Bava Kamma 9

Chapter 9

א עדים זוממין דממונא הוא ליתני סבר לה כר"ע דאמר אין משלמין על פי עצמן
1 deal with False Evidence, the liability for which is also civil? — He holds the view of R. Akiba who maintains that the liability for False Evidence [is penal in nature and] cannot [consequently]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Penal liabilities are created only by means of impartial evidence and never by that of confession; cf. infra 64b. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב אי סבר ליה כר"ע ליתני תרי גווני שור ליתני שור דאזיק שור וליתני שור דאזיק אדם
2 be created by confession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mak. 2b. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג דתנן ר"ע אומר אף תם שחבל באדם משלם במותר נזק שלם
3 But if R. Oshaia follows R. Akiba why does he not reckon Ox as two distinct kinds of damage: Ox damaging chattel and Ox injuring men, for have we not learnt that R. Akiba said: A mutual injury arising between man and [ox even while a] <i>Tam</i> is assessed in full and the balance paid accordingly?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 179. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד הא תבריה ר"ע לגזיזיה דתניא ר"ע אומר יכול אף תם שחבל באדם ישלם מן העלייה תלמוד לומר (שמות כא, לא) יעשה לו מגופו משלם ואינו משלם מן העלייה
4 This distinction could, however, not be made, since it is elsewhere<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra pp. 180 and 240. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה האונס והמפתה והמוציא שם רע דממונא הוא ליתני
5 taught that R. Akiba himself has qualified this full payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'broke the [full] force of his club' (Jast.); Rashi: 'of his fist'. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו מה נפשך אי נזק תנא ליה אי צער תנא ליה אי בשת תנא ליה אי פגם היינו נזק מה אית לך למימר קנסא בקנסא לא קמיירי
6 For R. Akiba said: You might think that, in the case of <i>Tam</i> injuring man, payment should be made out of the general estate; it is therefore stated, [This judgment] shall be done unto it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI. 31. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז המטמא והמדמע והמנסך דממונא הוא ליתני
7 to emphasise that the payment should only be made out of the body of the <i>Tam</i> and not out of any other source whatsoever.
ח מה נפשך אי היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק הא תנא ליה נזק אי היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק הוה ליה קנסא ובקנסא לא קמיירי
8 Why did R. Oshaia omit Rape, Seduction and Slander, the liabilities for which are also civil?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Keth. 40a. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט לימא קסבר ר' חייא היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק דאי שמיה היזק הא תנא ליה נזק תנא היזקא דמינכרא ותנא היזקא דלא מינכרא
9 — What particular liability do you wish to refer to? If for actual loss, this has already been dealt with under Depreciation; if for suffering, this has already been dealt with under Pain; if for humiliation, this has already been dealt with under Degradation; if again for deterioration, this is already covered by Depreciation. What else then can you suggest? The Fine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut, XXII, 29; Ex. XXII, 6; and Deut. XXII, 19. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י בשלמא לתנא דידן תנא מניינא למעוטי דר' אושעיא ור' אושעיא תנא מניינא למעוטי דרבי חייא אלא מניינא דרבי חייא למעוטי מאי
10 With this [type of liability] R. Oshaia is not concerned.
יא למעוטי מוסר ומפגל
11 Why then omit Defilement, Adulteration and Vitiation of wine, the liabilities for which are civil? — What is your view in regard to intangible damage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Git. 53a. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יב וליתני בשלמא מפגל בקדשים לא קמיירי אלא מוסר מאי טעמא לא תני שאני מוסר דדיבורא ובדיבורא לא קמיירי
12 If [you consider] intangible damage a civil wrong, defilement has then already been dealt with under Depreciation; if on the other hand intangible damage is not a civil wrong, then any liability for it is penal in nature, with which R. Oshaia is not concerned.
יג והא מוציא שם רע דדיבורא הוא וקתני דיבורא דאית ביה מעשה הוא
13 Are we to infer that R. Hiyya considers intangible damage not to be a civil wrong? For otherwise would not this kind of damage already have been reckoned by him under Depreciation? — He may in any case have found it expedient to deal with tangible damage and intangible damage under distinct heads.
יד והא עדים זוממין דיבורא דלית ביה מעשה הוא וקתני התם אע"ג דלית ביה מעשה רחמנא קרייה מעשה דכתיב (דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו
14 It is quite conceivable that our Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Opening the Tractate. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
טו בשלמא לתנא דידן תנא אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות אלא לרבי חייא ורבי אושעיא אבות מכלל דאיכא תולדות תולדותיהן מאי ניהו
15 found it necessary to give the total number [of the principal kinds of damage] in order to exclude those of R. Oshaia;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the additional nine kinds enumerated by him supra p. 13. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
טז אמר רבי אבהו כולן כאבות לשלם ממיטב
16 the same applies to R. Oshaia who also gave the total number in order to exclude those of R. Hiyya;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the eleven added by him supra. p. 14. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יז מאי טעמא אתיא תחת נתינה ישלם כסף
17 but what could be excluded by the total number specified by R. Hiyya? — It is intended to exclude Denunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 62a and 117a. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יח לא הרי השור כהרי המבעה מאי קאמר אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא הכי קאמר לכתוב רחמנא חדא ותיתי אידך מיניה הדר אמר חדא מחדא לא אתיא
18 and Profanation of sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. VII, 18 and Zeb. I, 1 and II, 2-3. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יט ולא זה וזה שיש בהן רוח חיים מאי קאמר אמר רב משרשיא משמיה דרבא הכי קאמר
19 The exclusion of profanation is conceivable as sacrifices are not here reckoned; but why is Denunciation omitted? — Denunciation is in a different category on account of its verbal nature with which R. Hiyya is not concerned. But is not Slander of a verbal nature and yet reckoned? — Slander is something verbal but dependent upon some act.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consummation of the marriage rite according to R. Eliezer, or the bribery of false witnesses according to R. Judah; cf. Keth. 46a. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> But is not False Evidence a verbal effect not connected with any act and yet it is reckoned? — The latter though not connected with any act is reckoned because it is described in the Divine Law as an act, as the text has it: Then shall ye do unto him as he had purposed to do unto his brother.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 19. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> It is quite conceivable that the Tanna of the Mishnah characterises his kinds of damage as Principals in order to indicate the existence of others which are only derivatives: but can R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia characterise theirs as Principals in order to indicate the existence of others which are derivatives? If so what are they? — Said R. Abbahu: All of them are characterised as Principals for the purpose of requiring compensation out of the best of possessions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXII, 4. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> How is this uniformity [in procedure] arrived at? — By means of a uniform interpretation of each of the following terms: 'Instead',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for occurring in Ex. XXI, 36, and elsewhere. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> 'Compensation',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an expression such as, He shall give, cf. EX XXI, 32 and elsewhere. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> 'Payment',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in Ex. XXII, 8 and elsewhere. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> 'Money'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as, e.g., in Ex. XXI, 34 and elsewhere. [One of these four terms occurs with each of the four categories of damage specified in the Mishnah and likewise with each of the kinds of damage enumerated by R. Oshaia and R. Hiyya, thus teaching uniformity in regard to the mode of payment in them all.] ');"><sup>21</sup></span> THE ASPECTS OF THE OX ARE [IN SOME RESPECTS] NOT [OF SUCH LOW ORDER OF GRAVITY] AS THOSE OF THE 'SPOLIATOR' [<i>MAB'EH</i>]. What does this signify? — R. Zebid in the name of Raba said: The point of this is: Let Scripture record only one kind of damage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Ox. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> and from it you will deduce the liability for the other!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Mab'eh. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> In response it was declared: One kind of damage could not be deduced from the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra pp. 11-12. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> NOR ARE THE ASPECTS OF EITHER OF THEM IN WHICH THERE IS LIFE. What does this signify? R. Mesharsheya in the name of Raba said: The point of it is this:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter