Bava Kamma 173

וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטרו מכל דינים שבתורה מ"ט דרבי יהודה אמר קרא (במדבר לה, כד) ושפטו העדה בין המכה ובין גואל הדם על המשפטים האלה כל שישנו במכה ובגואל הדם ישנו במשפטים כל שאינו במכה ובגואל הדם אינו במשפטים

So also did R. Judah exempt him from all the judgments of the Torah. What is the reason of R. Judah? — Scripture says: Then the congregation shall judge between the smiter and the avenger of blood according to these ordinances,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 24. ');">¹</span> whoever is subject to the law of the 'smiter' and 'the avenger of blood' is subject to judgments, but he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as a blind person. ');">²</span>

תניא אידך ר' יהודה אומר סומא אין לו בושת וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטרו מכל מצות האמורות בתורה אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי מאי טעמא דר' יהודה אמר קרא (דברים ו, א) ואלה המצות החקים והמשפטים כל שישנו במשפטים ישנו במצות וחקים וכל שאינו במשפטים אינו במצות וחקים

who is not subject to the law of the 'smiter' and the 'avenger of blood' is not subject to judgments. Another [Baraitha] taught: R. Judah.says: 'A blind person is not subject to [the law of] Degradation. So also did R. Judah exempt him from all commandments stated in the Torah.' R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said: The reason of R. Judah was because Scripture says: Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the ordinances;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VI, 2. ');">³</span>

אמר רב יוסף מריש הוה אמינא מאן דאמר הלכה כר' יהודה דאמר סומא פטור מן המצות קא עבדינא יומא טבא לרבנן מ"ט דלא מפקדינא וקא עבדינא מצות

he who is subject to the 'ordinances' is subject to 'commandments' and 'statutes', but he who is not subject to 'ordinances' is not subject to 'commandments' and 'statutes'. R. Joseph stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 31a. ');">⁴</span> Formerly I used to Say: If someone would tell me that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Judah who declared that a blind person is exempt from the commandments, I would make a festive occasion for our Rabbis, because though I am not enjoined<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Joseph became blind through an illness; cf. Shab. 109a. ');">⁵</span>

והשתא דשמעית להא דר' חנינא דאמר ר' חנינא גדול המצווה ועושה ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה מאן דאמר לי אין הלכה כרבי יהודה עבדינא יומא טבא לרבנן מ"ט דכי מפקדינא אית לי אגרא טפי:

I still perform commandments, but now that I have heard the statement of R. Hanina, as R. Hanina indeed said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 215. ');">⁶</span> that greater is the reward of those who being enjoined do [good deeds] than of those who without being enjoined [but merely of their own free will] do [good deeds], if someone would tell me that the <i>halachah</i> is not in accordance with R. Judah I would make a festive occasion for our Rabbis, because if I am enjoined to perform commandments the reward will be greater for me.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> זה חומר באדם מבשור שהאדם משלם נזק צער ריפוי שבת ובושת ומשלם דמי ולדות ושור אינו משלם אלא נזק ופטור מדמי ולדות

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ON THIS [POINT] THE LAW FOR MAN IS MORE SEVERE THAN THE LAW FOR CATTLE, VIZ., THAT MAN HAS TO PAY FOR DEPRECIATION, PAIN, HEALING, LOSS OF TIME AND DEGRADATION;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As supra p. 473. ');">⁷</span> AND HE PAYS ALSO FOR THE VALUE OF EMBRYOS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex, XXI, 22 and supra p. 277. ');">⁸</span>

המכה את אביו ואת אמו ולא עשה בהן חבורה וחובל בחבירו ביום הכפורים חייב בכולן

WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF CATTLE THERE IS NO PAYMENT FOR ANYTHING BUT DEPRECIATION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V, supra 26a. ');">⁹</span> AND THERE IS EXEMPTION FROM [PAYING] THE VALUE OF EMBRYOS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex, XXI, 22 and supra p. 277. ');">⁸</span>

החובל בעבד עברי חייב בכולן חוץ מן השבת בזמן שהוא שלו החובל בעבד כנעני של אחרים חייב בכולן רבי יהודה אומר אין לעבדים בושת

ONE WHO STRIKES HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER WITHOUT, HOWEVER, MAKING A BRUISE ON THEM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the capital offence of Ex. XXI, 15 has not been committed; v. Sanh. 84b. ');">¹⁰</span> OR ONE WHO INJURED HIS FELLOW ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The violation of which entails no capital punishment at the hands of a court of law; cf. Lev. XXIII, 30 and Ker. I, 1. Again, though lashes could be involved in this case in accordance with Mak. III, 2, the civil liability holds good as supra p. 407. ');">¹¹</span>

חש"ו פגיעתן רעה החובל בהן חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין

IS LIABLE FOR ALL [THE FIVE ITEMS]. ONE WHO INJURES A HEBREW SLAVE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXI, 2-6. ');">¹²</span> IS SIMILARLY LIABLE FOR ALL OF THEM, WITH THE EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, OF LOSS OF TIME IF HE IS HIS OWN SLAVE. ONE WHO INJURES A CANAANITE SLAVE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXV, 44-46. ');">¹³</span>

העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה החובל בהם חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין אבל משלמין לאחר זמן נתגרשה האשה נשתחרר העבד חייבין לשלם

BELONGING TO ANOTHER PERSON IS [SIMILARLY] LIABLE FOR ALL [THE FIVE ITEMS]. R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT NO DEGRADATION IS PAID IN THE CASE OF [CANAANITE] SLAVES. A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT AND A MINOR ARE AWKWARD TO DEAL WITH, AS HE WHO INJURES THEM IS LIABLE [TO PAY], WHEREAS IF THEY INJURE OTHERS THEY ARE EXEMPT. [SO ALSO] A SLAVE AND A [MARRIED] WOMAN ARE AWKWARD TO DEAL WITH, AS HE WHO INJURES THEM IS LIABLE [TO PAY], WHEREAS IF THEY INJURE OTHERS THEY ARE EXEMPT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Irrespective of the equality of all before the law, as supra p. 63, no payment could be made here as the possessions of slaves form a part of the estates of their masters as in Kid. 23b, and the property of a married woman is usually in the usufruct of the husband, cf, Keth, IV, 4, ');">¹⁴</span> THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE TO PAY AT A LATER DATE; FOR IF THE WOMAN WAS DIVORCED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When her estate will return to her. ');">¹⁵</span>

המכה אביו ואמו ועשה בהן חבורה והחובל בחבירו בשבת פטור מכולן מפני שהוא נדון בנפשו

OR THE SLAVE MANUMITTED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And property was subsequently acquired by him. ');">¹⁶</span> THEY WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY. HE WHO SMITES HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER MAKING ALSO A BRUISE ON THEM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a capital offence, v. Ex. XXI. 15; supra p. 492. ');">¹⁷</span>

והחובל בעבד כנעני שלו פטור מכולן:

OR HE WHO INJURES ANOTHER ON THE SABBATH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus involving capital punishment, v. Shab. 106a; supra p. 192. ');">¹⁸</span> IS EXEMPT FROM ALL [THE FIVE ITEMS], FOR HE IS CHARGED WITH A CAPITAL OFFENCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the punishment for which all civil liabilities merge; v. supra p. 192. ');">¹⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב החובל בבת קטנה של אחרים חבלה למי

[SO ALSO] HE WHO INJURES A CANAANITE SLAVE OF HIS OWN IS EXEMPT FROM ALL [THE ITEMS].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For so far as the master is concerned the slave is but his chattel. He will, however, be liable to heal him; Tosaf, a.l.; Git. 12b. ');">²⁰</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Eleazar inquired of Rab: If one injures a minor daughter of another person, to whom should [the payment for] the injury go?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether to her or to her father. ');">²¹</span>

מי אמרינן כיון דאקני ליה רחמנא שבח נעורים לאב חבלה נמי דאבוה הוי מאי טעמא דהא אפחתה מכספה או דילמא שבח נעורים הוא דאקני ליה רחמנא דאי בעי לממסר לה למוכה שחין מצי מסר אבל חבלה כיון דאי בעי מתחבל בה לא מצי חביל לא קנייה ליה רחמנא

Shall we say that since the Divine Law bestowed upon the father [the right to] the income of [his daughter during the days of her] youth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Keth. 46b. ');">²²</span> the payment for an injury should also be his, the reason being that her value was surely decreased [by the injury], or [shall we say that it was] perhaps only the income of youth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as the consideration given by a prospective husband for marrying him, or the hire of her labour and the like. ');">²³</span> that the Divine Law granted him, since if he wishes to hand her over [in marriage e.g.,] to one afflicted with leprosy he could hand her over,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As could be inferred from Deut. XXII, 16, ');">²⁴</span> whereas the payment for injury might not have been granted to him by the Divine Law, since if he wishes to injure her he would not have had the right to injure her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Moreover he would thereby commit the sin implied in Deut. XXV, 3. ');">²⁵</span>