Ketubot — Daf 38a

הני מילי היכא דהרגו דרך עלייה שלא ניתנה שגגתו לכפרה אבל הרגו דרך ירידה דניתנה שגגתו לכפרה אימא נישקול ממונא מיניה וניפטריה קמ"ל

א"ל רבא הא מדתנא דבי חזקיה נפקא דתנא דבי חזקיה מכה אדם ומכה בהמה

מה מכה בהמה לא חלקת בו בין שוגג למזיד בין מתכוין לשאין מתכוין בין דרך ירידה לדרך עלייה לפוטרו ממון אלא לחייבו ממון אף מכה אדם לא תחלוק בו בין שוגג למזיד בין מתכוין לשאין מתכוין בין דרך ירידה לדרך עליה לחייבו ממון אלא לפוטרו ממון

אלא אמר רמי בר חמא איצטריך ס"ד אמינא ה"מ היכא דסימא את עינו והרגו בה אבל היכא דסימא את עינו והרגו בדבר אחר אימא נישקול ממונא מיניה א"ל רבא הא נמי מאידך תנא דבי חזקיה נפקא דתנא דבי חזקיה (שמות כא, כד) עין תחת עין ולא עין ונפש תחת עין

אלא אמר רב אשי איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הואיל וחידוש הוא שחידשה תורה בקנס אע"ג דמיקטיל משלם קמ"ל ולרבה דאמר חידוש הוא שחידשה תורה בקנס אע"ג דמיקטיל משלם האי כל חרם מאי עביד ליה סבר לה כתנא קמא דר' חנניא בן עקביא:

מתני׳ נערה שנתארסה ונתגרשה רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר אין לה קנס ר"ע אומר יש לה קנס וקנסה לעצמה:

גמ׳ מ"ט דר' יוסי הגלילי אמר קרא (דברים כב, כח) אשר לא אורשה הא אורסה אין לה קנס ור"ע אשר לא אורשה לאביה הא אורסה לעצמה

אלא מעתה נערה ולא בוגרת ה"נ דלעצמה בתולה ולא בעולה ה"נ דלעצמה אלא לגמרי הכא נמי לגמרי

אמר לך ר"ע האי לא אורשה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא אשר לא אורשה פרט לנערה שנתארסה ונתגרשה שאין לה קנס דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי ר"ע אומר יש לה קנס וקנסה לאביה והדין נותן הואיל ואביה זכאי בכסף קידושיה ואביה זכאי בכסף קנסה מה כסף קידושיה אע"פ שנתארסה ונתגרשה לאביה אף כסף קנסה אע"פ שנתארסה ונתגרשה לאביה

א"כ מה ת"ל אשר לא אורשה מופנה להקיש לו ולדון הימנו ג"ש נאמר כאן אשר לא אורשה ונאמר להלן (שמות כב, טו) אשר לא אורשה מה כאן נ' אף להלן נ' ומה להלן שקלים אף כאן שקלים

ור"ע מאי חזית דאשר לא אורשה לג"ש ובתולה למעוטי בעולה

that this applied only where murder had been committed  in the course of an upward movement,  because no atonement  is allowed when such an act  was committed unwittingly.  but that where murder was committed in the course of a downward movement,  which [is an offence that] may be atoned for  if committed unwittingly,  a monetary fine may be received from him and thereby he may be exempted [from the death penalty]. Hence we were taught  [that in no circumstances may the death penalty be commuted for a monetary fine]. Said Raba to him,  Does not this  follow from what a Tanna of the School of Hezekiah [taught]; for a Tanna of the School of Hezekiah taught: He that smiteth a man  [was placed in juxtaposition with] And he that smiteth a beast  [to indicate that just] as in the case of the killing of  a beast no distinction is made whether [the act was] unwitting or presumptuous, whether intentional or unintentional, whether it was performed in the course of a down ward movement or in the course of an upward movement, in respect of exempting him from a monetary obligation  but in respect of imposing a monetary obligation  upon him,  so also in the case of the killing of  a man no distinction is to be made whether [the act was] unwitting or presumptuous. whether intentional or unintentional, whether it was performed in the course of a downward movement or in the course of an upward movement, in respect of imposing upon him a monetary obligation  but  in respect of exempting him from any monetary obligation?  — But, said Rami b. Hama, [one of the texts  was] required [to obviate the following assumption]: It might have been presumed that this  applied only where a man blinded another man's eye and thereby killed him, but that where he blinded his eye and killed him  by another act a monetary fine must be exacted from him. Said Raba to him:  Is not this  also deduced from [the statement of] another Tanna of the School of Hezekiah; for a Tanna of the School of Hezekiah [taught:] Eye for eye  [implies] but not an eye  and a life for an eye?  — [This]. however, [is the explanation], said R. Ashi: [One of the texts  was] required [to obviate the following assumption]: It might have been presumed that since the law of a monetary fine is an anomaly  which the Torah has introduced, a man must pay it even though he also suffers the death penalty. Hence we were told  [that even a monetary fine may not be imposed in addition to a death penalty]. But according to Rabbah, who said that it is an anomaly  that the Torah has introduced by the enactment of the law of a monetary fine [and that therefore an offender]  must pay his fine even though he is also to be killed,  what application can be made of the text 'None devoted…'?  — He  holds the view of the first Tanna who [is in dispute with] R. Hanania b. 'Akabia. MISHNAH. A GIRL  WHO WAS BETROTHED AND THEN DIVORCED  IS NOT ENTITLED, SAID R. JOSE THE GALILEAN, TO RECEIVE A FINE [FROM HER VIOLATOR].  R. AKIBA SAID: SHE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE FINE AND, MOREOVER, THE FINE BELONGS TO HER. GEMARA. What is R. Jose the Galilean's reason?  — Scripture said, That is not betrothed  [is entitled to a fine],  one, therefore, who was betrothed is not entitled to a fine. And R. Akiba?  — [In the case of a girl] that is not betrothed [the fine is given] to her father but if she Was betrothed [the fine is given] to herself. Now then, [the expression,] A damsel  [implies] but not one who is adolescent;  could it here also  [be maintained] that [the fine is given] to herself?  [Likewise the expression] virgin  [implies] but not one who is no longer a virgin; would it here also  [be maintained] that [the fine is given] to herself?  Must it not consequently be admitted  [that the exclusion in the last mentioned case] is complete,  and so here also  it must be complete?  — R. Akiba can answer you: The text of  'Not betrothed' is required for [another purpose].  as it was taught: 'That is not. betrothed' excludes a girl  that was betrothed and then divorced who has no claim to a fine; so R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba, however, ruled: She has a claim to a fine and her fine [is given] to her father.  This  is arrived at by analogy: Since her father is entitled to have the money of her betrothal  and he is also entitled to have the money of her fine  [the two payments should be compared to one another]: As the money of her betrothal  belongs to her father even after she had been betrothed  and divorced,  so also the money of her fine should belong to her father even after she had been betrothed and divorced. If so  what was the object of the Scriptural text, 'That is not betrothed'? It is free for the purpose of a comparison with it and an inference from it by means of a gezerah shawah.'  Here  it is said, 'That is not betrothed' and elsewhere  it is said, That is not betrothed,  as here  [the fine is that of] fifty [silver coins]  so is it fifty [silver coins] there  also; and as there  [the coins must be] shekels  so here  also they must be shekels. What, however, moved  R. Akiba [to apply the text] of 'That is not betrothed'  for a gezerah shawah and that of 'Virgin' for the exclusion  of one who was no longer a virgin?