Ketubot

and the other  with those of death and flogging. And [both texts were] needed. For if we had been told [only of that which deals with the penalties of] death and money it might have been assumed [that the restriction  applied to these two penalties only] because we must not inflict one penalty upon one's body and another upon one's possessions, but in the case of death and flogging, both of which are inflicted on one's body, it might have been assumed [that the flogging] is deemed to be [but] one pro tracted death penalty and both may, therefore, be inflicted upon one man.  And if we had been told about death and flogging only [the restriction  might have been assumed to apply to these penalties only] because no two corporal punishments may be inflicted on the same person, but in the case of the penalties of death and money one of which is corporal and the other monetary it might have been assumed that both may be inflicted.  [Both texts were, therefore,] necessary. What need was there  for the Scriptural text, Moreover ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer?  — The All-Merciful has here stated: You shall take no monetary fine from him and thus exempt him from the death penalty. What was the need  for the Scriptural text, And ye shall take no ransom for him that is fled to his city of refuge'?  — The All-Merciful has here stated: You shall take no monetary fine from him to exempt him from exile. But why two texts?  — One deals with unwitting, and the other with intentional [murder]. And [both texts] were required. For if we had been told  of intentional murder  only it might have been assumed [that the restriction  applied to this case only], because the transgression for which death is inflicted  is grave,  but not to the one of unintentional murder where the transgression is not so grave. And if we had been told  of unintentional murder  is only it might have been assumed [that the restriction  applied to this case only] because no loss of life is involved,  but not to intentional murder where a loss of life  is involved.  [Both texts were consequently] required. What was the object  of the Scriptural text, And no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it?  — It was required for [the following deduction] as it was taught: Whence is it deduced that, if the murderer has been discovered after the heifer's neck had been broken,  he is not to be acquitted?  From the Scriptural text, 'And no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein etc.' Then what was the need  for the text, So shalt thou put away the innocent blood front the midst of thee?  — It is required for [the following deduction] as it was taught: Whence is it deduced that execution by the sword  must be at the neck? It was explicitly stated in Scripture, 'So shalt thou put away the innocent blood from the midst of thee', all who shed blood are compared to the atoning heifer:  As its head is cut  at the neck  so [is the execution of] those who shed blood at the neck.  If [so, should not the comparison be carried further]: As there  [its head is cut] with an axe and at the nape of the neck so here  too? — R. Nahman answered in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Scripture said, But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,  choose for him an easy death. What need was there  for the Scriptural text, None devoted, that may be devoted of men, shall be ransomed?  — It is required for [the following] as it was taught: Whence is it deduced that, when a person was being led to his execution,  and someone said, 'I vow to give his value  [to the Temple].' his vow is null and void?  [From Scripture] wherein it is said, 'None devoted, that may be devoted of man, shall be redeemed'.  As it might [have been presumed that the same law applied] even before his sentence had been pronounced  it was explicitly stated: 'Of men',  but not 'all men'. According to R. Hanania b. 'Akabia, however, who ruled that the [age] value of such a person  may be vowed  because its price is fixed,  what deduction does he  make from the text of 'None devoted'?  — He requires it for [the following deduction] as it was taught: R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said, Whereas we find that those who incur the penalty of death at the hand of heaven  may pay a monetary fine and thereby obtain atonement, for it is said in Scripture, If there be laid down on him a sum of money,  it might [have been assumed that] the same law applied also [to those who are sentenced to death] at the hands of men,  hence it was explicitly stated in the Scriptures. 'None … devoted  of men shall be redeemed'. Thus we know the law only concerning  severe death penalties  since [they are imposed for offences] which cannot be atoned for  if committed unwittingly;  whence, [however. is it inferred that the same law applies also to] lighter death penalties  seeing that [they are for offences] that may be atoned for  if committed unwittingly?  It was explicitly stated in Scripture, 'None devoted'.  But could not this  be inferred independently from Ye shall take no ransom  which implies: You shall take no money from him to exempt him [from death]?  What need was there for 'None devoted'? — Rami b. Hama replied: It was required. Since it might have been assumed