Bava Kamma 171

חייב בכולן

he is liable for all of the Five Items. Now, how are we to picture no bruise being made [in such a case]? Does this not mean, e.g., where he struck him on his arm which will ultimately recover<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since no bruise was made it will surely recover. ');">¹</span>

האי לא עשה חבורה היכי דמי לאו כגון שהכהו על ידו וסופו לחזור וקתני חייב בכולן

and it is nevertheless stated that he 'is liable for all of the Five Items'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which Depreciation is included. ');">²</span>

אמרי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שחירשו ולא עשה בו חבורה והאמר רבה החורש את אביו נהרג לפי שאי אפשר לחרישה בלא חבורה טיפתא דדמא נפלה ליה באודניה

— It may, however, be said that we are dealing here with a case where e.g., he made him deaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case he will never recover, ');">³</span>

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שגילחו גילחו מהדר הדר והיינו בעיין

without making a bruise on him. But did Rabbah not say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 98a. ');">⁴</span>

אמרי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שסכו נשא דלא הדר

that he who makes his father deaf is subject to be executed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For having committed a capital offence in accordance with Ex. XXI, 25. ');">⁵</span>

צער דאית ליה קרטופני ברישיה וצווחי מהנהו קרטופני ריפוי דבעיא אסויי שבת דהוה מרקיד בי כובי דבעיא מחוי גוני ארישא ולא מחוי מהנהו קרטופני בושת אין לך בושת גדול מזה

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 since a capital offence would thus have been committed no civil liabilities could be entailed; cf. infra p. 502. ');">⁶</span>

ומילתא דבעיא ליה לרבה פשיטא ליה לאביי להך גיסא ולרבא להך גיסא דאתמר הכהו על ידו וצמתה וסופה לחזור אביי אמר נותן לו שבת גדולה ושבת קטנה ורבא אמר אינו נותן לו אלא דמי שבתו שבכל יום ויום

— It must therefore be said that we are dealing here with a case where e.g. he shaved him [against his will] — But will not the hair grow again in the case of shaving? And that is the very question propounded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which problem could thus be solved. ');">⁷</span>

איתמר הקוטע יד עבד עברי של חבירו אביי אמר נותן לו שבת גדולה לעבד ושבת קטנה לרב רבא אמר הכל ינתן לעבד וילקח בהן קרקע והרב אוכל פירות

— It may, however, be said that we are dealing here with a case where e.g. he smeared nasha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sap of a plant used as a depilatory; cf. also Mak. 20b. ');">⁸</span>

פשיטא פיחת אצל עצמו ואצל רבו לא פיחת היכי דמי דפסקיה לריש אוניה או לריש נחיריה הכל לעצמו פיחת אצל רבו פלוגתא דאביי ורבא:

over it so that no hair will ever grow there again. Pain [in such a case should similarly be paid] where he had scratches on his head and thus suffered on account of the sores. Healing [should similarly be paid] as it requires curing. Loss of Time would be where he was a dancer in wine houses and has to make gestures by moving his head and cannot do so [now] on account of these scratches.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MSS. omit 'on account of these scratches', apparently as it is the nasha which was smeared over his head which prevents his appearing in his dancing role.] ');">⁹</span>

בושת הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש: מני מתניתין לא רבי מאיר ולא ר' יהודה אלא ר' שמעון היא

Degradation [should certainly be paid], for there could hardly be a case of greater degradation.

דתנן וכולן רואין אותן כאילו הם בני חורין שירדו מנכסיהם שהן בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר הגדול לפי גודלו והקטן לפי קטנו רבי שמעון אומר עשירים רואין אותן כאילו הם בני חורין שירדו מנכסיהם עניים כפחותין שבהן

But this matter which was doubtful to Rabbah was quite certain to Abaye taking one view, and to Raba taking the opposite view. For it was stated: If he struck him on his arm and the arm was broken but so that it would ultimately recover completely, Abaye said that he must pay for General Loss of Time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Another term for Depreciation. ');">¹⁰</span>

מני (השתא) אי רבי מאיר מתניתין קתני הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש ורבי מאיר כולהו בהדי הדדי נינהו ואי ר' יהודה מתניתין קתני המבייש את הסומא חייב ואילו ר' יהודה אומר סומא אין לו בושת אלא לאו רבי שמעון היא

plus Particular Loss of time, whereas Raba said that he will not have to pay him anything but for the amount of the Loss of Time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not for the temporary depreciation in value. ');">¹¹</span>

אפי' תימא ר' יהודה כי אמר ר' יהודה סומא אין לו בושת למשקל מיניה אבל למיתבא ליה יהבינן ליה

for each day [until he recovers].

והא מדקתני סיפא המבייש את הישן חייב וישן שבייש פטור ולא קתני סומא שבייש פטור מכלל דלא שנא הכי ולא שנא הכי אלא מחוורתא מתניתין רבי שמעון היא:

It was stated: If a man cuts off the arm of a Hebrew servant of another, Abaye said that he will have to pay the servant for General Loss of Time, and the master for Particular Loss of Time, whereas Raba said that the whole payment should be given to the servant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Tosaf. reads: 'to the master' as it is the master who is the primary loser in consequence of the servant's enforced idleness.] ');">¹²</span>

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן נתכוון לבייש את הקטן ובייש את הגדול נותן לגדול דמי בושתו של קטן לבייש את העבד ובייש את בן חורין נותן לבן חורין דמי בושתו של עבד מני לא רבי מאיר ולא רבי יהודה ולא רבי שמעון

who would have to [invest it and] purchase real property whose produce would be enjoyed by the master. There is no question that where the servant became [through the injury] depreciated in his personal value while no loss was caused so far as the master was concerned, as for instance, where the offender split the top of the servant's ear or the top of his nostrils,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through which injury the servant is not hindered from performing his usual work. ');">¹³</span>

קא סלקא דעתך קטן קטן בנכסים גדול גדול בנכסים אי רבי מאיר האמר כולהו בהדי הדדי נינהו ואי רבי יהודה האמר אין לעבדים בושת ואי ר"ש האמר נתכוון לבייש את זה ובייש את זה פטור

the whole payment would go to the servant himself. It was only where the depreciation affected the master [also]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashi and Tosaf. a. l. ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי טעמא כקטלא מה קטלא עד דמתכוון ליה דכתיב (דברים יט, יא) וארב לו וקם עליו עד שיתכוון לו בושת נמי עד דמיכוין ליה דכתיב (דברים כה, יא) ושלחה ידה והחזיקה במבושיו עד שיתכוון לו

that Abaye and Raba differ.

לעולם ר' יהודה וכי קאמר ר' יהודה אין לעבדים בושת למיתבא להו אבל למישם שיימינן בהו

'DEGRADATION': — ALL TO BE ESTIMATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUS OF THE OFFENDER AND THE OFFENDED. May we say that our Mishnah is in agreement neither with R. Meir nor with R. Judah but with R. Simeon? For it was taught: 'All [sorts of injured persons] should be considered as if they were freemen who have become impoverished since they are all the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 90b. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואי בעית אימא אפילו תימא רבי מאיר מי סברת גדול גדול בנכסים קטן קטן בנכסים לא גדול גדול ממש וקטן קטן ממש

this is the view of R. Meir. R. Judah says that [Degradation in the case of] the eminent man [will be estimated] in accordance with his eminence, [whereas in the case of] the insignificant man [it will be estimated] in accordance with his insignificance. R. Simeon says that wealthy persons will be considered merely as if they were freemen who have become impoverished, whereas the poor will all be put on the level of the least among them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., among the poor. ');">¹⁶</span>

וקטן בר בושת הוא אין כדאמר רב פפא דמיכלמו ליה ומיכלם הכא נמי

Now, in accordance with whom is our Mishnah? It could not be in accordance with R. Meir, for the Mishnah states that all are to be estimated in accordance with the status of the offender and the offended, whereas according to R. Meir all [sorts of persons] are treated alike. It could similarly not be in accordance with R. Judah, for the Mishnah [subsequently] states<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 496. ');">¹⁷</span> that he who insults even a blind person is liable, whereas R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra pp. 495-499. ');">¹⁸</span> says that a blind person is not subject to the law of Degradation. Must the Mishnah therefore not be in accordance with R. Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Who also does not treat all persons alike.] ');">¹⁹</span> — You may say that they are [even] in accordance with R. Judah. For the statement made by R. Judah that a blind person is not subject to the law of Degradation means that no payment will be exacted from him [where he insulted others], whereas when it comes to paying him [for Degradation where he was insulted by others], We would surely order that he be paid. But since it was stated in the concluding clause 'If he insulted a person who was sleeping he would be liable [to pay for Degradation], whereas if a person who was asleep insulted others he would be exempt', and no statement was made to the effect that a blind person insulting others should be exempt, it surely implied that in the case of a blind person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom the Mishnaic statement makes subject to the law of Degradation. ');">²⁰</span> there was no difference whether he was insulted by others or whether he insulted others, [as in all cases the law of Degradation would apply]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would contradict R. Judah, who maintained that a blind person would not have to pay Degradation. ');">²¹</span> — It must therefore be considered as proved that the Mishnaic statements were in accordance with R. Simeon. Who was the Tanna for what our Rabbis taught: If he intended to insult a katon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Denotes either 'small', or a minor, ');">²²</span> but insulted [by accident] a gadol<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Denotes either 'great' or 'one who is of age'. ');">²³</span> he would have to pay the gadol the amount due for the degradation of the katon, and so also where he intended to insult a slave but [by accident] insulted a freeman he would have to pay the freeman the amount due for the degradation of the slave? According to whom [is this teaching]? It is in agreement neither with R. Meir nor with R. Judah nor even with R. Simeon, it being assumed that katon meant 'small in possessions' and gadol [similarly meant] 'great in possessions'. It could thus hardly be in accordance with R. Meir, for he said that all classes of people are treated alike. It could similarly not be in accordance with R. Judah, for he stated that in the case of slaves no Degradation need be paid. Again, it could not be in accordance with R. Simeon, since he holds that where the offender intended to insult one person and by an accident insulted another person he would be exempt, the reason being that this might be likened to murder, and just as in the case of murder there is no liability unless where the intention was for the particular person killed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As indeed maintained by R. Simeon; cf. Sanh. 79a and supra p. 252. ');">²⁴</span> as it is written: 'And lie in wait for him and rise up against him'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 11. ');">²⁵</span> [implying, according to R. Simeon, that there would be no liability] unless where he aimed at him particularly, so should it also be in the case of Degradation, that no liability should be imposed on the offender unless where he aimed at the person insulted, as it is written: 'And she putteth forth her hand and taketh him by the secrets'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXV, 11. ');">²⁶</span> [which might similarly imply that there should be no liability] unless where the offence was directed at the person insulted. [Who then was the Tanna of the teaching referred to above]? — It might still be said that he was R. Judah, for the statement made by R. Judah that in the case of slaves there would be no liability for Degradation means only that no payment will be made to them, though in the matter of appraisement we can still base the assessment on them. Or if you like I may say that you may even regard the teaching as being in accordance with R. Meir, for why should you think that gadol means 'great in possessions' and katon means 'small in possessions', and not rather that gadol means an actual gadol [i.e. one who is of age] and katon means an actual katon [i.e. a minor]? But is a minor subject to suffer Degradation? — Yes, as elsewhere stated by R. Papa, that if where he is reminded of some insult he feels abashed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 86b. ');">²⁷</span> [he is subject to Degradation] so also here