Resources for Kesubos daf 32

1.     The גמרא asks how you can have מלקות and קנס by בא על אחותו if we have a principle of אין אדם לוקה ומשלם. The גמרא answers with an אוקימתא. The פּני יהושע in the פּתיחה to כתובות there is a section from his son in law רב בעריש זצ"ל who asks the following question: תוספות in יבמות on  דף נ"ט ע"ב says that when a person is בא על אחותו נערה he is חייב כרת on the הערה and חייב קנס on the גמר ביאה. If so, in our case the two חיובים are not coming at the same time so why does our גמרא have to make an אוקימתא? In other words, the חיוב מלקות comes at the beginning at תחילת ביאה and the חיוב ממון comes at גמר ביאה so of course he gets both punishments! He answers that there is still a חיוב מלקות present even at גמר ביאה. This is similar to a ירושלמי that applies קם ליה בדרבה מיניה by a person who lit a fire on שבת and it burned someone’s field down. He is פּטור on תשלומין even though after the first stalk the חייב מיתה already took place. The reason is that it is as if there was חיוב מיתה והתראה on the whole process. Similarly, there is a חיוב מלקות on the whole מעשה ביאה even though he is חייב from תחילת ביאה. This is also the opinion of the חזון אי"ש in אבן העזר סימן קל"ה on our דף. רבי עקיבא איגר here disagrees and says a novel approach which is a major יסוד: it is clear that if someone else did the תחילת ביאה he would be פּטור on the קנס since she would have already been a בעולה. Therefore, since doing the תחילת ביאה is a requirement to be חייב קנס, the תחילת ביאה cant be גורם the קנס since he already got punished for that and we must view it as if someone else did it. He proves this from a תוספות in גיטין דף נ"ב ע"ב ד"ה מנסך who says that when a person picks up a jug which isn’t his to be מנסך לעבודה זרה  we would say קים ליה  even though the act of stealing was done while lifting it up and the חיוב מיתה  is only when you pour it. The reason is the lifting was necessary for the pouring. The אמרי משה in סימן ל׳ disagrees with this and says that there is a major difference between a חיוב מיתה and a חיוב מלקות. By a חיוב מיתה, קם ליה tells us that it is as if only one מעשה עברה occurred and the second מעשה is totally erased. By a חיוב מלקות, the only issue is כדי רשעתו and that doesn’t say the action never happened but just says we can't put a second punishment on you.

2.     The גמרא answers the above question by saying we are taking about a יתומה מפותה who is considered to have been מוחל her קנס. The קצות החושן in סימן תכ"ד ס"ק א asks the following question: the בית יוסף says that a man who is חובל בעבד should normally pay a קנס but if its his own עבד he neither pays nor gets מלקות. The reason is that it is considered as if the owner paid the slave since anything an עבד is קונה goes to his master so its as if he already paid. Consequently, there is no מלקות. The קצות asks that our סוגיא seems to contradict this since by the case of a יתומה מפותה it is considered as if he paid her since she was מוחל him yet he gets מלקות anyway! He answers that it must be that there really is no חיוב קנס to speak of by a  יתומה מפותה since it is as if the lady said in advance she allows the היזק. There is an interesting אבני נזר in אבן העזר סימן רפּ"ד who discusses the following fascinating case: what the הלכה is where a person is חובל in their friend a שוה פּרוטה in which case they should just pay and not get מלקות and then the person is מוחל the money. Do they then get מלקות or is it as if the person got paid since he was מוחל in which case there is no מלקות?