Responsa for Bava Kamma 175:2
א"ר יוסי בר חנינא שפצעה בפניה ואפחתה מכספה:
whereas regarding mere wounding, through which her pecuniary value would not [usually] decrease there was never any question [that the compensation would not go to the father. How then could R. Johanan speak of mere wounding?] — R. Jose b. Hanina replied: We suppose the wound to have been made in her face, thus causing her pecuniary value to be decreased. ONE WHO INJURES A CANAANITE SLAVE BELONGING TO ANOTHER PERSON IS [SIMILARLY] LIABLE FOR ALL [FIVE ITEMS]. R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT NO DEGRADATION IS PAID IN THE CASE OF [CANAANITE] SLAVES. What is the reason of R. Judah? — As Scripture says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 11. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Rabbi Samuel of Eisenach, a relative of R. Meir, permitted the eating of ritually slaughtered chickens with which a trefah chicken was mixed up. He based his decision on an opinion he said he had received from R. Jacob, that the law stated in Mishna Ab. Z. 5, 9, and interpreted in the Talmud Ab. Z. 74a, is the accepted law governing mixtures. This talmudic interpretation implies, that only objects possessing both characteristics: a) items usually sold by the piece, and b) forbidden objects, the profitable use of which is prohibited (issurei hanaah), are never neutralized in a mixture. However, objects lacking one of these characteristics do become neutralized in the proper mixture.
R. Meir took issue with R. Samuel, pointing out, that the accepted authorities never mention the foregoing view as the final law. On the contrary, these authorities decide that items usually sold by the piece, even though they be not forbidden objects the profitable use of which is prohibited, are never neutralized. Moreover, R. Samuel contradicted himself and ruled that a "piece fit to be offered a guest", even though it be not issurei hanaah, is not neutralized; but a whole chicken is also considered "a piece fit to be offered a guest". R. Meir, therefore, pleads with R. Samuel to acknowledge his mistake, and change his decision, lest it become a misleading precedent which may be followed by future generations.
SOURCES: Cr. 14; Am I, 75.
R. Meir took issue with R. Samuel, pointing out, that the accepted authorities never mention the foregoing view as the final law. On the contrary, these authorities decide that items usually sold by the piece, even though they be not forbidden objects the profitable use of which is prohibited, are never neutralized. Moreover, R. Samuel contradicted himself and ruled that a "piece fit to be offered a guest", even though it be not issurei hanaah, is not neutralized; but a whole chicken is also considered "a piece fit to be offered a guest". R. Meir, therefore, pleads with R. Samuel to acknowledge his mistake, and change his decision, lest it become a misleading precedent which may be followed by future generations.
SOURCES: Cr. 14; Am I, 75.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy