Ketubot, Daf Mem Heh, Part 6
Introduction
In yesterday’s section the Talmud proposed that only R. Judah agrees with R. Eliezer b. Jacob
who said that the chapter concerning the husband who libels his wife refers only to a case
where they had sex. Therefore the husband pays the fine only if he had sex. The Talmud had
said that the other rabbis, who hold that the husband pays the fine no matter what, agreed
with the other rabbis who disagreed with R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Today’s section attempts to say
that everyone agrees with R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
‫ לוקה ונותן מאה‬- ‫ המוציא שם רע‬:‫ והכי קאמר‬,‫ כולה כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב‬:‫איכא דאמרי‬
.‫ ללקות לוקה מ"מ‬:‫ והוא שבעל; רבי יהודה אומר‬,‫סלע‬
Other say: Everyone is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob and this is what
they mean: [A husband] who brought an evil name [upon his wife] is flogged
and he must also pay the hundred sela’, but only where he had intercourse with
her.
R. Judah ruled: As to flogging, [the husband is] flogged in all circumstances.
This version of the debate in the earlier baraita completely changes the reading of the first
opinion. Whereas earlier we thought that according to this opinion, the husband is flogged
and pays the fine whether or not he had sex with his wife, it now reads that he is flogged and
pays the fine only if he did have sex. This opinion now completely accords with R. Eliezer b
Jacob. R. Judah says he is flogged in any case, even if he did not have sex, because he
violated the prohibition against libeling someone. But he agrees with R. Eliezer b. Jacob that
since he did not have sex, he is not libel for the 100 sela.
‫ אינו‬- ‫ לא בעל‬,‫ לוקה‬- ‫ בעל‬:‫ רבי יהודה אומר‬,‫וסבר רבי יהודה ללקות לוקה מ"מ? והתניא‬
!‫לוקה‬
But does R. Judah, hold that “as to flogging, [the husband] is flogged in all
circumstance.” But has it not been taught: R. Judah says: If he had intercourse
he is flogged but if he did not have intercourse he is not flogged?
We have now another baraita according to which R. Judah says that he is flogged even if they
did not have sex. This disagrees with the version of the baraita taught above and in
yesterday’s section.
‫ מאי בעל לוקה דקתני‬:‫ רב פפא אמר‬.‫ לוקה מכת מרדות מדרבנן‬:‫אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק‬
.‫התם? ממון‬
R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: He is flogged with lashes for rebelling against the
rabbis.
R. Papa said: What does it mean “if he had intercourse he is flogged” which was
used there. A monetary fine.
Two amoraim attempt to resolve the two contradictory baraitot. According to R. Nahman b.
Yitzchak, in the second baraita, when R. Judah says that the husband is flogged, he does not
mean that the Torah dictates that he is flogged. His lashes are for transgressing the rabbis,
who clearly do not want a husband to be falsely libeling his wife. But he does not receive
lashes from Torah law, for the Torah refers only to a case where they already had sex.
R. Papa said that the word “he is flogged” does not really mean that he is flogged. It means
that he pays the fine.
'‫ רבי יוסי בר‬,‫ נותן חצי ערכו‬- ‫ האומר חצי ערכי עלי‬:‫ והא תנן‬,‫וקרי ליה לממון מלקות? אין‬
‫ מאי‬,‫ לוקה בערך שלם‬:‫ לוקה ונותן ערך שלם; לוקה אמאי? אמר רב פפא‬:‫יהודה אומר‬
.‫ וערך חציו הוי ליה אבר שהנשמה תלויה בו‬,‫טעמא? גזירה חצי ערכו אטו ערך חציו‬
But could one describe a monetary fine as “flogging”? Yes, and so indeed we
have learned: If a man said, “I vow to pay half of my valuation” he most pay
half of his valuation. R. Yose the son of R. Judah ruled: He is flogged and must
pay his full valuation.
Why should he be flogged? R. Papa explained: He is “flogged” by [having to
pay his] full valuation.
What is the reason? It is a preventive measure against the possibility [of a vow
for] the value of half of one's body, and the value of a half is like an organ that
life depends on.
The Talmud finds a precedent where the word “flogged” is understand as paying a fine. If a
person dedicates half of his value to the Temple, R. Judah says that he must pay the full value
and he is flogged. R. Papa explains that he is not really flogged, rather he is “flogged” by
having to pay his full value. The Talmud explains that a person who dedicates half of his
value really should only have to pay half of his value. But we make him pay his full value lest
he state that he is dedicating the value of half of his body to the Temple. Now the value of
“half of one’s body” is equivalent to the value of one’s full body—if you lose half your body,
you die. Lest people think that one who dedicates half of the value of one’s body only has to
pay half of the value of his body, R. Judah declared that even if he dedicates half of one’s
value, he pays the full value.
In any case, the essential issue here is that when they use the word “flog” they do not
necessarily mean it literally. It can be understood as referring to paying a fine.