Bava Kamma 8

Chapter 8

א הכא נמי תני אדם שמירת גופו עליו
1 that here also it is to be understood that the control of man's body is his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnaic wording refers to the other categories. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> R. Mari, however, demurred: Say perhaps <i>MAB'EH</i> denotes water [doing damage], as it is written, <i>As when the melting fire burneth, fire</i> tib'eh [<i>causeth to bubble</i>] <i>water</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LXIV, 1. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב מתקיף לה רב מרי ואימא מבעה זה המים כדכתיב (ישעיהו סד, א) כקדוח אש המסים מים תבעה אש מי כתיב מים נבעו תבעה אש כתיב
2 — Is it written, <i>'Water bubbles'</i>? It is written, <i>Fire causes bubbling</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the term 'tib'eh' describes not the act of water but that of fire. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> R. Zebid demurred: Say then that <i>MAB'EH</i> denotes Fire, as it is fire to which the act of 'tib'eh' in the text is referred? — If this be so what is then the explanation of THE <i>MAB'EH</i> AND THE FIRE? If you suggest the latter to be the interpretation of the former,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mab'eh and the Fire will thus constitute one and the same kind of damage. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג מתקיף לה רב זביד ואימא מבעה זה האש דכי כתיב תבעה באש הוא דכתיב אי הכי מאי המבעה וההבער וכי תימא פרושי קמפרש אי הכי ארבעה שלשה הוו
3 then instead of 'FOUR' there will be 'three'? If however, you suggest that OX constitutes two [kinds of damage],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the other two will be: Pit and Fire. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> then what will be the meaning of [the Mishnaic text]: NOR ARE THE ASPECTS OF EITHER OF THEM [OX and <i>MAB'EH</i>] IN WHICH THERE IS LIFE? Is there any life in fire? Again, what will be conveyed by [the concluding clause] AS THOSE OF THE FIRE?
ד וכי תימא תנא שור דאית ביה תרתי אי הכי לא זה וזה שיש בהן רוח חיים אש מאי רוח חיים אית ביה ותו מאי כהרי האש
4 R. Oshaia: taught There are thirteen principal categories of damage: The Unpaid Bailee and the Borrower, the Paid Bailee and the Hirer, Depreciation, Pain [suffered]. Healing, Loss of Time, Degradation and the Four enumerated in the Mishnah, thus making [a total of] thirteen. Why did our Tanna mention [only the Four and] not the others? According to Samuel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who takes Mab'eh to denote Tooth and not Man; supra p. 9. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> this presents no difficulty, as the Mishnah mentions only damage committed by one's possessions and not that committed by one's person, but according to Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who takes Mab'eh to denote Man; supra p. 9. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ה תני רב אושעיא שלשה עשר אבות נזיקין שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר נזק צער וריפוי שבת ובושת וארבעה דמתני' הא תליסר
5 let the Mishnah also mention the others? — In the mention of Man all kinds of damage committed by him are included. But does not R. Oshaia also mention Man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does he not include in Man all kinds of damage committed by him? ');"><sup>8</sup></span> — Two kinds of damage could result from Man: Man injuring man is treated as one subject, and Man damaging chattel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cattle'. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ו ותנא דידן מ"ט לא תני הני בשלמא לשמואל בנזקי ממון קמיירי בנזקי גופו לא קמיירי אלא לרב ליתני תנא אדם וכל מילי דאדם
6 as another. If this be so let R. Oshaia similarly reckon Ox twice, as two kinds of damage could result also from Ox: [i] Ox damaging chattel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cattle'. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ז ולר' אושעיא נמי הא תני ליה אדם תרי גווני אדם תנא אדם דאזיק אדם ותנא אדם דאזיק שור
7 and [ii] Ox injuring man? — But is that a logical argument? It is quite proper to reckon Man in this manner as Man damaging chattel pays only for Depreciation, while Man injuring man may also have to pay for four other kinds of damage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Pain, Healing, Loss of Time and Degradation. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> but how can Ox be thus reckoned when the liability for damage done by it to either man or chattel is alike and is confined to [only one kind of damage, i.e.] Depreciation?
ח אי הכי שור נמי ליתני תרי גווני שור ליתני שור דאזיק שור וליתני שור דאזיק אדם
8 But behold, are not the Unpaid Bailee and the Borrower, the Paid Bailee and the Hirer, within the sphere of Man damaging chattel and they are nevertheless reckoned by R. Oshaia? — Direct damage and indirect damage are treated by him independently. R. Hiyya taught: There are twenty-four principal kinds of damage: Double Payment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As fine for theft; cf. Ex. XXII, 3. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ט האי מאי בשלמא אדם דאזיק שור נזק הוא דמשלם אדם דאזיק אדם משלם ארבעה דברים אלא שור מה לי שור דאזיק שור מה לי שור דאזיק אדם אידי ואידי נזק הוא דמשלם
9 Fourfold or Fivefold Payment,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Fines for the slaughter or sale of a stolen sheep and ox respectively; cf. Ex. XXI, 37. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> Theft,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the restoration of stolen goods or the payment of their value. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
י והא שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר דאדם דאזיק שור הוא וקתני
10 Robbery,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the unlawful acquisition of chattels by violence; cf. Lev, V, 23. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> False Evidence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XIX, 19; v. Mak. I. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יא תני הזיקא דבידים וקתני הזיקא דממילא
11 Rape,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., fifty shekels of silver; cf. Deut. XXII, 28-29. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> Seduction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXII, 15-16. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יב תני ר' חייא עשרים וארבעה אבות נזיקין תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה וגנב וגזלן ועדים זוממין
12 Slander,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a defaming husband; v. Deut. XXII, 13-19. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Defilement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of terumah (v. Glos.) which makes it unfit for human consumption. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יג והאונס והמפתה ומוציא שם רע והמטמא והמדמע והמנסך והני תליסר הא עשרים וארבעה
13 Adulteration,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of ordinary grain with that of terumah restricting thereby the use of the mixture to priestly families. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> Vitiation of wine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through idolatrous application by means of libation which renders all the wine in the barrel unfit for any use whatsoever; the last three heads of damage are dealt with in Git. V, 3. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יד ורבי אושעיא מאי טעמא לא תני הני בממונא קמיירי בקנסא לא קמיירי
14 and the thirteen enumerated above by R. Oshaia,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 13. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> thus making [the total] twenty-four.
טו גנב וגזלן דממונא הוא ליתני הא קתני ליה שומר חנם והשואל
15 Why did not R. Oshaia reckon the twenty-four? — He dealt only with damage involving civil liability but not with that of a punitive nature. But why omit Theft and Robbery which also involve civil liability? — These kinds of damage may be included in the Unpaid Bailee and the Borrower.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when these are guilty of larceny; cf. Ex. XXII, 7. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> Why then did not R. Hiyya comprehend the former in the latter? — He reckoned them separately, as in the one case the possession of the chattel was acquired lawfully,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the case of the Unpaid Bailee and Borrower. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
טז ורבי חייא נמי הא תנא ליה שומר חנם והשואל תני ממונא דאתא לידיה בהיתירא וקתני ממונא דאתא לידיה באיסורא
16 while in the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the case of Theft and Robbery. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> the acquisition was unlawful. [Why did not R. Oshaia]
Previous ChapterNext Chapter