Ketubot

since that [Mishnah] may represent the view of  R. Jose the Galilean who ruled that [in the case of] a tam half kofer is paid. Come and hear: [A MAN WHO SAID.] 'MY OX KILLED SO-AND-SO' OR 'THE OX OF SO-AND-SO MUST PAY COMPENSATION ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE. Now does not [this statement deal] with a tam?  — No; with a mu'ad. What, however, [would be the law] in the case of a tam? Would no liability be established by one's own evidence? Then instead of stating in the final clause, '… THE BONDMAN OF SO-AND-SO HE NEED NOT MAKE RESTITUTION ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE, could not a distinction have been drawn in the very same case, thus: 'This  applies only to a mu'ad but in respect of a tam no liability is incurred by one's own evidence'? — The entire [Mishnah prefers to] deal with a mu'ad. Come and hear: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHOSOEVER PAYS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL COST OF THE DAMAGE HE HAS DONE NEED NOT PAY ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE, from which it follows,  [does it not, that if the payment is] less than the cost of the damage,  one must pay compensation even on one's own evidence?  Do not infer: '[But if payment is] less than the cost of the damage [one must pay … on one's own evidence]',  but infer: '[If payment] corresponds to the actual amount of the damage one must pay compensation even on one's own evidence'. What, however, [would be the law if payment were] less than the amount of the damage?  Would no liability be established by one's own evidence? Then  why was it not stated, 'This is the general rule: Whoever does not pay an amount corresponding to the actual cost of the damage he has done pays no compensation on his own evidence', which would imply [that where compensation is] less or more  [it is to be paid on one's own evidence]?  — This is indeed a refutation. The law, however, [is that the liability for] half damage is penal. 'A refutation' [of a ruling]  and [yet it is] the law? — Yes; for the sole basis of the refutation  was that  the statement  did not run, '[whoever does not pay an amount] corresponding to the actual cost of the damage he has done'; [but such a principle]  was not regarded by him  as exactly accurate, since there is the liability for half damages [in the case of the damage done by] pebbles  Concerning which there is an halachic tradition that the liability is civil.  On account of this consideration he did not adopt [the form of the expression suggested]. Now that you have laid down that liability for half damage is penal, the case of a dog that devoured lambs or that of a cat that devoured big hens is one of unusual occurrence  and no distress is executed in Babylon.  If, however, they  were small the occurrence is a usual  one and distress is executed.  Should the plaintiff,  however, seize [the chattels of the defendant]  they are not to be taken away from him.  Furthermore, if  he pleads. 'Fix for me a date [by which the defendant must come with me] to the Land of Israel,'  such date must be fixed for him, and if [the defendant] does not go with him he must be placed under the ban. In any case,  however, [the defendant] is to be placed under the ban;  for he is told, 'Abate your nuisance', in accordance with a dictum of R. Nathan. For it was taught:  R. Nathan said, Whence is it derived that a man may not breed a bad dog in his house nor place a shaking ladder in his house? [From Scripture] where it is said, That thou bring not blood upon thine house. MISHNAH. IF A GIRL  WAS SEDUCED [THE COMPENSATION FOR] HER INDIGNITY AND BLEMISH AS WELL AS THE STATUTORY FINE BELONG TO HER FATHER  [TO WHOM BELONGS ALSO THE COMPENSATION FOR] PAIN IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO WAS VIOLATED. IF THE GIRL'S ACTION WAS TRIED  BEFORE HER FATHER DIED [ALL THE FORMS OF COMPENSATION] ARE DUE TO HER FATHER,  IF HER FATHER [SUBSEQUENTLY] DIED THEY ARE DUE TO HER BROTHERS.  IF HER FATHER, HOWEVER, DIED BEFORE HER ACTION WAS TRIED THEY  ARE DUE TO HER.  IF HER ACTION WAS TRIED BEFORE SHE BECAME ADOLESCENT  [ALL FORMS OF COMPENSATION] ARE DUE TO HER FATHER; IF HER FATHER [SUBSEQUENTLY] DIED  THEY ARE DUE TO HER BROTHERS.  IF, HOWEVER, SHE BECAME ADOLESCENT BEFORE HER ACTION COULD BE TRIED THEY ARE DUE TO HER.  R. SIMEON RULED.' IF HER FATHER DIED,  BEFORE SHE COULD COLLECT [THE DUES] THEY BELONG TO HER.