כתובות 30 — parallel

30:1

with regard to the marriage with an Egyptian or an Edomite [woman], in which case there is a transgression [merely] of a positive law. — That is all right if R. Yeshebab [by his statement] only came to exclude the view of R. Simai. But if his statement was his own, whenever the marriage is forbidden in Israel, the child [of such a marriage] is a mamzer. It would include also a marriage with regard to which a positive law has been transgressed. What is [then] the difference between them? — The difference between them is with regard to a girl, who is no more a virgin, who married a high priest. — And why is this different? — It is a law which does not apply to all. R. Hisda said: All agree that he who has intercourse with a woman during menstruation [against her will] has to pay the fine, for according to him who holds that there must be the possibility of her 'becoming' his wife, there is with regard to her the possibility of her becoming his wife, and according to him who holds that there must be the possibility of her remaining his wife, there is with regard to her the possibility of her remaining his wife. Our [Mishnah] likewise excludes the view of R. Nehunia b. ha-Kaneh, for it is taught: R. Nehunia b. ha-Kaneh, made the Day of Atonement equal to the Sabbath with regard to payment; as [he who desecrates] the Sabbath forfeits his life and is free from payment, so [he who desecrates] the Day of Atonement forfeits his life and is free from payment. What is the reason [for the view] of R. Nehunia b. ha-Kaneh? — Abaye said: It is said 'harm' [in the case of death] by the hand of man, and it is said 'harm' [in the case of death] by the hand of heaven, [so I say:] As in the case of the 'harm' done by the hand of man one is free from payment, so also in the case of 'harm' done by the hand of heaven, one is free from payment. To this R. Adda b. Ahaba, demurred: Whence [do you know] that Jacob warned his sons against cold and heat, which are by the hand of heaven? Perhaps [he warned them] against lions and thieves, which are 'by the hand of man?' — Is it that Jacob warned them against this and did not warn then, against that? Jacob warned then, against every kind of harm. [But] are cold and heat by the hand of heaven? Is it not taught: Everything is 'by the hand of heaven' except cold and heat, for it is said: 'Cold and heat are in the way of the froward; he that keepeth his soul holdeth himself far from them'? Further, are lions and thieves 'by the hand of man'? Did not R. Joseph say. and R. Hiyya teach: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four forms of capital punishment have not ceased? 'They have not ceased,' [you say]? Surely they have ceased! But [say]

—

30:2

the judgment of the four forms of capital punishment has not ceased. He who would have been sentenced to stoning, either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down. He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire or a serpent bites him. He who would have been sentenced to decapitation. is either delivered to the government or robbers come upon him. He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation. But reverse it: Lions and thieves are 'by the hand of heaven', and cold and heat are 'by the hand of man'. Raba said: The reason [for the view] of R. Nehunia b. hakaneh, is [derived] from here: [It is written:] And if the people of the land do not all hide their eyes from that man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, [and put him not to death]; then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off. [With these words] the Torah says: My kareth is like your death [-penalty]; as [in the case of] your death[-penalty] one is free from payment, so [in the case of] my kareth one is free from payment. What is the difference between Raba and Abaye? — The difference is [with regard to] a stranger who ate terumah. According to Abaye he is free [from payment], and according to Raba he is bound [to pay]. But is he free [from payment] according to Abaye? Did not R. Hisda say: R. Nehunia b. ha-Kaneh admits that he who stole [forbidden] fat belonging to his neighbour, and ate it, is bound [to pay], because he was guilty of stealing before he came to [the transgression of] the prohibition with regard to [forbidden] fat? Hence [you say that] as soon as he lifted it up he acquired it, but he did not become guilty of the transgression punishable with death until he had eaten it. Here also, when he lifted it up he acquired it, but he did not become guilty of the transgression punishable with death until he had eaten it! — Here we treat of a case where his friend stuck it into his mouth. [But] even then, as soon as he chewed it, he acquired it, but he is not guilty of the transgression punishable with death until he has swallowed it! — When [his friend] stuck it into his oesophagus. How shall we imagine this case? If he can give it back, let him give it back. And if he cannot give it back, why should he be guilty? — It speaks of a case when he can give it back only with an effort. R. Papa said, When his friend put liquids of terumah into his mouth. R. Ashi said: [it speaks of a case] when a stranger ate his own terumah.

—