Bava Kamma 182

וקתני החובל בעצמו אע"פ שאינו רשאי פטור הכי קאמר ליה לא מבעיא בושת דאדם רשאי לבייש את עצמו אלא אפי' חבלה דאין אדם רשאי לחבל בעצמו אחרים שחבלו בו חייבין

and it nevertheless says: If one injures oneself, though it is forbidden to do so, he is exempt? — It was this which he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Akiba. ');">¹</span>

ואין אדם רשאי לחבל בעצמו והתניא יכול נשבע להרע בעצמו ולא הרע יהא פטור ת"ל (ויקרא ה, ד) להרע או להטיב מה הטבה רשות אף הרעה רשות אביא נשבע להרע בעצמו ולא הרע

said to him: 'There could be no question regarding Degradation, as a man may put himself to shame, but even in the case of injury where a man may not injure himself, if others injured him they would be liable.' But may a man not injure himself? Was it not taught: You might perhaps think that if a man takes an oath to do harm to himself and did not do so he should be exempt. It is therefore stated: 'To do evil or to do good,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 4. ');">²</span>

אמר שמואל באשב בתענית

[implying that] just as to do good is permitted, so also to do evil [to oneself] is permitted; I have accordingly to apply [the same law in] the case where a man had sworn to do harm to himself and did not do harm?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 27a. ');">³</span>

דכוותה גבי הרעת אחרים להשיבם בתענית אחרים מי מותיב להו בתעניתא

— Samuel said: The oath referred to was to keep a fast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But in other ways a man may not injure himself. ');">⁴</span>

אין דמהדק להו באנדרונא

It would accordingly follow that regarding doing harm to others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealt with in Shebu 27a. ');">⁵</span>

והתניא איזהו הרעת אחרים אכה פלוני ואפצע את מוחו

it would similarly mean to make them keep a fast. But how can one make others keep a fast? — By keeping them locked up in a room. But was it not taught: What is meant by doing harm to others? [If one says], I will smite a certain person and will split his skull?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 27a. ');">³</span>

אלא תנאי היא דאיכא למ"ד אין אדם רשאי לחבל בעצמו ואיכא מ"ד אדם רשאי לחבל בעצמו

— It must therefore be said that Tannaim differed on this point, for there is one view maintaining that a man may not injure himself and there is another maintaining that a man may injure himself. But who is the Tanna maintaining that a man may not injure himself? It could hardly be said that he was the Tanna of the teaching, And surely your blood of your lives will I require,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. IX, 5. ');">⁶</span>

מאן תנא דשמעת ליה דאמר אין אדם רשאי לחבל בעצמו אילימא האי תנא הוא דתניא (בראשית ט, ה) ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרש ר' אלעזר אומר מיד נפשותיכם אדרש את דמכם

[upon which] R. Eleazar remarked [that] it meant I will require your blood if shed by the hands of yourselves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for committing suicide. ');">⁷</span>

ודלמא קטלא שאני

for murder is perhaps different. He might therefore be the Tanna of the following teaching: 'Garments may be rent for a dead person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. II Sam. I, 11, and II Kings II, 12. Cf. also Sanh. 52b. ');">⁸</span>

אלא האי תנא הוא דתניא מקרעין על המת ולא מדרכי האמורי אמר רבי אלעזר שמעתי שהמקרע על המת יותר מדאי לוקה משום בל תשחית וכ"ש גופו

as this is not necessarily done to imitate the ways of the Amorites. But R. Eleazar said: I heard that he who rends [his garments] too much for a dead person transgresses the command,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the text, 'Will be lashed on account of transgressing' which could however hardly be substantiated; Cf. Tosaf. a.l. ');">⁹</span>

ודלמא בגדים שאני דפסידא דלא הדר הוא כי הא דרבי יוחנן קרי למאני מכבדותא ורב חסדא כד הוה מסגי ביני היזמי והגא מדלי להו למאניה אמר זה מעלה ארוכה וזה אינו מעלה ארוכה

'Thou shalt not destroy',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XX, 19. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא האי תנא הוא דתניא אמר ר"א הקפר ברבי מה ת"ל (במדבר ו, יא) וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש וכי באיזה נפש חטא זה אלא שציער עצמו מן היין והלא דברים ק"ו ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מן היין נקרא חוטא המצער עצמו מכל דבר על אחת כמה וכמה:

and it seems that this should be the more so in the case of injuring his own body. But garments might perhaps be different, as the loss is irretrievable, for R. Johanan used to call garments 'my honourers',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 94a. ');">¹¹</span>

הקוצץ נטיעותיו [וכו']: תני רבה בר בר חנה קמיה דרב שורי הרגת נטיעותי קצצת אתה אמרת לי להורגו אתה אמרת לי לקוצצו פטור א"ל א"כ לא שבקת חיי לברייתא כל כמיניה

and R. Hisda whenever he had to walk between thorns and thistles used to lift up his garments Saying that whereas for the body [if injured] nature will produce a healing, for garments [if torn] nature could bring up no cure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Taan. 23a. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל איסמייה א"ל לא תתרגם מתניתך בשור העומד להריגה ובאילן העומד לקציצה

He must therefore be the Tanna of the following teaching: R. Eleazar Hakkapar Berabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A title of some scholars who belonged to the school of R. Judah the prince. ');">¹³</span>

אי הכי מאי קא טעין ליה דא"ל אנא בעינא למיעבד הא מצוה

said: What is the point of the words: 'And make an atonement for him, for that he sinned regarding the soul.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 11; E.V.: for that he sinned by the dead. ');">¹⁴</span>

דתניא (ויקרא יז, יג) ושפך וכסה מי ששפך יכסה ומעשה באחד ששחט וקדם חבירו וכסה וחייבו ר"ג ליתן לו עשרה זהובים:

Regarding what soul did this [Nazarite] sin unless by having deprived himself of wine? Now can we not base on this an argument <i>a fortiori</i>: If a Nazarite who deprived himself only of wine is already called a sinner, how much the more so one who deprives oneself of all matters?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar Hakkapar is thus the Tanna forbidding self-injury. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב דיקלא דטען קבא אסור למקצציה

HE WHO CUTS DOWN HIS OWN PLANTS&nbsp;… Rabbah b. Bar Hanah recited in the presence of Rab: [Where a plaintiff pleads] 'You killed my ox, you cut my plants, [pay compensation', and the defendant responds:] 'You told me to kill it, you told me to cut it down', he would be exempt. He [Rab] said to him. If so you almost make it impossible for anyone to live, for how can you trust him? — He therefore said to him: Has this teaching to be deleted? — He replied: No; your teaching could hold good in the case where the ox was marked for slaughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as where it killed a human being; cf. Ex. XXI, 28. ');">¹⁶</span>

מיתיבי כמה יהא בזית ולא יקצצו רובע שאני זיתים דחשיבי

and so also the tree had to be cut down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as where it constituted a danger to the public or where it was planted for idolatrous purposes; cf. Deut. XII, 3. ');">¹⁷</span>

א"ר חנינא לא שכיב שיבחת ברי אלא דקץ תאינתא בלא זמנה אמר רבינא ואם היה מעולה בדמים מותר

If so what plea has he against him? — He says to him: I wanted to perform the precept myself in the way taught: 'He shall pour out&nbsp;… and cover it',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 13. ');">¹⁸</span>

תניא נמי הכי (דברים כ, כ) רק עץ אשר תדע זה אילן מאכל כי לא עץ מאכל הוא זה אילן סרק

implying that he who poured out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he who acted as slaughterer. ');">¹⁹</span>

וכי מאחר שסופו לרבות כל דבר מה ת"ל כי לא עץ מאכל להקדים סרק למאכל

has to cover it; but it once happened that a certain person performed the slaughter and another anticipated him and covered [the blood], and R. Gamaliel condemned the latter to pay ten gold coins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 87a. ');">²⁰</span> Rab said: A palm tree producing even one <i>kab</i> of fruit may not be cut down. An objection was raised [from the following]: What quantity should be on an olive tree so that it should not be permitted to cut it down? A quarter of a <i>kab</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheb. IV, 10. [Why then should the palm tree require a bigger quantity?] ');">²¹</span> — Olives are different as they are more important. R. Hanina said: Shibhath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 26a. There he is called 'Shikhath'. ');">²²</span> my son did not pass away except for having cut down a fig tree before its time. Rabina, however, said: If its value [for other purposes] exceeds that for fruit, it is permitted [to cut it down]. It was also taught to the same effect: 'Only the trees of which thou knowest'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XX, 20. ');">²³</span> implies even fruit-bearing trees;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [That is where it is known that they no longer produce any fruits, v. Malbim, a.l.] ');">²⁴</span> That they be not trees for meat, means a wild tree. But since we ultimately include all things, why then was it stated, That they are not trees for food? To give priority<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be cut down. ');">²⁵</span> to a wild tree over one bearing edible fruits.