Bava Kamma 175

דאפחתה מכספה אבל פציעה דלא אפחתה מכספה לא קמיבעיא ליה

through which her pecuniary value is decreased,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a loss thus caused to the father. ');">¹</span>

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. ');">²</span>

החובל בעבד כנעני של אחרים חייב וכו': מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה אמר קרא (דברים כה, יא) כי ינצו אנשים יחדיו איש ואחיו במי שיש לו אחוה יצא עבד שאין לו אחוה ורבנן אחיו הוא במצות

'When men strive together one with another' the law applies to one who can claim brotherhood and thus excludes a slave who cannot claim brotherhood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 63. ');">³</span>

אלא מעתה לר' יהודה זוממי עבד לא יהרוגו דכתיב (דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו אמר רבא אמר רב ששת אמר קרא (דברים יט, יט) ובערת הרע מקרבך מכל מקום

And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The representatives of the anonymous opinion cited first in the Mishnah. ');">⁴</span>

אלא מעתה לרבנן עבד יהא כשר למלכות אמרי ולטעמיך תיקשי לך גר לדברי הכל אלא אמר קרא (דברים יז, טו) מקרב אחיך ממובחר שבאחיך

— They would say that even a slave is a brother in so far as he is subject to commandments. If this is so, would you say that according to R. Judah witnesses proved <i>zomemim</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where an alibi was proved against them; cf. Glos. ');">⁵</span>

אלא מעתה לרבנן יהא עבד כשר לעדות דכתיב (דברים יט, יח) והנה עד שקר העד שקר ענה באחיו

in a capital accusation against a slave would not be subject to be put to death in virtue of the words:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 19. ');">⁶</span>

אמר עולא עדות לא מצית אמרת אתיא עדות בקל וחומר מאשה ומה אשה שהיא ראויה לבא בקהל פסולה לעדות עבד שאינו ראוי לבא בקהל אינו דין שפסול לעדות

'Then shall ye do unto him as he had purposed to do unto his brother'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a slave according to R. Judah could not he considered a brother. ');">⁷</span>

מה לאשה שכן אינה ראויה למילה תאמר בעבד שהוא ראוי למילה קטן יוכיח שישנו במילה ופסול לעדות

— Raba said that R. Shesheth stated: The verse concludes:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 19. ');">⁶</span>

מה לקטן שאינו במצות תאמר בעבד שהוא במצות אשה תוכיח שישנה במצות ופסולה לעדות

'So shalt thou put away the evil from among you', implying 'on all accounts' — Would you say that according to the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who consider a slave a brother. ');">⁸</span>

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שכן אינן בכל המצות ופסולין להעיד אף אני אביא את העבד שאינו בכל המצות ופסול להעיד

a slave would be eligible to be chosen as king?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the text in Deut. XVII, is states, One from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee. ');">⁹</span>

מה להצד השוה שבהם שכן אינו איש תאמר בעבד שהוא איש

— I would reply: According to your reasoning would the same difficulty not arise regarding a proselyte, whichever view we accept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a proselyte is unanimously considered a brother. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא תיתי מגזלן מה לגזלן שכן מעשיו גרמו לו תאמר בעבד שאין מעשיו גרמו לו

unless we suppose that when Scripture says 'One from among thy brethren',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 15. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא תיתי מגזלן ומחד מהנך

it implies 'one of the choicest of thy brethren'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Yeb. 45b; [and for this reason a slave is not eligible for kingship, not because he is not considered a brother.] ');">¹²</span>

מר בריה דרבינא אמר אמר קרא (דברים כד, טז) לא יומתו אבות על בנים לא יומתו על פי אבות שאין להם חייס בנים דאי ס"ד כדאמרינן לא יומתו אבות על בנים בעדות בנים לכתוב רחמנא לא יומתו אבות על בניהם מאי בנים ש"מ דלא יומתו ע"פ אבות שאין להם חייס בנים

— But again would you now also say that according to the Rabbis, a slave would be eligible to give evidence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would not be in conformity with R. H. I., 8. ');">¹³</span>

אלא מעתה ובנים לא יומתו על אבות ה"נ לא יומתו ע"פ בנים שאין להם חייס אבות אלא גר ה"נ דפסול לעדות

since it says, And behold, if the witness be a false witness and hath testified falsely against his brother?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 18. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמרי הכי השתא גר נהי דאין לו חייס למעלה למטה יש לו חייס לאפוקי עבד דאין לו חייס לא למעלה ולא למטה

— 'Ulla replied: Regarding evidence you can surely not argue thus. For that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a slave. ');">¹⁵</span>

דאי סלקא דעתך גר פסול לעדות לכתוב רחמנא לא יומתו אבות על בניהם לכדאמרינן לא יומתו בעדות בנים ונכתוב רחמנא ובנים לא יומתו על אבות דשמעת מינה תרי חדא לא יומתו בנים בעדות אבות ואידך לא יומתו על פי בנים שאין להם חייס אבות

is disqualified from giving evidence can be learnt by means of an <i>a fortiori</i> from the law in the case of Woman: for if Woman who is eligible to enter [by marriage] into the congregation [of Israel] is yet ineligible to give evidence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shebu. 30a. ');">¹⁶</span>

ועבד נפקא ליה בקל וחומר מגר ומה גר דלמעלה הוא דאין לו חייס אבל למטה יש לו חייס פסול לעדות עבד שאין לו חייס לא למעלה ולא למטה אינו דין שיהא פסול לעדות

how much more must a slave who is not eligible to enter [by marriage] into the congregation [of Israel] be ineligible to give evidence? But why is Woman disqualified if not perhaps because she is not subject to the law of circumcision? How then can you assert the same In the case of a slave who is subject to circumcision?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Gen. XVII, 12 and Yeb. 48b. ');">¹⁷</span>

אלא מדכתב רחמנא לא יומתו אבות על בנים דמשמע לא יומתו על פי אבות שאין לו חייס בנים שמע מינה עבד שאין לו חייס לא למעלה ולא למטה הוא דפסול לעדות אבל גר כיון דיש לו חייס למטה כשר לעדות

— The case of a [male] minor will meet this objection, for in spite of his being subject to circumcision he is disqualified from giving evidence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.B. 155b. ');">¹⁸</span>

וכ"ת לכתוב רחמנא ובנים לא יומתו על אבותיהם למה לי דכתב רחמנא ובנים לא יומתו על אבות דמשמע לא יומתו על פי בנים שאין להם חיים אבות איידי דכתב לא יומתו אבות על בנים כתב נמי ובנים לא יומתו על אבות:

But why is a minor disqualified if not perhaps because he is not subject to commandments?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 250. ');">¹⁹</span>

חרש שוטה וקטן פגיעתן רעה: אימיה דרב שמואל בר אבא מהגרוניא הות נסיבא ליה לר' אבא כתבתינהו לנכסי לרב שמואל בר אבא ברה בתר דשכיבא

How then can you assert the same in the case of a slave who is subject to commandments?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the same way as a woman; cf. Hag. 4a. ');">²⁰</span> — The case of Woman will meet this objection, for though she is subject to commandments she is disqualified from giving evidence. The argument is thus endlessly reversible. There are features in the one instance which are not found in the other, and vice versa. The features common to both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in Woman and male Minor. ');">²¹</span> are that they are not subject to all the commandments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 29a. ');">²²</span> and that they are disqualified from giving evidence. I will therefore include with them a slave who also is not subject to all the commandments and should therefore also be disqualified from giving evidence. But why [I may ask] is the feature common to them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in Woman and male Minor. ');">²¹</span> that they are disqualified from giving evidence if not perhaps because neither of them is a man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a minor has not yet reached manhood. ');">²³</span> How then can you assert the same in the case of a slave who is a man? — You must therefore deduce the disqualification of a slave from the law applicable in the case of a robber.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who is disqualified from giving evidence though being a 'man' and eligible to enter by marriage into the Congregation; cf. Ex. XXIII, 1. ');">²⁴</span> But why is there this disqualification in the case of a robber if not because his own deeds caused it? How then can you assert the same in the case of a slave whose own deeds could surely not cause it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having done nothing criminal. ');">²⁵</span> — You must therefore deduce the disqualification of a slave from both the law applicable to a robber and the law applicable to either of these [referred to above].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a woman or male minor, the common feature being that they do not observe all commandments — the robber on account of his criminality, the woman or male minor because neither is subject to all the commandments. ');">²⁶</span> Mar, the son of Rabina, however, said: Scripture says: <i>'The fathers shall not be put to death through<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. 'for'. ');">²⁷</span></i> the children';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 16. ');">²⁸</span> from this it could be inferred that no sentence of capital punishment should be passed on [the evidence of] the mouth of [persons who if they were to be] fathers would have no legal paternity over their children.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as slaves; cf. supra p. 63. ');">²⁹</span> For if you assume that the verse is to be taken literally, 'fathers shall not be put to death through children', meaning, 'through the evidence of children', the Divine Law should have written 'Fathers shall not be put to death through their children'. Why then is it written 'children', unless to indicate that no sentence of capital punishment should be passed on [the evidence of] the mouth of [persons who if they were to be] fathers would have no legal paternity over their children? If that is so, would you also say that the concluding clause <i>'neither shall the children be put to death through the fathers'</i> similarly implies that no sentence of capital punishment should be passed on [the evidence of] the mouth of [witnesses who as] children would have no legal filiation with respect to their fathers, and therefore argue that a proselyte<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who has no legal filiation with respect to his ancestors; cf. Yeb. 62a. ');">³⁰</span> should similarly be disqualified from giving evidence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would not be in conformity with Nid. 49b. ');">³¹</span> — It may be said that there is no comparison: It is true that a proselyte has no legal relationship to his ancestors, still he has legal relationship with his descendants, [but we may therefore] exclude a slave who has relationships neither with ancestors nor with descendants. For if you should assume that a proselyte is disqualified from giving evidence, the Divine Law should surely have written: 'Fathers shall not be put to death through their children', which would mean what we stated, that they would not be put to death through the evidence of children, and after this the Divine Law should have written: <i>'Neither shall children be put to death through fathers,'</i> as from such a text you would have derived the two rules: one that children should not be put to death through the evidence of fathers and the other that no sentence of capital punishment should be passed on [the evidence of] the mouth of [witnesses who as] children have no legal filiation with respect to their fathers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would have excluded also a proselyte. ');">³²</span> The disqualification in the case of a slave would surely have been derived by means of an <i>a fortiori</i> from the law applicable to a proselyte: for if a proselyte, who has no legal relationship to his ancestors but has legal relationship to his descendants, is disqualified from giving evidence, how much more must a slave who has legal relationship neither to ancestors nor to descendants be disqualified from giving evidence? But since the Divine Law has written: 'Fathers shall not be put to death through children', which implies that no sentence of capital punishment should be passed on [the evidence of] the mouth of [witnesses who as] fathers would have no legal paternity over their children, we can derive from this that it is only a [Canaanite] slave who has relationship neither to ancestors nor to descendants that will be disqualified from giving evidence, whereas a proselyte will be eligible to give evidence on account of the fact that he has legal paternity over his children. If you object, why did the Divine Law not write: 'Neither shall children be put to death through their fathers', and why did the Divine Law write 'And neither shall children be put to death through fathers', which appears to imply that no sentence of capital punishment should be passed [on the evidence of] the mouth of [witnesses who as] children would have no legal filiation with respect to fathers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Excluding thus a proselyte.] ');">³³</span> [my answer is that] since it was written, 'Fathers shall not be put to death through children', it was further written, 'neither shall children be put to death through fathers.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And while the phraseology of the concluding clause follows that of the commencing clause it is not usual in Scripture that the commencing clause should alter its phraseology because of the style of the concluding clause. ');">³⁴</span> A DEAF, MUTE AN IDIOT AND A MINOR ARE AWKWARD TO DEAL WITH. The mother of R. Samuel b. Abba of Hagronia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 27, n. 1. ');">³⁵</span> was married to R. Abba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was not the father of R. Samuel as her former husband's name was also Abba. ');">³⁶</span> and bequeathed her possessions to R. Samuel b. Abba, her son. After her death