by Chaim Weber

The Mishna in Kesubos (41a) differentiates between two types of monetary obligations: Ordinary monetary obligations (mammon) and fines (knas).

Mammon is where one pays for the value of damage caused.

Knas is where a guilty party is fined and therefore pays a penalty – this penalty can be more than the value of the damage.

One principle difference between the two relates to admission:

If one comes to beis din and admits on his own that he owes mammon, he has to pay. If one admits that he owes a knas, he is exempt.

The Gemara (Bava Kamma 15b) concludes that an ox who gores and causes damage (keren) is a case of knas for the following reason:

Really, one should not be obligated to pay at all for keren, as an average ox is not likely to go out and gore other animals. However, to ensure that people guard their property well, the Torah penalized the owner to pay for half the damage.

As keren is a knas, if one admits in beis din that his ox gored, he is exempt, similar to other cases of knas.

The Raavad adds an interesting caveat to this halacha.

The Raavad (as explained by Rav Shach zt”l in Avi Ezri, Hilchos Geneiva 2:12) argues that in most cases of knas, if one admits on his own, he is fully exempt and beis din will not encourage the violator to pay at all.

However, by keren, although one is technically exempt, beis din will encourage the violator to pay.

Why?

By keren, one is paying based on the value of the damage that was caused and that value is being cut in half. As such, there is no chance that his payment will exceed the value of the damage that was caused. Therefore, although one is technically exempt, beis din will encourage the violator to pay.

The Rashba disagrees vehemently, arguing that the Gemara does not even hint to such an idea. The Rashba concludes that keren is like all other cases of knas: if one admits to it in beis din, he is fully exempt.

An interesting debate arises in the case of fraudulent witnesses.

Fraudulent witnesses (eidim zomemim), are obligated to pay if they attempt to damage others through their testimony but are caught in the act of doing so.

The Gemara in Makkos (2b) quotes Rabbi Akiva that their payment is considered to be a knas, while the Rabanan hold that it is considered mammon.

Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Kesubos 108) wonders why eidim zomemim should be considered mammon to the Rabanan. After all, they only attempted to cause damage to their victim. But in the end, they didn’t damage him, as they were caught in the act. Shouldn’t this fall under the rubric of someone who is paying for more than the damage he caused and therefore be considered a knas?

Rav Elchanan answers that the obligation of eidim zomemim to pay in unique is that the Torah describes their payment as “ka’asher zamam” – the liability which they planned to cause others to pay is instead forced upon them. As they intended to force their victims to pay mammon, they in turn, have to pay mammon.