Study Ketubot folio 32A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And since we maintain in general that one is not both flogged and liable to pay, if one receives lashes for having sex with his sister, why must he pay the fine as well? Ulla said: This is not difficult; here, the halakha in the Mishnah is with regard to his sister who is a young woman, for whom
The Talmud asks: In the case of one who has sex with his sister who is a grown woman, too, although he does not pay a fine, isn’t there compensation for humiliation and degradation? He should be exempt from lashes in that case as well. The Talmud answers: There, the halakha in the Mishnah is with
The Talmud comments: Now that you have arrived at this explanation that the Mishnah is referring to a seduced woman, the Mishnah can be understood even if you say it is referring to his sister who is a young woman. The reason that the seducer does not pay the fine is that the halakha is with regard
The Talmud observes: Apparently, Ulla maintains that in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, e.g., one who has forced sex with his sister who is a young woman, one pays money but is not flogged. The Talmud asks: From where does Ulla derive this principle? The Tal
The Talmud asks: What is the basis for the comparison between other cases and the case of one who injures another? One who injures another cannot serve as a paradigm for cases of liability for both money and lashes because the case of one who injures another is particularly stringent, as he is liab