Bava Kamma 195

ואי מחמת תרעא זיל לא מנכינן ליה

but if it was through the market supplies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., through the supply surpassing the demand. ');">¹</span> that prices dropped, we would not have to deduct anything. Still,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Even if the drop in the prices was due to the latter cause.] ');">²</span>

והא קא שבח לענין נסכא אלא כי הא דרב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע עבדי עובדא בזוזי דאגרדמיס טייעא עד י' בתמניא

would the creditor not derive a benefit from the additional metal? — [We must] therefore [act] like R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua who gave judgment in an action about coins, according to [the information<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [That ten old coins had the weight of eight new ones.] ');">³</span> of] an Arabian agoran,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Market commissioner. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבה הזורק מטבע של חבירו לים הגדול פטור מאי טעמא אמר הא מנח קמך אי בעית שקליה והני מילי בצלולין דקא חזי ליה אבל עכורין דלא קחזי ליה לא והני מילי דאדייה אדויי אבל שקליה בידיה מיגזל גזליה השבה בעי מיעבד

that the debtor should pay for ten old coins [only] eight new ones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, however, the increase in weight was less than 25%, the new coins paid would have to be equal in number to the old ones; so Rashi; Tosaf. explains differently. ');">⁵</span> Rabbah stated: He who throws a coin of another [even] into the ocean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the great sea', the Mediterranean. ');">⁶</span>

מתיב רבא אין מחללין על מעות שאינן ברשותו כיצד היו לו מעות בקסטרא או בהר המלך או שנפל כיסו לים הגדול אין מחללין אמר רבה שאני לענין מעשר דבעינן מצוי בידך דרחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך וליכא

is exempt, the reason being that he can say to him, 'Here it lies before you, if you are anxious to have it take it.' This applies, however, only where [the water was] clear so that it could be seen, but if it was so muddy that the coin could not be seen this would not be so. Again, this holds good only where the throwing was merely indirectly caused by him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [On the principle that damage caused by indirect action is not actionable.] ');">⁷</span> but if he took it in his hand he would surely have already become subject to the law of robbery<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. V, 23. ');">⁸</span>

ואמר רבה השף מטבע של חבירו פטור מאי טעמא דהא לא עבד ולא מידי וה"מ דמחייה בקורנסא וטרשיה אבל שייפא בשופינא חסורי חסריה

and as such would have been liable to make [proper] restitution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. V, 23. ');">⁸</span> Raba raised an objection [from the following:] 'Redemption [of the second tithe] cannot be made by means of money not in one's actual possession, such as if he had money in Castra or in the King's Mountain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Har-ha-Melek, also known as Tur Malka. There is still a good deal of uncertainty in regard to the identification of these two localities. Buchler JQR. 1904. 181 ff. maintains that the reference in both cases is to Roman fortifications, access to which was barred to the Jews, the former being simply the Roman Castra, the latter, a fortification situated somewhere in Upper Idumea. For other views, v. Schlatter, Tage Trojans, p. 28, and Neubauer, Geographie, p. 196.] ');">⁹</span>

מתיב רבא הכהו על עינו וסמאה על אזנו וחרשו עבד יוצא בהן לחירות כנגד עינו ואינו רואה כנגד אזנו ואינו שומע אין עבד יוצא בהן לחירות

or if his purse fell into the ocean; no redemption could then be effected'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' M.Sh. I, 2. Now, if coins thrown into the ocean are not considered as lost to the owner, as indeed suggested by Rabbah. why should no redemption be effected? ');">¹⁰</span> — Said Rabbah: The case [of redemption] of tithe is different, as it is required there that the money should be [to all intents and purposes] actually in your hand, for the Divine Law says, And bind up the money in thy hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 25. ');">¹¹</span>

רבה לטעמיה דאמר רבה חרשו לאביו נהרג שאי אפשר לחרישה בלא חבורה דטפתא דדמא נפלת ליה באוניה

which is lacking in this case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of which no redemption could be effected. ');">¹²</span> Rabbah further said: One who disfigures a coin belonging to another is exempt, the reason being that he did not do anything [to reduce the substance of the coin]. This of course applies only where he knocked on it with a hammer and so made it flat, but where he rubbed the stamp off with a file he certainly diminished its substance [and would thus be liable]. Raba raised an objection [from the following:] 'Where [the master] struck [the slave] upon the eye and blinded him or upon the ear and deafened him the slave would on account of that go out free,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Ex. XXI, 26-27. ');">¹³</span>

ואמר רבה הצורם אוזן פרתו של חבירו פטור מאי טעמא פרה כדקיימא קיימא דלא עבד ולא מידי וכולהו. שוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי

but [where he struck on an object which was] opposite the slave's eye and 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',' Supra 91a. Does this not prove that even where the substance was not reduced, such as in the case of deafening, still so long as the damage was done there is liability? ');">¹⁴</span> — Rabbah, however, follows his own reasoning, for Rabbah stated: He who makes his father deaf is subject to be executed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As having committed the capital offence of Ex. XXI. 25, v. supra 86a. ');">¹⁵</span>

מתיב רבא העושה מלאכה במי חטאת ובפרת חטאת פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים מלאכה הוא דלא מינכר היזיקה אבל צורם דמינכר היזיקה הכי נמי דמחייב בדיני אדם

for it is impossible to cause deafness without first making a bruise through which a drop of blood falls into the ear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And for the same reason the slave would be set free.] ');">¹⁶</span> And Rabbah [further] stated: He who splits the ear of another's cow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendering her thus disqualified as blemished for the altar; cf. Lev. XXII, 20-25. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמרי הוא הדין דאפילו צורם פטור והא קא משמע לן דאפילו מלאכה דלא מינכר היזיקה חייב בדיני שמים

is exempt, the reason being that [so far as the value of] the cow [is concerned it] remains as it was before, for he did not do anything [to reduce it], since not all oxen are meant to be sacrificed upon the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 66a. ');">¹⁸</span> Raba raised an objection [from the following]: If he did work with the water of Purification or with the Heifer of Purification he would be exempt according to the judgments of Man but liable according to the judgments of Heaven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the 'red heifer' rendering it thus disqualified in accordance with Num. XIX. 2 and 9. ');">¹⁹</span>

ואמר רבה השורף שטרו של חבירו פטור דאמר ליה ניירא קלאי מינך מתקיף לה רמי בר חמא היכי דמי

Now surely this is so only where mere work was done with it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 56a. ');">²⁰</span> in which case the damage [done to it] is not noticeable, whereas in the case of splitting where the damage is noticeable there would also be liability according to the judgments of Man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contradicting the view of Rabbah. ');">²¹</span> — It may, however, be said that the same law would apply in the case of splitting, where he would similarly be exempt [according to the judgments of Man], and that what we are told here is that even in the case of mere work where the damage is not noticeable there would still be liability according to the judgments of Heaven. Rabbah further stated: If one destroyed by fire the bond of a creditor he would be exempt, because he can say to him, 'It was only a mere piece of paper of yours that I have burnt.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 33b. ');">²²</span> Rami b. Hania demurred: What are the circumstances?