Study Ketubot folio 37B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
and one derivation is with regard to death and lashes, exempting one liable to be executed from lashes. The Talmud comments: And both verses are necessary, as if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to death and monetary payment, one would assert that the exemption from payment is due
And if the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to death and lashes, one would assert that the exemption from lashes is due to the fact that we do not administer two punishments to his body. However, with regard to death and money, where one is administered to his body and one is administ
The Talmud asks with regard to the verse “And you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death” (Numbers 35:31), which means that one does not take payment from a person sentenced to death, why do I require this verse, if that principle was already derived from another ve
The Talmud asks: And why do I require two verses to teach the same principle? The Talmud explains: One verse refers to one who killed unwittingly, and one verse refers to one who killed intentionally. The Talmud comments: And both verses are necessary, as if the Torah taught us this halakha only wi
The Talmud asks with regard to the following verse: “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” (Numbers 35:33), which also indicates that he cannot be exempted by money, why do I require another verse to teach that one cannot