Ketubot

MISHNAH. HE WHO DECLARES, 'I HAVE SEDUCED THE DAUGHTER OF SO-AND-SO' MUST PAY COMPENSATION FOR INDIGNITY AND BLEMISH ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE BUT NEED NOT PAY THE STATUTORY FINE. HE WHO DECLARES, 'I HAVE STOLEN' MUST MAKE RESTITUTION FOR THE PRINCIPAL ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE BUT NEED NOT REPAY DOUBLE,  FOURFOLD  OR FIVEFOLD. [HE WHO STATES,] 'MY OX HAS KILLED SO-AND-SO' OR 'THE OX OF SO-AND-SO' MUST MAKE RESTITUTION  ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE. [IF HE, HOWEVER, SAID.] 'MY OX HAS KILLED THE BONDMAN OF SO-AND-SO'  HE NEED NOT MAKE RESTITUTION ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHOEVER PAYS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL COST OF THE DAMAGE HE HAS DONE  NEED NOT PAY IT ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE. GEMARA. Why did not he  include 'I have violated'?  — He implied that this was unnecessary: It was unnecessary [to state that if a man declared,] 'I have violated', in which case he casts no reflection on the girl's character,  that he must pay compensation for indignity and blemish on his own evidence,  but [if a man declared.] 'I HAVE SEDUCED', in which case he does cast a reflection on her character,  it might have been assumed that he does not pay [such compensation] on his own evidence,  hence he informs us [that he does]. Our Mishnah does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Judah stated in the name of R. Simeon, [Compensation for] indignity and blemish also a man does not pay on his own evidence  because he  cannot be trusted  to tarnish the character of another man's daughter. Said R. Papa to Abaye: What [is the ruling if] she is satisfied?  — It is possible that her father might not be satisfied. And what if her father also is satisfied? — It is possible that the members of her family might not be satisfied. What if the members of her family are also satisfied? — It is impossible that there should not be one somewhere  who is not satisfied. HE WHO DECLARES, 'I HAVE STOLEN' MUST MAKE RESTITUTION FOR THE PRINCIPAL etc. It was stated: [In respect of liability for] half damages.  R. Papa ruled: It is a civil obligation,  but R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ruled: It is penal.  'R. Papa ruled: It is a civil obligation', for he is of the opinion that cattle as a rule  cannot be presumed to be safe.  Justice, therefore, demands that the owner should make full restitution,  but the All-Merciful has shown mercy towards him  because his cattle have not yet become mu'ad.  'R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ruled: It is penal', for he is of the opinion that cattle as a rule are presumed to be safe.  Justice. therefore, demands that the owner should make no restitution at all,  but it was Divine Law  that imposed a fine upon him in order that he should exercise special care over his cattle. (Mnemonic:  He damaged what, and killed a general rule.) We have learned: The plaintiff and the defendant  are involved  in the payment.  Now according to him who holds that liability for half damages is a civil obligation  it is perfectly correct [to say] that the plaintiff is involved in the payment,  but according to him who maintains that liability for half damages is penal [it may well be asked:] If he receives that which [in strict justice] is not his due how can he be involved  in the payment?  — It  may apply  only to [a loss caused by] a decrease in the value of the carcass.  [But have we not] already learned elsewhere [about] the decrease in the value of the carcass? 'To compensate for the damage'  means that the owner  must dispose of the carcass?  — One [of the statements deals] with a tam  and the other with a mu'ad.  And [both statements are] required. For if [that relating to] a tam only had been made it might have been presumed [to apply to that alone] because the animal has not yet become mu'ad but not to a mu'ad since [in the latter case the owner] has been duly warned. And if [only the statement relating to] a mu'ad had been made it might have been assumed [to apply to that case alone] because the owner pays full compensation  but not [to that of] a tam.  [Both rulings were consequently] required. Come and hear: What is the difference [in the case of compensation for damages] between a tam  and a mu'ad?  — In the case of a tam half damages are paid out of its own body,  while in the case of a mu'ad full compensation is paid out of the best of the [defendant's] estate.  Now if  it were the case [that liability for half damage  is penal] why was it not also stated  that in the case of a tam no compensation is paid merely on one's own evidence  whereas in the case of a mu'ad  compensation is paid even on one's own  evidence?  — He  recorded [some distinctions]  and omitted others. What [else, however], did he omit [that should justify the assumption] that he omitted this distinction also.  — He omitted [also the payment of] half kofer.  If [the only point not mentioned] is that of  half kofer it is no omission,