Study Ketubot folio 32B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אלא עולא ״תחת״ ״תחת״ גמר. כתיב הכא: ״תחת אשר ענה״, וכתיב התם: ״עין תחת עין״. מה התם — ממונא משלם, מילקא לא לקי; אף כל היכא דאיכא ממונא ומלקות — ממונא משלם, מילקא לא לקי.
Rather, Ulla derives the fact that one pays and is not flogged by means of a verbal analogy between the terms for and for. The verse states with regard to rape: “And the man who lay with her should give to the father of the young woman 50 shekels of silver, and to him she should be as a wife, because [taḥat] he tormented her” (Deuteronomy 22:29), and it states there, with regard to injury: “An eye for [taḥat] an eye” (Exodus 21:24). Just as there, with regard to injury, one pays money and is not flogged, so too, in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, one pays money but is not flogged.
רבי יוחנן אמר, אפילו תימא אחותו נערה: כאן שהתרו בו, כאן שלא התרו בו.
§ In proposing a different resolution to the apparent contradiction between the Mishnah here that rules that one pays a fine for raping his sister and the Mishnah in Makkot that rules that one is flogged in that case, R' Yoḥanan said: Even if you say that both mishnayot are referring to his sister who is a young woman, there it is referring to a case where the witnesses forewarned him, and therefore the rapist is flogged; here, it is referring to a case where the witnesses did not forewarn him. Since no lashes are administered without forewarning, the rapist pays the fine.
אלמא קסבר רבי יוחנן: כל היכא דאיכא ממון ומלקות ואתרו ביה — מילקא לקי, ממונא לא משלם. מנא ליה לרבי יוחנן הא? אמר קרא: ״כדי רשעתו״, משום רשעה אחת אתה מחייבו, ואי אתה מחייבו משום שתי רשעיות. וסמיך ליה ״ארבעים יכנו״.
The Talmud observes: Apparently, R' Yoḥanan maintains that in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, and the witnesses forewarned him, he is flogged but does not pay money. The Talmud asks: From where does R' Yoḥanan derive this principle? The Talmud explains that he derives it from that which the verse states with regard to one sentenced to lashes in the court: “The judge should cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, according to the measure of his wickedness” (Deuteronomy 25:2), from which it is inferred: For one act of wickedness, i.e., punishment, you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two acts of wickedness. And juxtaposed to this it states: “40 he should strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that the punishment that is administered when one is liable to receive two punishments is lashes and not payment.