Commentary for Bava Kamma 171:20

וקטן בר בושת הוא אין כדאמר רב פפא דמיכלמו ליה ומיכלם הכא נמי

Now, in accordance with whom is our Mishnah? It could not be in accordance with R. Meir, for the Mishnah states that all are to be estimated in accordance with the status of the offender and the offended, whereas according to R. Meir all [sorts of persons] are treated alike. It could similarly not be in accordance with R. Judah, for the Mishnah [subsequently] states<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 496. ');">¹⁷</span> that he who insults even a blind person is liable, whereas R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra pp. 495-499. ');">¹⁸</span> says that a blind person is not subject to the law of Degradation. Must the Mishnah therefore not be in accordance with R. Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Who also does not treat all persons alike.] ');">¹⁹</span> — You may say that they are [even] in accordance with R. Judah. For the statement made by R. Judah that a blind person is not subject to the law of Degradation means that no payment will be exacted from him [where he insulted others], whereas when it comes to paying him [for Degradation where he was insulted by others], We would surely order that he be paid. But since it was stated in the concluding clause 'If he insulted a person who was sleeping he would be liable [to pay for Degradation], whereas if a person who was asleep insulted others he would be exempt', and no statement was made to the effect that a blind person insulting others should be exempt, it surely implied that in the case of a blind person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom the Mishnaic statement makes subject to the law of Degradation. ');">²⁰</span> there was no difference whether he was insulted by others or whether he insulted others, [as in all cases the law of Degradation would apply]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would contradict R. Judah, who maintained that a blind person would not have to pay Degradation. ');">²¹</span> — It must therefore be considered as proved that the Mishnaic statements were in accordance with R. Simeon. Who was the Tanna for what our Rabbis taught: If he intended to insult a katon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Denotes either 'small', or a minor, ');">²²</span> but insulted [by accident] a gadol<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Denotes either 'great' or 'one who is of age'. ');">²³</span> he would have to pay the gadol the amount due for the degradation of the katon, and so also where he intended to insult a slave but [by accident] insulted a freeman he would have to pay the freeman the amount due for the degradation of the slave? According to whom [is this teaching]? It is in agreement neither with R. Meir nor with R. Judah nor even with R. Simeon, it being assumed that katon meant 'small in possessions' and gadol [similarly meant] 'great in possessions'. It could thus hardly be in accordance with R. Meir, for he said that all classes of people are treated alike. It could similarly not be in accordance with R. Judah, for he stated that in the case of slaves no Degradation need be paid. Again, it could not be in accordance with R. Simeon, since he holds that where the offender intended to insult one person and by an accident insulted another person he would be exempt, the reason being that this might be likened to murder, and just as in the case of murder there is no liability unless where the intention was for the particular person killed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As indeed maintained by R. Simeon; cf. Sanh. 79a and supra p. 252. ');">²⁴</span> as it is written: 'And lie in wait for him and rise up against him'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 11. ');">²⁵</span> [implying, according to R. Simeon, that there would be no liability] unless where he aimed at him particularly, so should it also be in the case of Degradation, that no liability should be imposed on the offender unless where he aimed at the person insulted, as it is written: 'And she putteth forth her hand and taketh him by the secrets'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXV, 11. ');">²⁶</span> [which might similarly imply that there should be no liability] unless where the offence was directed at the person insulted. [Who then was the Tanna of the teaching referred to above]? — It might still be said that he was R. Judah, for the statement made by R. Judah that in the case of slaves there would be no liability for Degradation means only that no payment will be made to them, though in the matter of appraisement we can still base the assessment on them. Or if you like I may say that you may even regard the teaching as being in accordance with R. Meir, for why should you think that gadol means 'great in possessions' and katon means 'small in possessions', and not rather that gadol means an actual gadol [i.e. one who is of age] and katon means an actual katon [i.e. a minor]? But is a minor subject to suffer Degradation? — Yes, as elsewhere stated by R. Papa, that if where he is reminded of some insult he feels abashed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 86b. ');">²⁷</span> [he is subject to Degradation] so also here

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 171:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.