Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) PAYMENT OR LASHES?

(a) We hold, one does not pay and get lashed for one sin!
(b) Answer #1 (Ula): In our Mishnah, his sister is a Na'arah, he pays; in the other Mishnah, she is a Bogeres, he is lashed.
(c) Objection: Also for a Bogeres, there are payments of embarrassment and blemish!
(d) Answer: The case is, she is insane (and these payments do not apply).
(e) Objection: There is payment for pain!
(f) Answer: The case is, he enticed her.

1. If he enticed her, we can even say that the Mishnah deals with a Na'arah - an orphan who is enticed forgives all payments!

(g) We see that Ula holds that if one does a sin for which he should pay and be lashed, he pays and is not lashed.
(h) Question: What is Ula's source?
(i) Answer #1: He learns from one who strikes his friend. Such a person should pay and be lashed, but he only pays. We learn to all such cases.

1. Objection: Perhaps this only applies to one who strikes his friend, since this is a severe crime - he pays 5 payments!
2. If you will say that paying is the lighter punishment - we can say, striking a person is a light sin, since Beis Din is permitted to strike people (and we cannot learn to other cases).

(j) Answer #2: Rather, he learns from Edim Zomemim (witnesses who testified about something they did not see). They are fit to pay and be lashed, but they only pay.

1. Objection: Edim Zomemim is a severe sin - they are lashed without warning - we cannot learn to other cases!
2. If you will say that paying is the lighter punishment - we can say, Edim Zomemim is a light sin, since they did no action!

(k) Answer #3: He learns from both; the common side to them is that they are fit to pay and be lashed, but only pay - we learn to all such cases.

1. Objection: We cannot learn from these 2 - both have a special severity!
2. If you will say that paying is the lighter punishment - we cannot learn from them, since each has a special leniency!

(l) Answer #4: Ula learns a Gezerah Shaveh.

1. The word "Tachas" appears by one who strikes his friend, and also by a rapist. Just as the former pays money and is not lashed, so too all other cases.

(a) Answer #2 (To the question at the end of 31B - R. Yochanan): Lashes are given even for a Na'arah - when there is warning; without warning, money is paid.

1. R. Yochanan holds that for a sin punishable by lashes and money, the person is lashed and does not pay.

(b) Question: What is his source?
(c) Answer: "According to his evil" - he is punished for one evil, not for 2; adjacent to this, it says "40 he will strike him".
(d) Question: But one who strikes his friend pays and is not lashed!

1. Suggestion: Perhaps he only pays when there was no warning.
2. Rejection (R. Yochanan): For a wound which the compensation is less than a Prutah, the punishment is lashes.

i. This cannot be a case where there was no warning - why would he be lashed?!
ii. Rather, he was warned - we see, if the compensation would be a Prutah, he would pay!

(e) Answer: The Torah explicitly said that wounding is punishable by money - just as R. Ila'a said regarding Edim Zomemim.

1. (Mishnah): Witnesses say that Ploni owes 200 Zuz; they are found to be Zomemim. R. Meir says, they are lashed and pay, since these punishments come from different verses;
2. Chachamim say, since they pay, they are not lashed.
3. Question: Why not say they are lashed and do not pay?
4. Answer (R. Ila'a): The Torah explicitly said that Edim Zomemim pay.
5. Question: Where did the Torah say this?
6. Answer: "You will do to him as he plotted to do to his brother".

i. "Hand in hand" - something which is given from hand to hand, namely money.

(f) Similarly, by wounding it says "As he did, will be done to him".

1. "So he will give to him" - something which is given, money.

(a) Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan learn as Ula?
(b) Answer #1: If so, there will be no lashes for the prohibition of relations with one's sister.