Bava Kamma 180

זה הכלל הכל לפי כבודו אמר ר' עקיבא אפי' עניים שבישראל רואין אותם כאילו הם בני חורין שירדו מנכסיהם שהם בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב

THIS IS THE GENERAL PRACTICE, THOUGH ALL DEPENDS UPON THE DIGNITY [OF THE INSULTED PERSON]. R. AKIBA SAID THAT EVEN THE POOR IN ISRAEL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS IF THEY ARE FREEMEN REDUCED IN CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR IN FACT THEY ALL ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.M. VIII, 1. ');">¹</span>

ומעשה באחד שפרע ראש האשה בשוק באת לפני רבי עקיבא וחייבו ליתן לה ארבע מאות זוז אמר לו רבי תן לי זמן ונתן לו זמן

IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A CERTAIN PERSON UNCOVERED THE HEAD OF A WOMAN IN THE MARKET PLACE AND WHEN SHE CAME BEFORE R. AKIBA, HE ORDERED THE OFFENDER TO PAY HER FOUR HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>. THE LATTER SAID TO HIM, 'RABBI, ALLOW ME TIME [IN WHICH TO CARRY OUT THE JUDGMENT];' R. AKIBA ASSENTED AND FIXED A TIME FOR HIM. HE WATCHED HER UNTIL HE SAW HER STANDING OUTSIDE THE DOOR OF HER COURTYARD, HE THEN BROKE IN HER PRESENCE A PITCHER WHERE THERE WAS OIL OF THE VALUE OF AN ISAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A small coin; v. Glos. ');">²</span>

שמרה עומדת על פתח חצרה ושבר את הכד בפניה ובו כאיסר שמן גילתה את ראשה והיתה מטפחת ומנחת ידה על ראשה

AND SHE UNCOVERED HER HEAD AND COLLECTED THE OIL WITH HER PALMS AND PUT HER HANDS UPON HER HEAD [TO ANOINT IT]. HE THEN SET UP 'WITNESSES AGAINST HER AND CAME TO R. AKIBA AND SAID TO HIM: HAVE I TO GIVE SUCH A WOMAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had herself for the mere value of an isar, publicly uncovered her own head. ');">³</span>

העמיד עליה עדים ובא לפני רבי עקיבא א"ל לזו אני נותן ד' מאות זוז

FOUR HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>?' BUT R. AKIBA SAID TO HIM: 'YOUR ARGUMENT IS OF NO LEGAL EFFECT, FOR WHERE ONE INJURES ONESELF THOUGH FORBIDDEN, HE IS EXEMPT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From any pecuniary punishment. ');">⁴</span>

א"ל לא אמרת כלום החובל בעצמו אף על פי שאינו רשאי פטור אחרים שחבלו בו חייבים והקוצץ נטיעותיו אף על פי שאינו רשאי פטור אחרים חייבין:

YET, WERE OTHERS TO INJURE HIM, THEY WOULD BE LIABLE: SO ALSO HE WHO CUTS DOWN HIS OWN PLANTS, THOUGH NOT ACTING LAWFULLY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XX, 19. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו מנה צורי תנן או מנה מדינה תנן

IS EXEMPT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From any pecuniary punishment. ');">⁴</span>

תא שמע דההוא גברא דתקע ליה לחבריה אתא לקמיה דר' יהודה נשיאה אמר ליה הא אנא הא ר' יוסי הגלילי הב ליה מנה צורי ש"מ מנה צורי תנן ש"מ

YET WERE OTHERS TO [DO IT], THEY WOULD BE LIABLE.

מאי הא אנא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי אילימא ה"ק ליה הא אנא דחזיתך והא ר' יוסי הגלילי דאמר מנה צורי זיל הב ליה מנה צורי למימרא דעד נעשה דיין

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It was asked: Is it a Tyrian <i>maneh</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consisting of twenty-five sela's, v. supra p. 204. n. 4. ');">⁶</span>

והתניא סנהדרין שראו אחד שהרג את הנפש מקצתן נעשו עדים ומקצתן נעשו דיינין דברי רבי טרפון ר' עקיבא אומר כולם עדים הם ואין עד נעשה דיין

of which the Mishnaic text speaks or is it only a local <i>maneh</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was only an eighth part of a Tyrian maneh; cf. supra p. 204. ');">⁷</span>

עד כאן לא קאמר ר' טרפון אלא דמקצתן נעשו עדים ומקצתן נעשו דיינין אבל עד נעשה דיין לא קאמר

which is referred to? — Come and hear: A certain person boxed another's ear and the case was brought before R. Judah Nesi'ah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Judah II, the Prince. ');">⁸</span>

כי תניא ההיא כגון שראו בלילה דלא למעבד דינא נינהו

He said to him: 'Here I am and here is also R. Jose the Galilean, so that you have to pay the plaintiff a Tyrian <i>maneh</i>.' Does this not show that it is a Tyrian <i>maneh</i> which is spoken of in the text? — It does.

ואיבעית אימא הכי קאמר ליה הא אנא דסבירא לי כרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר מנה צורי והא סהדי דמסהדי בך זיל הב ליה מנה צורי

What is the meaning of, 'Here I am, and here is also R. Jose the Galilean'? If you say he meant, 'Here I am who witnessed you [doing this] and here is also R. Jose the Galilean who holds that the payment should be a Tyrian <i>maneh</i>; go therefore and thus pay him a Tyrian maneh', would this not imply that a witness is eligible to act [also] as judge? But [how can this be, since] it was taught: If the members of the Sanhedrin saw a man killing another, some of them should act as witnesses and the others should act as judges: this is the opinion of R. Tarfon. R. Akiba [on the other hand] said that all of them are considered witnesses and [they thus cannot act as judges, for] a witness may not act as a judge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 34b; B.B. 114a. ');">⁹</span>

וסבר רבי עקיבא דאין עד נעשה דיין

Now, even R. Tarfon surely did not mean more than that a part of them should act as witnesses and the others act as judges, but did he ever say that a witness [giving evidence] should be able to act as judge? — The ruling there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of Sanhedrin witnessing a murder. ');">¹⁰</span>

והתניא (שמות כא, יח) והכה איש את רעהו באבן או באגרוף שמעון התימני אומר מה אגרוף מיוחד שמסור לעדה ולעדים אף כל שמסור לעדה ולעדים פרט לשיצתה מתחת יד העדים

[that witnesses actually giving evidence would not be eligible to act at the same time as judges] referred only to a case such as where e.g., they saw the murder taking place at night time when they were unable to act in a judicial capacity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As judgments could be passed only at day time; cf. Sanh. IV, 1. [But where witnessed during the daytime, they can immediately act in the dual capacity of judges and witnesses.] ');">¹¹</span>

אמר לו ר"ע וכי בפני ב"ד הכהו שיודעין כמה הכהו ועל מה הכהו אם על שוקו או ציפר נפשו

Or if you like I may say that what R. Judah Nesi'ah said to the offender was, 'Since I am here who concur with R. Jose the Galilean who stated that a Tyrian <i>maneh</i> should be paid, and since there are here witnesses testifying against you, go and pay the plaintiff a Tyrian <i>maneh</i>.'

ועוד הרי שדחף את חבירו מראש הגג או מראש הבירה ומת בית דין הולכין אצל בירה או בירה הולכת אצל בית דין ועוד אם נפלה חוזר ובונה

Does R. Akiba really maintain that a witness cannot [at the same time] act as judge? But it has been taught: [As Scripture says] And one smite another with a stone or with his fist,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 18. ');">¹²</span>

אלא מה אגרוף מיוחד שהוא מסור לעדים אף כל שהוא מסור לעדים

Simeon the Temanite remarked that just as a fist is a concrete object that can be submitted for examination to the assembly of the judges and the witnesses, so also it is necessary that all other instruments should be able to be submitted [for consideration] to the assembly of the judges and the witnesses, which excludes the case where the instrument of killing disappeared from under the hands of the witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Though the witnesses had an opportunity of examining the killing instrument, where the Judges had no such opportunity, no death penalty can be passed.] ');">¹³</span>

פרט לכשיצתה אבן מתחת ידו של מכה פטור

Said R. Akiba to him: [Even if the instrument was placed before the judges], yet did the actual killing take place before the judges of the Court of Law that they should be expected to know how many times the murderer struck the victim, or again the part of the body upon which he struck him, whether it was upon his thigh or upon the tip of the heart? Again, supposing the murderer threw a man down from the top of a roof or from the top of a mansion house so that the victim died, would the court of law have to go to the mansion or would the mansion have to go to the court of law? Again, if the mansion meanwhile collapsed, would it be necessary to erect it anew [as it was before for the inspection of the court of law]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In which case the court relies on the examination made by the witnesses; v. Tosef. Sanh. XII.] ');">¹⁴</span>

קתני מיהת אמר לו רבי עקיבא וכי בפני ב"ד הכהו שיודעין כמה הכהו הא הכהו בפניהם עד נעשה דיין

We must therefore say that just as a fist is a definite object that was placed before the sight of witnesses [when the murder was committed] so also it is necessary that all other instruments should have been placed before the sight of the witnesses, which excludes the case where the instrument of killing disappeared from under the hand of the murderer who is thus free.' We see then that R. Akiba said to him, 'did the actual killing take place before the judges of the Court of Law that they should be expected to know how many times the murderer struck the victim&nbsp;…?' which would imply that if he had killed him in their presence, [they who were the] witnesses would have been able to act as judges! — He was arguing from the point of view of R. Simeon the Temanite but this was not his own opinion.

לדבריו דרבי שמעון התימני קאמר וליה לא סבירא ליה:

Our Rabbis taught: 'If an ox while still <i>Tam</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁵</span>

תנו רבנן שור תם שהמית והזיק דנין אותו דיני נפשות ואין דנין אותו דיני ממונות

killed [a person] and subsequently also did damage, the judges will adjudicate on the loss of life<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXI, 28. ');">¹⁶</span>

מועד שהמית והזיק דנין אותו דיני ממונות וחוזרין ודנין אותו דיני נפשות קדמו ודנוהו דיני נפשות אין חוזרין ודנין אותו דיני ממונות

but will not adjudicate on the pecuniary damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. 35. ');">¹⁷</span>

וכי קדמו ודנוהו דיני נפשות מאי הוי ליהדר ולידייניה נמי ממונות

In the case however of <i>Mu'ad</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רבא אשכחתינהו לרבנן דבי רב דיתבי וקאמרי הא מני ר"ש התימני היא דאמר מה אגרוף מיוחד שמסור לעדה ולעדים

killing a person and subsequently doing damage the judges will first deal with the pecuniary matter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. 36. ');">¹⁹</span> and then adjudicate on the loss of life.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. 29-30. ');">²⁰</span> But if [for some reason or other], they have already adjudicated on the capital matter it would no more be possible to start dealing with the pecuniary matter.' But even if they first adjudicated on the capital matter, what has happened that it should no more be possible for them to start dealing with the pecuniary matter? Raba said: 'I found the Rabbis at the School of Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 487. ');">²¹</span> sitting and stating that this teaching follows the view of R. Simeon the Temanite who said that just as a fist is a definite object which can be submitted to the consideration of the assembly of the judges and the witnesses,