Study Ketubot folio 35B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud raises a difficulty: Ultimately, one who injured another and is flogged is not subject to payment, as he inflicted damage worth less than a peruta. How then can a principle be derived that one who is liable to receive lashes does not pay even when he is not actually flogged? The Talmud
§ Rav Ḥiyya said to Rava: And according to the derivation of the tanna of the school of Ḥizkiyya, who said: The verse speaks of one who smites a person, and the verse speaks of one who smites an animal. From where does that tanna know that it is written with regard to a weekday and therefore there
The Talmud answers: That notion should not enter your mind, as it is written: “And one who smites an animal shall pay for it, and one who smites a person shall die” (Leviticus 24:21). What are the circumstances discussed in this verse? If it is a case where the witnesses did not forewarn him, i.e.,
§ Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to Rabba, who said: It is a novel element that the Torah innovated with regard to the halakhic category of fine, and even though he is executed he pays the fine; in accordance with whose opinion does Rabba establish the Mishnah? If it is in accordance with the o
This works out well if Rabba holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan, who says that one who did not receive forewarning is obligated to pay even if he performed a transgression for which he is liable to be flogged, as he can explain the Mishnah as well, in accordance with the opinion of