Bava Kamma 181

אלמא בעינן אומדנא דבי דינא והא כיון דגמר דינא לקטלא לא משהינן ליה לאומדנא דבי דינא ולא מענינן לדיניה

[so also all other instruments should be able to be submitted to the consideration of the assembly of the judges and the witnesses], which shows that the inspection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'estimation'. ');">¹</span>

ואמינא להו אנא אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שברח

[of the instrument] by the Court of Law is essential [before any liability can be imposed]; and in this case where the sentence has already been passed on the ox to be stoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to be killed'. ');">²</span>

אי ברח כי לא דנוהו דיני נפשות היכי דיינינא ליה דיני ממונות בלא בעלים דקביל סהדי וברח

it would not be possible to keep the ox for inspection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'estimation'. ');">¹</span>

סוף סוף מהיכא משתלם מרידיא אי הכי תם נדייניה דיני ממונות ברישא ונשתלם מרידיא והדר נדייניה דיני נפשות

by the Court of Law, as we could not delay<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 222, and notes. ');">³</span>

אמר רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא זאת אומרת רידייא עלייה דמרה הוא:

the execution of the judgment. I said to them: 'You may even say that the teaching follows the view of R. Akiba, for we may have been dealing here with a case where the defendant ran away.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that in his absence we cannot adjudicate the matter. ');">⁴</span>

איבעיא להו יש אומד לנזקין או אין אומד לנזקין

But if the defendant ran away even in the case where the capital matter has not yet been adjudicated, how would it be possible to deal with the pecuniary matter in the absence of the defendant? — It was only after the evidence of the witnesses had already been accepted that he ran away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case though judgment could be passed regarding the pecuniary liability it is of no use to do so as the defendant when running away took all available funds with him. ');">⁵</span>

מי אמרינן לקטלא הוא דאמדינן בהכי נפקא נשמה בהכי לא נפקא נשמה אבל לנזקין כל דהו או דלמא לא שנא

Be that as it may, whence could the payment come<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case where the capital matter has not yet been adjudicated. ');">⁶</span>

ת"ש מה בור שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים אף כל שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים היו פחותין מעשרה טפחים ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת פטור הוזק בו חייב

[since the defendant ran away]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With all his available funds. ');">⁷</span>

מאי לאו ממטה למעלה קא חשיב והכי קאמר מטפח ועד עשרה מיתה ליכא נזקין איכא אלמא לנזקין כל דהו שמע מינה אין אומדין לנזקין

— Out of the hire obtained from ploughing [done by the ox]. But if so, why also in the case of <i>Tam</i>, should the pecuniary matter not be adjudicated first and the payment made out of the hire obtained from ploughing, and then adjudicate the capital matter? — Said R. Mari the son of R. Kahana: This indeed proves that the hire obtained from ploughing forms a part of the general estate of the owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And could thus not become subject to be paid for damages in the case of Tam, where payment could only be made out of its own body; cf. supra p. 73. [The plaintiff, however, could not take the ox itself in payment as it is to be stoned. V. Tosaf.] ');">⁸</span>

לא ממעלה למטה קא חשיב והכי קאמר עשרה מיתה איכא פחות מעשרה פורתא נזקין איתא מיתה ליכא ולעולם אימא לך יש אומד לנזקין וכל מידי ומידי כי היכי דמיתזקה ביה בעינן

The question was raised: Is an inspection [of the instrument] essential also in the case of mere damage, or is no inspection necessary in the case of mere damage? Shall we say that it is only regarding murder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XXXV, 17, 18 and 23. ');">⁹</span>

תא שמע הכהו על עינו וסימאו על אזנו וחירשו עבד יוצא בהן לחירות כנגד עינו ואינו רואה כנגד אזנו ואינו שומע אין עבד יוצא בהן לחירות מאי טעמא לאו משום דבעינן אומדנא ושמע מינה יש אומדנא לנזקין

that we have to inspect the instrument, as by means of one instrument life could be taken, while by means of another life could not be taken, whereas regarding mere damage any instrument would be sufficient, or is there perhaps no difference? — Come and hear: 'Just as Pit can cause death because it is usually ten handbreadths [deep], so also [other similar nuisances] should be such as can cause death, [i.e.,] ten handbreadths [deep]. If, however, they were less than ten handbreadths [deep] and an ox or an ass fell into them and died there would be exemption, but if only injured by them there would be liability.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 50b. ');">¹⁰</span>

לא משום דאמרינן הוא דאבעית נפשיה כדתניא המבעית את חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים כיצד תקע באזנו וחירשו פטור אחזו ותקע באזנו וחירשו חייב

Is not the Tanna here reckoning upwards — so that what he says is that a pit of a depth of from one handbreadth to ten handbreadths could not cause death though it could cause damage, implying that a pit of any depth would involve liability in the case of mere damage and thus indicating that no inspection is necessary regarding mere damage? — No, he reckoned downwards, and thus meant to say that only a pit of ten handbreadths could cause death whereas a Pit a little less than ten handbreadths could cause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., is fit to cause. ');">¹¹</span>

ת"ש חמשה דברים אומדין אותו ונותנין לו מיד ריפוי ושבת עד שיתרפא אמדוהו והיה מתנונה והולך אין נותנין לו אלא כמו שאמדוהו

only damage and not death, so that it may therefore still be argued that inspection might be essential even regarding mere damage and that in each case it may be necessary that the instrument be such as would be fit to cause the particular damage done.

אמדוהו והבריא נותנין לו כל מה שאמדוהו ש"מ יש אומד לנזקין למימד גברא כמה ליקצר מיהא מכה כמה לא מקצר לא קא מבעי לן דודאי אמדינן כי קא מבעיא לן למימד חפצא אי עביד האי נזקא או לא מאי

Come and hear: If [the master] struck his slave on the eye and blinded him, or on his ear and deafened him, the slave would on account of that go out free,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXI, 26-27. ');">¹²</span>

ת"ש שמעון התימני אומר מה אגרוף מיוחד שמסור לעדה ולעדים אף כל מיוחד שמסור לעדה ולעדים שמע מינה יש אומד לנזקין שמע מינה:

but if he struck on an object which was opposite the slave's eye through which he lost his sight or on an object which was opposite his ear through which he lost his hearing, the slave would [on account of this] not go out free.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 24b; infra 88a. ');">¹³</span>

אמר מר אמדוהו והבריא נותנין לו כל מה שאמדוהו מסייע ליה לרבא דאמר רבא האי מאן דאמדוהו לכולי יומא ואיתפח לפלגא דיומא וקא עביד עבידתא יהבינן ליה דכולי יומא מן שמיא הוא דרחמי עליה:

Is not the reason of this that consideration of the instrument is required [before any liability can be imposed],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the act of the master in the second case is not considered a cause adequate to effect such a result. ');">¹⁴</span>

רקק והגיע בו הרוק והעביר כו': אמר רב פפא לא שנו אלא בו אבל בבגדו לא וניהוי כי בייש בדברים

which proves that the inspection of the instrument is essential also in the case of mere damage? — No; the reason is because we say that it was the slave who frightened himself, as taught: If a man frightens another he is exempt according to the judgments of Man but liable according to the judgments of Heaven; thus if he blew into his ear and deafened him he would be exempt, but if he actually took hold of his ear and blew into it and thus deafened him he would be liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. ibid, and cf. supra 56a. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבי יוסי בר אבין זאת אומרת ביישו בדברים פטור מכלום:

Come and hear: Regarding the Five Items,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enumerated Mishnah supra p. 473, ');">¹⁶</span>

הכל לפי כבודו [וכו']: איבעיא להו תנא קמא לקולא קאמר או לחומרא קאמר לקולא קאמר דאיכא עני דלא בעי למשקל כולי האי או דלמא לחומרא קאמר דאיכא עשיר דבעי למיתב ליה טפי

an estimation will be made and the payment made straight away, though Healing and Loss of Time will have to be estimated for the whole period until he completely recovers. If after the estimation was made his health continued to deteriorate, the payment will not be more than in accordance with the previous estimation. So also if after the estimation was made he recovered rapidly, payment will be made of the whole sum estimated. Does this not show that estimation is essential also in the case of mere damage? — That an estimate has to be made of the length of the illness likely to result from the wound<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'how long he is likely to suffer&nbsp;… and how long he will not.' ');">¹⁷</span>

תא שמע מדקאמר ר' עקיבא אפילו עניים שבישראל רואין אותן כאילו הן בני חורין שירדו מנכסיהם שהם בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב שמע מינה תנא קמא לקולא קאמר ש"מ:

has never been questioned by us, for it is certain that we would have to make such an estimation; the point which was doubtful to us was whether we estimate if the instrument was one likely to do that damage or not. What is indeed the law? — Come and hear: Simeon the Temanite said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra pp. 522-3 ');">¹⁸</span>

ומעשה באחד שפרע ראש האשה [וכו']: ומי יהבינן זמן והאמר רבי חנינא אין נותנין זמן לחבלות

that just as a fist is a definite object that can be submitted to the consideration of the assembly of the judges and the witnesses, so also all other instruments should be able to be submitted to the consideration of the assembly of the judges and the witnesses. Does this not show that the inspection of the instrument is essential even in the case of mere damage? — It does indeed.

כי לא יהבינן ליה זמן לחבלה דחסריה ממונא אבל לבושת דלא חסריה ממונא יהבינן:

The Master stated: 'So also if after the estimation was made he recovered rapidly payment will be made of the whole sum estimated.' This appears to support the view of Raba. For Raba said: An injured person whose illness was estimated to last the whole day but who, as it happened recovered in the middle of the day and performed his usual work, would still be paid for the whole day, as the unexpected recovery was an act of mercy especially bestowed upon him from Heaven.

שמרה עומדת על פתח חצירה וכו': והתניא אמר לו ר' עקיבא צללת במים אדירים והעלית חרס בידך אדם רשאי לחבל בעצמו

IF HE SPAT SO THAT THE SPITTLE REACHED HIM&nbsp;… HE HAS TO PAY FOUR HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>. R. Papa said: This Mishnaic ruling applies only where it reached him [his person], but if it reached only his garment this would not be so. But why should this not be equivalent to an insult in words? — It was stated in the West<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This usually represents R. Jeremiah.] Cf. Sanh. 17b. ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן בחבלה כאן בבושת והא מתניתין בבושת הוא

in the name of R. Jose b. Abin that this could indeed prove that where the insult was merely in words, there would be exemption from any liability whatsoever. ALL DEPENDS UPON THE DIGNITY … The question was raised: Did the first Tanna mean by this to mitigate or to aggravate the penalty? Did he mean to mitigate the penalty, so that a poor man would not have to be paid so much, or did he perhaps mean to aggravate the penalty, so that a rich man would have to be paid more? — Come and hear: Since R. Akiba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And yet R. Akiba does not impose more than four hundred zuz, the same amount as mentioned by the first Tanna.] ');">²⁰</span> stated THAT EVEN THE POOR IN ISRAEL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS IF THEY ARE FREEMEN WHO HAVE BEEN REDUCED IN CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR IN FACT THEY ALL ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB, does this not show that the first Tanna meant to mitigate the penalty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The figure 400 mentioned by him being a maximum whereas R. Akiba would award this amount to all alike.] ');">²¹</span> — It does indeed. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A CERTAIN PERSON UNCOVERED THE HEAD OF A WOMAN [IN THE MARKET PLACE&nbsp;… FIXED A TIME FOR HIM]. But is time allowed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the execution of a judgment. ');">²²</span> [in such a case]? Did R. Hanina not say that no time is granted in cases of injury? — No time is granted in the case of injury where there is an actual loss of money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sustained by the plaintiff. ');">²³</span> but in the case of Degradation, where there is no actual loss of money, time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the execution of a judgment. ');">²²</span> to pay may be granted. HE WATCHED UNTIL HE SAW HER STANDING OUTSIDE THE DOOR OF HER COURTYARD [… FOR IF ONE INJURES ONESELF, THOUGH IT IS FORBIDDEN TO DO SO&nbsp;…] But was it not taught: R. Akiba said to him, 'You have dived into the depths and have brought up a potsherd in your hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you have gone to a great amount of trouble which could however be of no practical avail. ');">²⁴</span> for a man may injure himself'? — Raba said: There is no difficulty, as the Mishnaic statement deals with actual injury, whereas the other text referred to Degradation. But surely the Mishnah deals with Degradation,