Si l'on disait: j'ai séduit la fille de cet homme, il paie bosheth et p'gam par son propre témoignage [Pas seulement s'il dit: je l'ai forcée, là où il ne la blesse pas tant que ça, le la'az ("mauvais rapport" ) de celui qui a été forcé de ne pas être si grand —non seulement dans un tel cas il paie par son propre témoignage; mais même s'il dit: je l'ai séduite, là où il la blesse davantage, le la'az de celui qui a été séduit étant grand, de sorte que nous pourrions penser que nous ne le croyons pas fortifier le la'az—nous disons néanmoins qu'elle préférerait cela (qu'on le croit) pour gagner de l'argent par là.], et il ne paie pas knass. [Car celui qui admet knass en est exempté, il est écrit (Exode 22: 8): "Que les juges incriminent paieront le double"—pour exclure celui qui s’incrime.] Si l’on dit: j’ai volé, j’ai massacré et vendu, il paie le principal (keren) par son propre témoignage, mais il ne paie pas le double paiement (kefel) et les «quatre et paiement de cinq ". (S'il dit :) Mon bœuf a tué cet homme [et je dois kofer (le paiement de la "rançon"), il paie par son propre témoignage, étant entendu que le kofer est un paiement monétaire (et non un knass)], ou (s'il dit: Mon bœuf tué) le bœuf de cet homme, il paie par son propre témoignage. (S'il dit :) Mon bœuf a tué l'esclave de cet homme [et je dois trente sela], il ne paie pas par son propre témoignage, [car il (trente sela) est knass, trente sela étant donné même s'il n'en vaut pas un sela.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
האומר פתיתי את בתו של פלוני – needless to say the person who states I raped [her], that he does not damage her so much for there is no such great evil talk of an outraged woman (i.e., who had been raped) for it is self-evident that he pays shame and damages by his own testimony [but rather] even a person who says, “I seduced [her], causes her greater damage for the evil talk of a seduced woman is greater, and you might think I would say that we don’t believe him to attach merit to the evil report, it comes to teach us that it is beneficial to her for herself to attach merit to the evil report in order to profit from the money
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
Introduction
The concept taught in this mishnah is that one who admits of his own accord that he has committed a crime, without before having evidence brought against him, is exempt from paying the fine. He must, however, pay any penalties that are compensatory and not considered fines.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
ואינו משלם קנס – for he admits that with regard to a fine, he is exempt, as Scripture states (Exodus 22:8): “He whom God declares guilty [shall pay double to the other],” except for one who accuses himself (see Talmud Bava Kamma 64b).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
He who declares, “I seduced the daughter of so-and-so” must pay compensation for embarrassment and blemish on his own admission but need not pay the fine. If a person admits that he seduced someone’s daughter he does not pay the fine. He does, however, make the other payments.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
המית שורי את פלוני – and behold I am liable for indemnity through his own [testimony], for he holds that the fine is an indemnification.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
He who declares, “I have stolen” must make restitution for the principal on his own evidence but need not repay double, fourfold or fivefold. A thief is liable to pay back double the amount which he stole. If he slaughtered or sold the animal he must pay back four or five times its value. The double, fourfold and fivefold payments are fines, whereas the restitution for the principal is not a fine. Therefore, if a man admits to having stolen something, he only pays the principal.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
עבדו של פלוני – and behold I am liable thirty Selah, he is exempt, for they are a fine and even if it is not worth a Selah, he gives thirty [Selaim].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
[He who declares,] “My ox has killed so-and-so” or “the ox of so-and-so” must make restitution on his own evidence. [If he said] “My ox has killed the slave of so-and-so” he need not make restitution on his own evidence. If a person’s ox kills someone or someone else’s ox, the ox owner must make financial restitution (see Exodus 21:30). This is not considered a fine and therefore if a person admits that his ox killed another ox or a human being, he must make restitution. However, if an ox kills a slave there is an automatic penalty of 30 shekels (see Exodus 21:32). Since this is a fixed sum, a person who admits that his ox did so is not liable to pay the fine.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
This is the general rule: whoever pays more than the actual cost of the damage he has done need not pay it on his own evidence. The mishnah now sums up what we learned above. If a person is liable to pay a fine that is more than the actual damage, or actually a sum that is set arbitrarily and is independent of the damage, he doesn’t pay upon his own admission. The reasoning behind this may be that fines are in order to prevent the person from committing another crime. Therefore, if he comes forward and admits to what he has done (and it was not otherwise known) the need for a penalty does not exist. On the other hand compensation is needed for the loss incurred by the victim and therefore compensatory penalties are paid in any case.
