property cannot claim that he does not owe that payment. **And if** the injured party **said: Set me a time** to go **to** a court **in Eretz Yisrael,** where cases of fines are adjudicated, **we set** a time **for him, and if** the other disputant **does not go** to Israel as demanded, **we excommunicate him.**


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

בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ. דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: סַלֵּיק הֶזֵּיקָךְ, מִדְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יְגַדֵּל אָדָם כֶּלֶב רַע בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, וְלֹא יַעֲמִיד סוּלָּם רָעוּעַ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא תָשִׂים דָּמִים בְּבֵיתֶךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **Either way,** whether or not he agrees to go to Eretz Yisrael, if he keeps the cause of the damage, **we** in Babylonia **excommunicate him, as we say to him: Remove your** cause of **damage,** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Natan. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Natan says: From where** is it derived **that a person may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and may not place an unsteady ladder in his house?** It is **as it is stated:** “And you shall make a parapet for your roof **that you shall not place blood in your house”** (Deuteronomy 22:8). It is prohibited to leave a potentially dangerous object in one’s house, and one who refuses to remove it is excommunicated.


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

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵלּוּ נְעָרוֹת**


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

**נַעֲרָה שֶׁנִּתְפַּתְּתָה** — בּוֹשְׁתָּהּ וּפְגָמָהּ וּקְנָסָהּ שֶׁל אָבִיהָ, וְהַצַּעַר בִּתְפוּסָה. עָמְדָה בַּדִּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא מֵת הָאָב — הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל אָב. מֵת הָאָב — הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל אַחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **a young woman who was seduced,** the compensation for **her humiliation and her degradation and her fine** belong **to her father. And** the same applies to the compensation for **pain in** the case of a woman who was **raped.** If the young woman **stood trial** against the seducer or rapist **before the father died, these** payments belong **to her father,** as stated above. If **the father died** before he collected the money from the offender, the payments belong **to** her **brothers.** As the father’s heirs, they inherit the money to which he was entitled before he passed away.


###### Ketubot 41b:12
[Ketubot 41b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/41b:12)

לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לַעֲמוֹד בַּדִּין עַד שֶׁמֵּת הָאָב — הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל עַצְמָהּ, עָמְדָה בַּדִּין עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּגְרָה — הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל אָב, מֵת הָאָב — הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל אַחִין. לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לַעֲמוֹד בַּדִּין עַד שֶׁבָּגְרָה — הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל עַצְמָהּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לִגְבּוֹת עַד שֶׁמֵּת הָאָב — הֲרֵי הֵן שֶׁל עַצְמָהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, if **she did not manage to stand in judgment before the father died,** and she was subsequently awarded the money, the compensation belongs **to her,** as she is now under her own jurisdiction due to the fact that she no longer has a father. If **she stood trial before she reached majority,** the payments belong **to her father,** and if **the father died, they** belong **to** her **brothers,** who inherit the money notwithstanding the fact that she has become a grown woman since the trial. If **she did not manage to stand in judgment before she reached majority,** the money belongs **to her. Rabbi Shimon says:** Even **if** she stood trial in her father’s lifetime but **did not manage to collect** the payments **before the father died,** the brothers do not inherit this money, as it belongs **to her.**