Resources for Kesubos daf 35

1.     The גמרא says that if according to תנא דבי חזקיה, if you kill someone whether on purpose or by accident or if you killed the wrong person then you are still פּטור from paying any monetary damages. The רמב"ם  in הלכות חובל ומזיק פּרק ד׳ הל׳ ה says that if a person kills by accident then they are פּטור from paying any damages but if they intended to kill one person but killed another he is חייב to pay for any monetary damages such as דמי וולדות. The ראב"ד there disagrees and says the גמרא on our דף says explicitly that even if you didn’t have כוונה you are פּטור from paying. The חידושי מרן רי"ז הלוי in הלכות רוצח פּרק ג הל׳ י"ב answers that there are two totally different points in תנא דבי חזקיה according to the רמב"ם . The first part about there being no חילוק between שוגג ומזיד is because of קים ליה בדרבה מינה applies to שוגג ומזיד. However, when it comes to אינו מתכוון, that has nothing to do with קם ליה בדרבה מיניה. Rather, it just tells you that you are פּטור from paying the value of the מת regardless of who you intended to kill since there simply isn’t a חיוב ממון for דמי המת when you kill someone. However, you are responsible for any other side damage like דמי וולדות which is what the רמב"ם  mentions.

2.     According to רב יוחנן who we seem to pasken like, if a person does an עברה that has a חיוב  of מלקות וממון they would get מלקות and not have to pay. If they did the עברה בשוגג then they would have to pay. The ראש יוסף by the פּרי מגדים in מגילה דף ל"א asks a fascinating question: what would the הלכה be nowadays if someone did an עברה and was warned but we cant in practice give him מלקות since we don’t have ב"ד סמוכין? Would he have to pay for any damages since he didn’t in practice get מלקות, or would we say that since he in principle is חייב מלקות that is enough to make him פּטור from paying? He leaves it צ"ע. In the footnotes on the bottom it brings that it is actually a מחלוקת between the ש"ך and the  סמ"ע, וב"חin סימן של"ח ס"ק ב. The ש"ך holds that the person must pay since in practice they didn’t get מלקות whereas the סמ"ע וב"ח hold that he is פּטור since he is חייב מלקות. The קובץ שיעורים in סימן צ says that התראה nowadays shouldn’t even count as התראה since התראה requires you to be מתיר עצמו למיתה and since you know that ב"ד cant do anything it wouldn’t even be considered a התראה. However, he says that one could argue that a person just has to be מתיר themselves to לחיוב מיתה.

One would think that if you hold like רש"י in  בבא מציעא דף צ"א that there really is a חיוב לצאת ידי שמים by all cases of קם ליה, and the only reason you don’t pay is because ב"ד can only impose one punishment as it says משום רשעה אחת אתה מחייבו ולא משום שתי רשעיות then if in practice no עונש of מלקות is given out then there should be a חיוב to pay. However, ff you hold it is a real פּטור then perhaps just being חייב is enough.

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander

Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya