Who pays the fine? TB Moed Katan 13

Throughout the Gemara there is a running discussion about fines. When the rabbis impose a fine, are they imposing it on the person or are they imposing it on the item. If they are imposing it on the person and that person dies in the meantime, his heirs are not responsible for the fine. If the rabbis are imposing a fine on the item and the person dies, his heirs are responsible for the fine. On yesterday’s daf TB Moed Katan 12b Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira this very question based on the example given in the Mishna. “The mishna states: And he may draw his flax out of the soaking pool so that it is not ruined from soaking too long in the water, provided that he does not plan from the outset to do his work on the intermediate days of the Festival. And with regard to anyone, if he planned from the outset to perform his labor on the intermediate days of the Festival, the fruit of that labor must be destroyed. Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: If one planned from the outset to perform his labor on the intermediate days of a Festival, and he died after doing so, what is the halakha? Should his children be penalized after him and have to lose the products of their father’s labor?” (Sefaria. Org translation)

On today’s daf TB Moed Katan 13 the Gemara brings five more case studies to ascertain whether the above person is fined or whether the item is fined

1.     “In the case of one who slit the ear of a firstborn animal, the Sages penalized his son after him, that is because the prohibition is by Torah law (Leviticus 21:22-gg). A firstborn animal is disqualified from sacrifice if it becomes blemished, rendering it permitted to be eaten as non-sacred meat (as a gift to the priest-gg). It is prohibited to deliberately engender a blemish in a firstborn animal (based upon the drasha of the above verse-gg), and one who does so is prohibited from eating the meat.” (Once the Temple was destroyed and animal sacrifices were no longer permitted, the sages were afraid that either the priests or their friends would deliberately blemish the firstborn animal so they could eat it right away. Consequently, they fined the priests and their descendants. They were not permitted to eat that blemished animal until it became blemished naturally with a second blemish. There is a significant difference between soaking the flax on the intermediate days of the holiday and that of the firstborn. Here the Gemara asserts that the soaking of the flax is only a rabbinic prohibition while the desecration of the firstborn animal is a Torah prohibition. Consequently, this case study does not answer Rabbi Yirmeya’s question. Even those who hold that working on the intermediate days of the holiday is a Torah prohibition would say since the Torah permits work being done in cases of excessive loss, this prohibition falls under the category of a rabbinic ordinance-gg)

2.     “And if you might say that in the case of one who sold his slave to a gentile and then died the Sages penalized his son after him,  that is because every day the slave is in the gentile’s possession precludes him from performing mitzvot. A Canaanite slave is obligated in the same mitzvot as a Jewish woman. If he is illicitly sold to a gentile and escapes, requiring the seller to compensate the gentile, the seller may not then re-enslave the slave, who is regarded as emancipated. The Sages extended this penalty to the owner’s heirs as well.”  (The sages fined the person who sold his Canaanite slave with two fines. The first fine is that the sold slave is now considered a freed Jew and one is not allowed to re-enslave him. The second fine is that the original master is obligate redeem his former slave no matter what the cost, even 100 times of his original selling price. I think this case is rejected as an answer because we are dealing with two fines and not just one; consequently the cases are not similar-gg )

“What, then, is the halakha here, where one planned from the outset to perform his work on the intermediate days of a Festival and then after performing the work he died? Should one say that the Sages penalized the man himself and he is no longer alive, or perhaps the Sages imposed a penalty on the money, such that no benefit may be derived from it, and it still exists in the hands of his heirs?

3.     Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: You already learned the answer to your question in a mishna (Shevi’it 4:2): A field whose thorns were removed during the Sabbatical Year may be sown in the eighth year, as removing thorns is not full-fledged labor that renders the field prohibited; but if it had been improved with fertilizer, or if it had been enclosed so that animals therein would fertilize it with their manure, it may not be sown in the eighth year. The Sages imposed a penalty that one not benefit from prohibited labor.” But (The Ritba makes a distinction between thorns that are already detached from the ground i.e. this case and plucking thorns from the ground would be a Torah violation.-gg)

4.     “And Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: We have a tradition that if one improved his field in a prohibited manner and then died, his son may sow it. Apparently, the Sages penalized only him, the one who acted wrongly, but the Sages did not penalize his son. Here, too, with regard to work performed on the intermediate days of a Festival, the Sages penalized him, but the Sages did not penalize his son. (This is the halakha. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Sefer zera’im, hilkhot shemita, chapter 1 halakha 14-gg)

5.     “Abaye said: We have a tradition that if one rendered impure another’s ritually pure items and died before paying, the Sages did not penalize his son after him and require him to pay for the damage. What is the reason for this? It is that damage that is not evident, i.e., that does not involve any physical change visible to the eye, is not considered damage by Torah law; nevertheless, the injured party suffers a loss, and the Sages penalized only him, but the Sages did not penalize his son.” (Sefaria.org translation) (This is the halakha. Shulkhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat, 485:1)

As you can see, in the first two cases the item is fined and if the person dies before paying the fine, his descendants are liable. In all the other cases brought to bear on Rabbi Yirmeya’s question, the person is fined and if he dies, his descendants are not liable. This leads me to believe by the preponderance of evidence that a person who purposely waits until the intermediate days of the holiday to do a forbidden labor is fined, but if he dies first, his descendants are not liable.