Ketubot

Anyhow, he is not liable to pay damages?  — It necessarily [speaks of a case] where, while he smote him, he tore his silk garment. R. Hiyya said to Raba: And according to the Tanna of the school of Hezekiah, who says: [It is written] 'He that smiteth a man … He that smiteth a beast' [etc.,]  — whence does he know that it  refers to a week-day and there is no distinction to be made?  Perhaps it refers to the Sabbath, [in which case] there is a distinction to be made with regard to the beast itself?  — This cannot be,  for it is written: 'And he that smiteth a beast shall pay for it, and he that smiteth a man shall be put to death.' How shall we imagine this case? If they did not warn him, why should he, if he killed a man, be put to death? Hence it is clear that they warned him,  and if [it happened] on a Sabbath would he, if he smote a beast, pay for it?  Therefore it can only refer to  a week-day. R. Papa said to Abaye: According to Rabbah, who says [that] the Torah has instituted something novel in the matter of fines and [therefore] he pays although he is killed  — according to whom does he put our Mishnah? If according to R. Meir,  [the law regarding] his daughter is difficult,  if according to R. Nehunia b. ha-Kana,  [the law regarding] his sister is difficult;  [and] if according to R. Isaac  [the law regarding] a mamzereth is difficult?  It would be alright if he would hold like R. Johanan,  [for] he would [then] explain it  like R. Johanan.  But if he holds like Resh Lakish  how can he explain it?  — He [therefore], of necessity, holds like R. Johanan. R. Mattena said to Abaye: According to Resh Lakish who says that the Torah has expressly included those who commit an act punishable with lashes to be as those who commit an act punishable with death  — who is the Tanna, who differs from R. Nehunia b. ha'Kana?  It is either R. Meir  or R. Isaac. Our Rabbis taught: All forbidden relations and all relations forbidden in the second degree have no claim  to fine [for outrage]  or to indemnity for seduction. A woman who refuses [her husband] by mi'un  has no claim to fine [for outrage] or to indemnity for seduction. [In this case] a barren woman has no claim to fine for outrage or to indemnity for seduction. And a woman who has gone out  on account of an evil name,  has no claim to fine for outrage or to indemnity for seduction. What are 'forbidden relations' and what are 'relations forbidden in the second degree'? Shall I say [that] 'forbidden relations'