משנה: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה מֵזִיד מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין חוּלִין. אִם רָצָה הַכֹּהֵן לִמְחוֹל מוֹחֵל. MISHNAH: If somebody1Not a Cohen. eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth. His payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive this, he may forgive2Lev. 22:14: “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth to it and give the consecrated food to the Cohen.” The verse explicitly restricts the duty of adding a fifth to the case when heave is eaten in error. Also, the restitution is called holy only in that case. Since the money for restitution is not holy, the Cohen may give it to the offender, i. e., refrain from accepting it. The sin of eating heave intentionally is too great to be forgiven for just a monetary fine. The Mishnah applies only to the case in which the offender was not warned by two witnesses not to sin; in the latter case, he will be whipped by order of the court. Whether he then has to pay is discussed in the Halakhah..
הלכה: הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה מֵזִיד כו׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן אֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין וְהָתַנִּינָן אֵלּוּ נְעָרוֹת. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר לוֹקֶה. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לִצְדָדִין הִיא מַתְנִיתִין אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ לוֹקֶה. אִם לֹא הִתְרוּ בוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. סָבַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵימַר בִּמְקוֹם מַכּוֹת וְתַשְׁלוּמִין מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְיִלְקֶה וִישַׁלֵּם. כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ. רִשְׁעָה אַחַת אַתָּה מְחַייְבוֹ. וְאֵי אַתָּה מְחַייְבוֹ שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעָיוֹת. וִישַׁלֵּם וְלֹא יִלְקֶה. בִּמְחַייְבֵי שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעָיוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשּׁוֹפֵט וְהִכָּהוּ לְפָנָיו כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ בַּמִּסְפָּר. HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave intentionally,” etc. 2Lev. 22:14: “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth to it and give the consecrated food to the Cohen.” The verse explicitly restricts the duty of adding a fifth to the case when heave is eaten in error. Also, the restitution is called holy only in that case. Since the money for restitution is not holy, the Cohen may give it to the offender, i. e., refrain from accepting it. The sin of eating heave intentionally is too great to be forgiven for just a monetary fine. The Mishnah applies only to the case in which the offender was not warned by two witnesses not to sin; in the latter case, he will be whipped by order of the court. Whether he then has to pay is discussed in the Halakhah. There, we have stated3Mishnah Makkot 3:1–5 gives a list of all transgressions punishable by flogging. The list starts with “him who sleeps with his sister”, and later mentions “him who eats ṭevel and First Heave of which no heave was taken,” where he is punished for eating the heave contained in the produce; hence, eating heave is punished by flogging.: “The following are flogged,” and we have stated4Mishnah Ketubot 3:1: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine, .. he who sleeps with his sister, …” The fines are incurred either for the rape (Deut. 22:19) or the seduction (Ex.22:16) of a minor girl; cf. Note 26. The Mishnaiot seem to imply that raping one’s minor sister (and a non-Cohen’s eating heave) is punished by flogging and a fine.: “These are the girls.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned5In addition, there must be two eye witnesses who saw the transgression; cf. Kilaim, Chapter 8, Note 9., he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “His guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts6“Guilt” (in the singular) here is taken to mean “atonement for his guilt”, that for one transgression there can be only one punishment. It is quite possible that with one act one commits a multiple sin; then each sin separately can be punished but no one sin can incur more than one punishment (Sifry Deut. 286).. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence, a number [of times] because of his guilt.”
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר אֲפִילוּ לֹא הִתְרוּ בוֹ אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ הִתְרוּ בוֹ הָיָה לוֹקֶה. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֵלּוּ נְעָרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן קְנָס וְאּלּוּ הִתְרוּ בוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. סָבַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוּ רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֶׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִן הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע לָמַד רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְעָֽנְשׁוּ אוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן וְיִסְּרוּ אוֹתוֹ מַלְקוּת. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין לְחִידּוּשׁוֹ יָצָא הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא בְחִידּוּשׁוֹ אֵין לְמֵידִין מִמֶּנּוּ. לְפִי שֶׁבְּכָל־מָקוֹם אֵין אָדָם מִתְחַייֵב בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ. וְכָאן אָדָם מִתְחַייֵב בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין לְמֵידִין מִמֶּנּוּ לְדָבָר אַחֵר כָּךְ אֵין לְמֵידִין מִמֶּנּוּ לֹא לְעוֹנְשִׁין וְלֹא לְמַכּוֹת. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּמֵזִיד בְּחֵלֶב וּבְשׁוֹגֵג בְּקָרְבָּן מַתְרִין בּוֹ וְלוֹקֶה וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. וְהָכָא יִלְקֶה וִישַׁלֵּם. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק [אָמַר כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ.] שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים מְסוּרִין לְבֵית דִּין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵס אֶחָד מֵהֶן. יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא מָסוּר לַשָּׁמַיִם. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged7A similar text is in Ketubot 3:1 (fol. 27b), but there the Mishnah here is quoted as proof. In Ševu‘ot 4:9 (fol. 35d), R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted as disagreeing with R. Meïr. In the Babli, Ketubot 33b, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted only as noting that Mishnah 3:1 gives the opinion of R. Meïr without endorsing it.? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged8Since Mishnaiot Ketubot 3:1 and Terumot 7:1 are formulated unconditionally, they should be interpreted as applying any time there are two witnesses to the transgression, independent of witnesses regarding cautioning.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish9In the Babli, Makkot 4b, the author is Ulla (R. La).: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator10The man who publicly accuses his wife whom he married as a supposed virgin when she was almost an adult (between 12 and 12½ years of age), not to have been virginal. If he cannot produce two witnesses who prove the adultery of the wife between the preliminary and the actual marriage, he is fined, whipped, and prohibited to ever divorce his wife.. (Deut. 22:19) “And they shall fine him”, money; (Deut. 22:18) “they shall punish him,” flogging. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech11The Halakhah later will discuss the case of perjured witnesses. These, according to the Yerushalmi, in a civil case will pay but not be flogged and, according to the Babli (Makkot 4b), in a criminal case will be flogged without prior cautioning. In no case can perjury parallel calumny.. Since one cannot transfer this feature, one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If he [eats] fat intentionally but is in error about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice12Cf. Chapter 6, Notes 5,6.! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven14Since sacrifices are between the individual and Heaven, the procedural rules of the court are inapplicable to the case and nothing can be inferred from rules of sacrifices for court procedures..
הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה דִּכְתִיב וּמַכֵּה (נֶפֶשׁ) בְּהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה וּמַכֵּה אָדָם יוּמָת. מַה מַכֵּה בְהֵמָה לֹא חִלַּקְתָּה בָהּ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד (לִפְטוֹר) [לְחַייְבוֹ] מָמוֹן אַף מַכֵּה אָדָם לֹא תַחֲלוֹק בּוֹ בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד לִפְטוֹר. בְּמַה פְלִיגִין. בְּמָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה וְיֵשׁ מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה כָּךְ אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases16In any case where capital punishment is a possibility, payment of money is excluded even if the elements necessary for conviction (two witnesses each for caution and the criminal act) are missing. The argument is quoted in the Babli (Ketubot 35a) in the name of the school of Ḥizqiah; it is not found in tannaïtic sources., as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of a living17This word is missing in the Biblical text and in Ketubot. animal must pay for it18Slaying another person’s animal is always a civil case, never a criminal one. Therefore, the distinctions basic for criminal cases do not apply. but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him [from paying]. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case19The fine is a punishment which automatically kicks in if the formal requirements for a sentence of flogging are missing (cf. Babli Ketubot 34b)., but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case20Once the possibility of a sentence of flogging is there if one would find the necessary eye witnesses, there is no possibility for the imposition of a fine..
רִבִּי אִימִּי בַּבְלַייָא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ רָשָׁע רָשָׁע. נֶאֱמַר רָשָׁע בִּמְחוּייְבֵי מִיתוֹת. וְנֶאֱמַר רָשָׁע בִּמְחוּייְבֵי מַכּוֹת. מַה רָשָׁע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּמְחוּייְבֵי מִיתוֹת אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה. אוּף רָשָׁע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּמְחוּייְבֵי מֵכּוֹת אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. Rebbi Immi the Babylonian21He is R. Immi (Ammi), the head of the Tiberian academy after R. Joḥanan. His statement is quoted in the Babli (Ketubot 35a) by Abbai, one generation after R. Immi. in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases22Num. 35:31: “Do not take weregild for the life of a human who is a criminal condemned to death.”, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging23Deut. 25:2: “If the criminal is condemned to flogging, …”. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.
נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָמַר כָּאן בְנַעֲרָה כָּאן בְּבוֹגֶרֶת. נַעֲרָה יֵשׁ לָהּ קְנָס וְאֵין לָהּ מֶכֶר. בּוֹגֶרֶת אֵין לָהּ לֹא מֶכֶר וְלֹא קְנָס וְאֵין לָהּ בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם. רַבָּנִין דְּקֵיסָרִין אָֽמְרִין תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁפִּיתְּתוֹ אוֹ שֶׁמָּחֲלָה לוֹ. סָבַר נָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָה לְמָקוֹם מַכּוֹת וְתַשְׁלוּמִין מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְיִלְקֶה וִישַׁלֵּם. כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ. רִשְׁעָה אַחַת אַתָּה מְחַייְבוֹ. וְאֵי אַתָּה מְחַייְבוֹ שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעָיוֹת. וְיִלְקֶה וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם. מִן עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין. מַה עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין מְשַׁלְּמִין וְאֵינָן לוֹקִין. אַף הָכָא מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה טַעֲמָא דְנָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָה וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשּׁוֹפֵט וְהִכָּהוּ לְפָנָיו אֶת שֶׁמַּכּוֹתָיו יוֹצְאוֹת בּוֹ יְדֵי רִשְׁעוֹ יַצָא זֶה שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ עֲמוֹד וְשַׁלֵּם. Nathan bar Hoshiah25A Babylonian (in the Babli, Rav Nathan bar Hoshaiah) who immigrated into Galilee and became a member of R. Joḥanan’s academy. said, one speaks about a girl26In the technical sense, נערה is a girl who no longer is a minor (so she cannot be sold in marriage, Ex. 21:7–11) but is not yet an adult who can marry on her own. Practically, a girl is a minor if she is less than 12 years old and becomes an adult at 12 years 6 months. The father has the right to marry her off as נערה and he collects the fine if she is raped before she is married. The Mishnah in Ketubot refers only to נערה since the verse determining the fine uses that expression., the other about an adult woman. The girl has a fine but cannot be sold, the adult has no fine, she cannot be sold; has she no claim for shame and blemish27Anybody injured by another person has a claim for pain, shame, and diminished standing. Hence, even if the fine is excluded the adult woman has a monetary claim and Nathan bar Hoshaiah cannot assume that the Mishnah in Makkot refers to an adult.? The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or forgave him28In the Babli, if she became an adult and forgave him. Since she is an adult, she may waive the monetary claim. In that case, because the rapist does not have to pay, he is whipped. {The נערה cannot waive the claim since the claim is her father’s.}. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays and is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts6“Guilt” (in the singular) here is taken to mean “atonement for his guilt”, that for one transgression there can be only one punishment. It is quite possible that with one act one commits a multiple sin; then each sin separately can be punished but no one sin can incur more than one punishment (Sifry Deut. 286).. Why should he pay and not have to be flogged? From perjured witnesses. Just as perjured witnesses pay and are not flogged29Perjury is definitely sinful; it should be punished by flogging. But the verse decrees (Deut. 19:19): “Do to him what he intended to do to his brother”. If the perjury was in a civil case, the perjurer has to pay to the injured party the amount the latter would have had to pay if the testimony had stood. Since this is the only punishment decreed by the verse, the perjurer cannot be flogged. {In criminal cases, the perjurer is flogged or executed, as the case may be.}, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Nathan bar Hoshaiah: (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence.” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.
מַתְנִיתִין פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה שׁוֹגֵג. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. וְהָא תַנִּינָן הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה מֵזִיד. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּנָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָה דוּ אָמַר מְשַׁלֵּם וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ אָמַר אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ לוֹקֶה וְאִם לֹא הִתְרוּ בוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. פָּתַר לָהּ מֵזִיד בְּלֹא הַתְרָייָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לא שַׁנְייָא הִיא מֵזִיד הִיא שׁוֹגֵג. הִיא הִתְרוּ בוֹ הִיא לֹא הִתְרוּ בוֹ. סָבַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוּ אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”30For him, there should be no difference between error and intentional transgression. The answer is that there is a difference, only for the linkage between payment and flogging there is no difference: Either flogging and paying in all cases go together or in no case is there flogging and a fine. Since the Mishnah clearly states that there is a fine, R. Simeon must hold with R. Meïr.? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and he pays.
אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא וְאִין יִסְבּוֹר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כָּל־מַתְנִיתִין דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר קְרַייָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. וְהָא כְתִיב וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קוֹדֵשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה וגו׳. אֶלָּא מִיסְבַּר סָבַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ שֶׁהַחוֹמֶשׁ קָרְבָּן. וַאֲפִילוּ יִסְבּוֹר חוֹמֶשׁ קָרְבָּן קֶרֶן קָרְבָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר שָׁלוֹם מַתְנִיתִין אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהַקֶּרֶן קְנָס דְּתַנִּינָן אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תְּרוּמָה אֶלָּא חוּלִין מְתוּקָּנִין וְהֵן נַעֲשִׂין תְּרוּמָה. אִלּוּ מִמַּה שֶׁאָכַל הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם יֵאוּת. וְתַנֵּי כֵן אָכַל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה מְשַׁלֵּם חוּלִין טְהוֹרִין וְאִם שִׁילֵּם חוּלִין טְמֵאִין יָצָא. וְלֹא דְמֵי עֵצִים הוּא חַייָב לוֹ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהַקֶּרֶן קְנָס. וּכְמַה דְתֵימַר קֶרֶן קְנָס וְדִכְווָתָהּ חוֹמֶשׁ קְנָס. אֶלָּא אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. כְּמַה דוּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר תַּמָּן הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִכְלָל לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֵר. יָצָא זֶה וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו לְחַייְבוֹ מָמוֹן. וְהָכָא הַכֹּל הָיָה בִכְלָל וְכָל־זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קוֹדֶשׁ. יָצָא וְאִישׁ כִּי יֹאכַל קוֹדֵשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה לְחַייְבוֹ מָמוֹן. Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice31Since every deadly sin committed in error needs a sacrifice for atonement.. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated32Mishnah 6:1.: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated33Halakhah 6:1, Note 20. Since the restitution must be more valuable than the food taken, the difference in value has the status of a fine.: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay34In Tannaitic sources, the two verses are taken together following the principle that every prohibition has to be written twice in the Torah, first to define the prohibition and second to indicate the punishment for violating the prohibition (Mekhilta deR.Ismael Yitro 8, p. 233; Mekhilta deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai Yitro p. 152; Sifry Deut. 190(19)).; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay35Again, the prohibition is defined in v. 10 and the punishment in v. 14; since this is a self-contained unit, no outside principles should be invoked..
וְהָתַנֵּי מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּגוֹנֵב חֶלְבּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁכֵּן הָאוֹכֵל חֶלְבּוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְהָתַנֵּי מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּגוֹנֵב תְּרוּמַת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם שֶׁכֵּן הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָתוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְהָתַנֵּי מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּחוֹסֵם פָּרָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם שֵׁשֶׁת קַבִּין לְפָרָה וְאַרְבָּעַת קַבִּין לַחֲמוֹר שֶׁכֵּן הַחוֹסֵם פָּרָתוֹ לוֹקֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁכֵּן בִּמְחוּייָבֵי מִיתוֹת. גָּנַב תְּרוּמַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ וַאֲכָלָהּ לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם מִכָּל־מָקוֹם הִפְסִיד מָמוֹן. Did we not state:36The first two statements are not in any source except here and in Ketubot. One can transgress several commandments in one action, e. g., if the thief immediately upon taking the fat puts it into his mouth. Then the thief acquires the fat (and at the same time makes himself liable for restitution) in the same moment he incurs guilt for eating fat. For each obligation or guilt incurred there is one and only one punishment. The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged36The first two statements are not in any source except here and in Ketubot. One can transgress several commandments in one action, e. g., if the thief immediately upon taking the fat puts it into his mouth. Then the thief acquires the fat (and at the same time makes himself liable for restitution) in the same moment he incurs guilt for eating fat. For each obligation or guilt incurred there is one and only one punishment.. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged37Babli Baba Meẓía 91a, in the interpretation of Rav Papa, against Abbaye who sees in the rule only the opinion of R. Meïr. According to Rav Papa, the thief is obliged to feed the animals from the moment of the theft but is flogged only after he muzzled them for threshing (Deut. 25:4).. Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.
אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מֵעַתָּה הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ קְטַנָּה יִלְקֶה וִישַׁלֵּם. שֶׁכֵּן הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ בוֹגֶרֶת לוֹקֶה. חָזַר רִבִּי מָנַא וְאָמַר תַּמָּן חָל עָלָיו מִיתָה וְתַשְׁלוּמִין כְּאַחַת. בְּרַם הָכָא מֵהַחֲסִימָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נִתְחַייֵב מַלְקוּת וּמִיכָּן וָאֵילַךְ לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. הָתִיב רִבִּי עֶזְרָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא הַמֵּצִית גְּדִישׁוּ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ בַשַּׁבָּת מִשִּׁיבּוֹלֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נִתְחַייֵב מִיתָה מִיכָּן וְהֵילַךְ לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. וְלֵית אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין אֶלָּא עַל כָּל־שִׁיבּוֹלֶת וְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת יֵשׁ בָּהּ הַתְרָייַת מִיתָה. וְאוּף הָכָא עַל כָּל־חֲסִימָה יֵשׁ בָּהּ הַתְרָייַת מַכּוֹת (וְהַתְרָייַת תַּשְׁלוּמִין). אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן תְּרֵין אֲמוֹרִין חַד אָמַר בְּחוֹסֵם בִּתְרוּמָה בְמוּקְדָּשִׁין. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר בְּחוֹסֵם עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ. שָׁלִיחַ לוֹקֶה וְהוּא פָטוּר. דָּם יֵחָשֵׁב לָאִישׁ הַהוּא וְלֹא לִשְׁלוֹחָיו. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged41As stated earlier (Notes 26, 28), the adult sister cannot claim money from the rapist brother who therefore is subject to flogging according to everybody. If the arguments of the previous paragraph are correct, the rapist of his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay.. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously42It would be double punishment for one and the same transgression.. But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment43Any muzzling of a threshing animal is forbidden; the monetary obligation starts only when the threshing ox would have eaten a peruṭa’s worth had he not been muzzled. The two obligations are not simultaneous even though they come from transgressing one and the same prohibition.. Rebbi Ezra44He is R. Azariah (cf. Berakhot, Chapter 1, Note 90). The Rome ms. and the Ketubot text have ר׳ זעירא; that reading is impossible for chronological reasons. objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property45Then in one act he transgresses two prohibitions; for heave he is flogged and for larceny of sacred food he must pay. This is not double punishment for the same transgression.. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers46In the words of the Babli, “there is no agency for crimes.” If the agent is adult and of sane mind, he has to know himself that he is committing a crime and cannot unload the criminal responsibility on his employer. (This principle does not apply to civil claims.) The second explanation is rejected..
שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וְמֵזִיד בְּחָמֵץ. שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וּמֵזִיד בְּנָזִיר. שׁוֹגֵג בִּתְרוּמָה וְמֵזִיד בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אִין נִיפְתְּרִינָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים נִיחָא. אִין נִיפְתְּרִינָהּ בְּדָבָר אֶחָד מַחְלוֹקֶת רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. In error for heave and intentional for leavened48If during Passover he intentionally ate leavened food (a deadly sin) but unintentionally took heave., in error for heave and intentional for nazir49If somebody made a nazir vow (Num. 6) and he intentionally breaks his vow and eats grapes or drinks wine but unintentionally took heave., in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement50If during the fast of the Day of Atonement he intentionally ate but unintentionally took heave.. If one explains it with two things, it is fine51If one holds that with one action two different laws have been broken, each infraction is punished according to its separate rules and everybody agrees that for heave he has to pay. But if one holds that for one action there can be only one punishment, he has to pay only according to R. Joḥanan.. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן אֵין בֵּין שַׁבָּת לְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם וְזֶה זְדוֹנוֹ בְּהִיכָּרֵת. הָא בְתַשְׁלוּמִין זֶה וְזֶה שָׁוִין. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי נְחוֹנְיָה בֶּן הַקָּנָה דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי נְחוֹנְיָה בֶּן הַקָּנָה אוֹמֵר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים כְּשַׁבָּת לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְּיָא אוֹמֵר כִּמְחוּייָבֵי כְרִיתוּת כָּךְ חַייְבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין. מַה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֲבִינָא אָמַר נַעֲרָה נִדָּה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אוּף אָחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ בֵּינֵיהוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי נְחוֹנְיָה בֶּן הַקָּנָה מַה שַׁבָּת אֵין לָהּ הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֵין לוֹ הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרוֹ. וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ מְשַׁלֵּם. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְּיָא אָמַר שַׁבָּת יֵשׁ בָּהּ כָּרֵת וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים יֵשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. There52Mishnah Megillah 1:5. The statement means that everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement, but not vice-versa. Infraction of the laws of the Sabbath is a capital crime but punishment for infraction of the laws of the Day of Atonement is in the hands of Heaven. The question is, how far do we equate the possibility of a death sentence by an earthly court with one by the Heavenly court., we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina said, a menstruating girl is between them53If the seduced or raped almost adult girl was impure because of her period, the rapist or seducer is subject to extirpation, Lev. 20:18.. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them54While punishment for sexual relations with the wife’s sister during the lifetime of the wife is not spelled out in the verse, Lev. 18:18, all incest prohibitions enumerated in Lev. 18 are subject to Lev. 18:29: “For anybody who will commit any of these abominations, persons acting thus will be exterminated from the midst of their people.” (Rashi on Mishnah Keritut1:1.). In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started55While everything will become permitted again after the end of the Sabbath, nothing will be permitted as long as the Sabbath lasts. But the menstruating almost adult will become permitted again when cleansed from her impurity, in most cases while she still is an almost adult girl., so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath56While desecration of the Sabbath is a capital crime, if prosecution is impossible for lack of cautioning or of eye witnesses it is a case for extirpation by Heaven, (Ex. 31:14): “Keep the Sabbath because it is holy for you; its desecrator shall be put to death. Anybody doing work on it shall be extirpated from the midst of his people.” and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.
רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בָּעֵי לָװִין וּכְרִיתוּת מַה אָֽמְרִין בָּהּ אִילֵּין תַּנָּיֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי צְרִיכָה לְרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְלָמָּה לֹא שֶָׁמַע לֵיהּ מִן הָדָא דְּתַנִּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. דְּתַנִּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר נֶאֱמַר כָּרֵת בְּשַׁבָּת וְנֶאֱמַר כָּרֵת בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. מַה כָּרֵת הָאָמוּר בְּשַׁבָּת אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה. אַף כָּרֵת הָאָמוּר בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל כָּרֵת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַה צְרִיכִין לֵיהּ כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִם מַכּוֹת אֶצֶל מִיתָה יֵשׁ לוֹ לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְאַף כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן הַשּׁוֹחֵט אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לְשׁוּם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ לְשׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לוֹקֶה. לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיָה נִסְקָל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר וַאֲפִילוּ הִתְרוּ בוֹ לְשׁוּם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִילּוּ הִתְרוּ בוֹ לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיָה נִסְקָל. הָכָא שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים. וְהָכָא דָבָר אֶחָד. 60The commentators declare the text in Ketubot as original and the one here corrupt. However, the Babli in Ketubot 33a–36a seems more to refer to a text like the one in Terumot which is preferable as lectio difficilior. On the other hand, the last paragraph of the Halakhah shows that the text here is copied from Ketubot. Therefore, both versions have to be explained. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation61The text here is based on the earlier text excluding payment in death penalty cases, Note 19. In the Babli, Ketubot 34b/35a, this is deduced as above and in addition from Ex. 21:22–23, where payment is due if a pregnant woman is injured and an abortion is caused, but no payment is due if the woman is murdered.? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty61The text here is based on the earlier text excluding payment in death penalty cases, Note 19. In the Babli, Ketubot 34b/35a, this is deduced as above and in addition from Ex. 21:22–23, where payment is due if a pregnant woman is injured and an abortion is caused, but no payment is due if the woman is murdered., so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation62In the Babli, Ketubot 35a, only R. Simeon ben Laqish accepts this reasoning; R. Joḥanan admits payment concurrent with extirpation.
The text in Ketubot deals with the situation in which a simple transgression for which the punishment is flogging is combined with a transgression punishable by extirpation and there was cautioning for the first but not for the second; can the flogging be executed? There is no question that flogging is the earthly punishment for most extirpation transgressions, as stated in Mishnah Makkot 3:16: “All those subject to extirpation who were flogged became free from extirpation, as it is written (Deut. 25:3): ‘that your brother should not be degraded in your eyes;’ after he was flogged he is your brother.”.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases63In the Babli, Ketubot 35b, this is deduced from the Mishnah which assigns a fine to a brother who seduced his sister which, in absence of witnesses, is an extirpation case.
For the Ketubot text it is obvious that a capital crime can never lead to a sentence of flogging since no sentence can be delivered without the testimony of two witnesses. If there were witnesses it would be a case for the death penalty; without witnesses it is a case for the Heavenly court.. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young64Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple transgression, Lev. 22:28. Idolatrous sacrifices are capital crimes. for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases65The prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day also applies to profane slaughter; it is unrelated to the prohibition of idolatry. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Ḥulin 81b, where it is pointed out that the case discussed must be that the first animal was slaughtered for food but the second for idolatry; only in that case does one act result in two transgressions., there it is one case66The disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish is the case that there is only one transgression which, however, cannot be prosecuted in criminal court for lack of eye witnesses..
עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַה בֵּין אִילֵּין תַּנָּיֵי לְאִילֵּין רַבָּנִין לְלָאוִין לֹא לִכְרִיתוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דּוּ אָמַר כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוּ אָמַר לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה הַמֵּצִית גְּדִישׁוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אִילֵּין תַּנָּיֵי סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהֶן כָּרֵת מְשַׁלֵּם. וְאִילֵּין רַבָּנִין סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ מַכּוֹת אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. מֵעַתָּה אֵילּוּ נְעָרוֹת דְּלָא כְרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה בְּבָא עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת בֵּינֵיהוֹן. According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm67Rebbis Neḥoniah ben Haqanah and Simeon ben Menassiah who imply that only capital cases and those of extirpation free from payment. and those rabbis68The rabbis, also Tannaïm, who disagree with R. Meïr and hold that flogging frees from payment.? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays69He disagrees with the rabbis and does not have to try to explain the rabbis.. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday70Desecration of a holiday (other than the Day of Atonement) is a simple infraction, not subject to extirpation. is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis71The list of Ketubot 3:1 notes only those cases in which the rapist could not marry his victim as required by Deut. 22:29, either because of an incest prohibition or other biblical restriction on permitted sexual relations. Then the rapist is subject to flogging; according to R. Simeon ben Laqish he never would have to pay. Since this invalidates an entire Mishnah, it is an impossible stance.! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them72A bastard is a child born from a sexual union subject to the death penalty or extirpation. The Ketubot text reads: “A bastard who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.” It seems that the difference between the two texts is based on a difference in the interpretation of the relevant verse Deut. 23:3. The reading here supports Maimonides (Issure Bi’ah 15:2) that sexual relations with a bastard (male or female) are only punishable by flogging after marriage; then a fine is due without question. The reading in Ketubot supports R. Abraham ben David (ad loc.) and Nachmanides (in his Novellae to Ketubot) that the verse forbids all sexual relations with a bastard since the expression used, “to come”, in rabbinic Hebrew means “to sleep with.” According to everybody, a male bastard may marry a female bastard..
וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לָאו יְבִימְתּוֹ הִיא. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁמֵּת אָחִיו וְהָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים וְאֵירַשׂ אִשָּׁה וּמֵת וּבָא אָחִיו וְאָֽנְסָהּ. But is his brother’s wife not his sister-in-law73This question has no relation to the topics discussed here; it belongs to the discussion of Mishnah Ketubot 3:1 and shows that the text there is original. The Mishnah mentions the brother’s wife as one of the categories of girls for whom the rapist has to pay the fine of 50 šeqel. Now this fine is due only for the rape of a virgin. The only case where the brother’s wife still could be a virgin is that the brother died between the preliminary wedding (cf. Peah Chapter 6, Note 46; Demay Chapter 4, Note 19) and the actual wedding. If the brother died childless, his widow should be married by his brother and she can be married only by the sex act (Deut. 25:5, Mishnah Yebamot 6:1) and no rape is legally possible. If the brother did have children, his widow is forbidden to the brother under penalty of extirpation. One possible scenario for inclusion of the brother’s wife in the list is the one given in the text, when there are no eye witnesses. Another (cf. Rashi ad loc., Tosafot Ketubot 29a, s. v. והבא) is that the brother is still alive but the girl was divorced after the preliminary ceremony, before the actual marriage, when she is still a virgin but permanently forbidden to her brother-in-law.? Explain it that the man’s brother died when he had children and had performed the preliminary wedding with a woman when he died and [the surviving] brother came and raped her.