Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 24, 2024 | 讬状讚 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讚

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 83

Today’s daf is sponsored by Betsy and Tevie Mehlman in honor of the birth of their grandson Lavi to Hillel and Shaked. “His name symbolizes strength. May he be a continuing source of pride and joy to his parents and his entire family.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Kotz for the refuah shleima of Yonatan Yitzchak Ben Ateret, an IDF soldier critically injured in his tank in Gaza on Friday.

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of the twenty-one soldiers who were killed in Gaza on Monday. Our thoughts are with their families.聽

Is it really forbidden to teach Greek wisdom, doesn’t it say in a braita that the Greek language is better than the Sorsi language!? To answer, they distinguish between Greek language and Greek wisdom. But even this is challenged by a braita that tells about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and his family who studied Greek wisdom. They were allowed because of political reasons 鈥 so they could interact with the Romans. It is allowed to raise a dog at home only if it is chained so as not to cause damage. The Mishna states that one cannot spread nets to catch pigeons unless it is a distance of thirty ris (8,000 cubits) from a settlement. The Gemara cites sources that seemingly contradict this source and then resolves the difficulties. One who damages another must pay five payments – damage, pain, doctor bills, the loss of employment, and humilation. How are these payments evaluated? Why do we think that the one who harms his friend pays damage, after all, it is written in the Torah an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.! The Gemara brings different drashot to prove that even though it is written in the Torah an eye for an eye, the obligation is to pay money.

诇砖讜谉 住讜专住讬 诇诪讛 讗讜 诇砖讜谉 讛拽讚砖 讗讜 诇砖讜谉 讬讜谞讬转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讘诇 诇砖讜谉 讗专诪讬 诇诪讛 讗讜 诇砖讜谉 讛拽讚砖 讗讜 诇砖讜谉 驻专住讬 讗诪专讬 诇砖讜谉 讬讜谞讬 诇讞讜讚 讞讻诪转 讬讜谞讬转 诇讞讜讚


why would one speak the Syriac [Sursi] language? One should speak either the sacred tongue, Hebrew, or the Greek language. And Rabbi Yosei said similarly: In Babylonia, why would one speak the Aramaic language? One should speak either the sacred tongue or the Persian language. At any rate, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement indicates that there is nothing wrong with learning and speaking Greek. The Sages say in response: The Greek language is discrete, and Greek wisdom is discrete. In other words, these are two separate issues; only Greek wisdom is prohibited, not the Greek language.


讜讞讻诪转 讬讜谞讬转 诪讬 讗住讬专讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讬谞讬 注讜诇诇讛 诇谞驻砖讬 诪讻诇 讘谞讜转 注讬专讬 讗诇祝 讬诇讚讬诐 讛讬讜 讘讘讬转 讗讘讗 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 诪讛诐 诇诪讚讜 转讜专讛 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 诇诪讚讜 讞讻诪转 讬讜谞讬转 讜诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 诪讛诐 讗诇讗 讗谞讬 讻讗谉 讜讘谉 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 讘注住讬讗


The Gemara further pursues this line of inquiry: And is Greek wisdom itself actually prohibited? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: It is written: 鈥淢y eye affected my soul, because of all the daughters of my city鈥 (Lamentations 3:51). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel applied this verse to a personal tragedy: There were a thousand children in the household of my father, Rabban Gamliel; five hundred of them studied the Torah, and five hundred of them studied Greek wisdom. All of them were killed by the Romans; and the only ones that remain of them are I, who is here, and the son of my father鈥檚 brother, who is in Asia Minor [Asya]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 statement indicates that it is permitted to study Greek wisdom.


讗诪专讬 砖讗谞讬 讘讬转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬讜 拽专讜讘讬诐 诇诪诇讻讜转 讜讻讚转谞讬讗 讛诪住驻专 拽讜诪讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讚专讻讬 讛讗诪讜专讬 讗讘讟讜诇诪讜住 讘专 专讗讜讘谉 讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇住驻专 拽讜诪讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 拽专讜讘 诇诪诇讻讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛转讬专讜 诇讛诐 诇住驻专 讘讞讻诪转 讬讜谞讬转 诪驻谞讬 砖拽专讜讘讬诐 诇诪诇讻讜转


The Sages say in response: The household of Rabban Gamliel is different, as they held close ties with the government. Since knowledge of Greek wisdom was crucial for the members of this family, the Sages exempted them from the general decree, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who cuts his hair in the fashion of komi, a certain haircut favored by the Romans, this is considered one of the ways of the Amorites, i.e., a gentile practice prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:3). Despite this, the Sages permitted Avtolmos bar Reuven to cut his hair in the fashion of komi, because he had close ties with the government. Likewise, they permitted the members of the household of Rabban Gamliel to discuss matters of Greek wisdom, because they had close ties with the government.


诇讗 讬讙讚诇 讗讚诐 讗转 讛讻诇讘 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讜专 讘砖诇砖诇讗讜转 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讙讚诇 讗讚诐 讗转 讛讻诇讘 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讜专 讘砖诇砖诇转 讗讘诇 诪讙讚诇 讛讜讗 讘注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讜拽讜砖专讜 讘讬讜诐 讜诪转讬专讜 讘诇讬诇讛


搂 The mishna teaches: A person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with chains. The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with a chain. But he may raise a dog in a city that is close to the border of the country, and in that case he should tie it during the day but may release it at night.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讙讚讜诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讙讚诇 讻诇讘讬诐 讻诪讙讚诇 讞讝讬专讬诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬拽诐 注诇讬讛 讘讗专讜专


It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: One who raises dogs is like one who raises pigs. The Gemara asks: What is the practical significance of this statement? Since both are prohibited, what is the point of this comparison? The Gemara answers: The significance is with regard to determining when one is liable to be cursed for it. Rabbi Eliezer is saying that the same curse meted out to one who raises pigs also applies to one who raises dogs.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讘诇 讻注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讚诪讬 转专讙诪讛 谞讛专讚注讗


Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says: Babylonia is considered like a city close to the border, and therefore it is permitted to raise dogs there. The Gemara qualifies this statement, and in this context, Babylonia is interpreted as referring only to Neharde鈥檃, a city that was close to the border.


讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讚诪谉 讘讬专讬 讜讘谞讞讛 讬讗诪专 砖讜讘讛 讛壮 专讘讘讜转 讗诇驻讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讗讬谉 砖讻讬谞讛 砖讜专讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 讗诇驻讬诐 讜砖谞讬 专讘讘讜转 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讛讬转讛 讗砖讛 诪注讜讘专转 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讜谞讘讞 讘讛 讻诇讘 讜讛驻讬诇讛 谞诪爪讗 讝讛 讙讜专诐 诇砖讻讬谞讛 砖转住转诇拽 诪讬砖专讗诇


With regard to raising dogs, Rabbi Dostai from Biri expounded: It is written in connection to the Ark of the Covenant: 鈥淎nd when it rested, he said: Return, O Lord, to the myriads of the thousands of Israel鈥 (Numbers 10:36). This verse serves to teach you that the Divine Presence does not rest upon the Jewish people if they number fewer than two thousand and two myriads, where one myriad is equal to ten thousand. The plural form of 鈥渕yriads鈥 and 鈥渢housands鈥 indicates at least two of each. If they are lacking one individual from this total, and there was a pregnant woman among them, who was fit to complete the number by giving birth, and a dog barked at her and she miscarried as a result of the fright, this owner of the dog is found to have caused the Divine Presence to depart from the Jewish people.


讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚注诇转 诇诪讬驻讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讘讬转讗 谞讘讞 讘讛 讻诇讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诪专讬讛 诇讗 转讬住转驻讬 诪讬谞讬讛 砖拽讜诇讬 谞讬讘讬讛 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇讬 讟讬讘讜转讬讱 讜砖讚讬讗 讗讞讬讝专讬 讻讘专 谞讚 讜诇讚


There was a certain woman who entered a certain building to bake. A dog barked at her. Its owner said to her: Do not be afraid of it; its canine teeth have been removed. She said to him: It is too late for your reassurances. Take your favors and throw them on the thorns! I have felt that the baby has already moved from its place in the womb and will not be born alive.


讗讬谉 驻讜专住讬谉 谞讬砖讘讬谉 诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讜诪讬 讗讝诇讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讛转谞谉 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛砖讜讘讱 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬砖讟 砖讬讬讟讬 讟讜讘讗 讻专住讬讬讛讜 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诪诇讬讗


搂 The mishna teaches: One may spread out traps for pigeons only if this was performed at a distance of at least thirty ris, which is eight thousand cubits, from any settled area, to ensure that privately owned pigeons are not caught in the traps. The Gemara asks: And do pigeons really travel that far from their established places? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Batra 23a): One must distance a dovecote fifty cubits from the city, so that the pigeons that settle in the cotes do not eat the crops that grow in the gardens of the city. This shows that the range of a pigeon is only fifty cubits, whereas four mil is eight thousand cubits. Abaye said: Pigeons fly much more than fifty cubits away from their cotes, but their stomachs become full from the food they find within fifty cubits, and therefore they do not eat any more beyond that range.


讜诪讬砖讟 砖诇砖讬诐 专讬住 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬砖讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 诪讬诇 诇讗 讬驻专讜住 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讬砖讜讘 讻专诪讬诐 专讘讛 讗诪专 讘讬砖讜讘 砖讜讘讻讬谉


The Gemara asks: And with regard to flying, is their range only thirty ris and no more? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In a settled area, one may not spread out a trap for pigeons even at a distance of one hundred mil from the settlement? This indicates that a privately owned pigeon might be trapped even one hundred mil away from a settled area. Why, then, does the mishna permit trapping beyond four mil? Rav Yosef said: The baraita is not talking about an ordinary city but about a settled area where vineyards are grown. Since the pigeons rest in the vineyards as they travel, they are able to traverse great distances. Rabba stated a different answer: The baraita is dealing with a settled area where there are many dovecotes in which they can rest from their flight.


讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讜讘讻讬谉 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讚讙讜讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讚讛驻拽专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讚讬讚讬讛


The Gemara asks: If there are many dovecotes along the way, let the tanna derive the prohibition against setting pigeon traps due to the dovecotes themselves. Since the mishna teaches that it is prohibited to trap pigeons within four mil of privately owned dovecotes, it should be irrelevant that there is a city one hundred mil away. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is dealing with dovecotes that belong to a gentile, and the prohibition against trapping pigeons from private dovecotes applies only to birds owned by Jews. Or if you wish, say that the baraita is dealing with abandoned dovecotes that are ownerless. Or if you wish, say that it is referring to dovecotes that are his, i.e., they belong to the same individual who is setting the pigeon trap.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪专讜讘讛


MISHNA: One who injures another is liable to pay compensation for that injury due to five types of indemnity: He must pay for damage, for pain, for medical costs, for loss of livelihood, and for humiliation.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘谞讝拽 讘爪注专 讘专讬驻讜讬 讘砖讘转 讜讘讜砖转


How is payment for damage assessed? If one blinded another鈥檚 eye, severed his hand, broke his leg, or caused any other injury, the court views the injured party as though he were a slave being sold in the slave market, and the court appraises how much he was worth before the injury and how much he is worth after the injury. The difference between these two sums is the amount that one must pay for causing damage.


讘谞讝拽 讻讬爪讚 住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 拽讟注 讗转 讬讚讜 砖讬讘专 讗转 专讙诇讜 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 注讘讚 谞诪讻专 讘砖讜拽 讜砖诪讬谉 讻诪讛 讛讬讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 讬驻讛


How is payment for pain assessed? If one burned another with a skewer [beshapud] or with a hot nail, or even if one burned another on his fingernail, which is a place where he does not cause a bruise that would affect the victim鈥檚 value on the slave market, the court evaluates how much money a person with a similar threshold for pain as the victim is willing to take in order to be made to suffer in this way. The one who burned the victim must then pay this amount.


爪注专 讻讜讗讜 (讗讜) 讘砖驻讜讚 讗讜 讘诪住诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 爪讬驻讜专谞讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讞讘讜专讛 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讛 讗讚诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讝讛 专讜爪讛 诇讬讟讜诇 诇讛讬讜转 诪爪讟注专 讻讱


How is payment for medical costs assessed? If one struck another, then he is liable to heal him by paying for his medical costs. In a case where growths, e.g., blisters or rashes, appeared on the injured party, if the growths are due to the blow, the one who struck him is liable; if the growths are not due to the blow, the one who struck him is exempt. In a case where the wound healed, and then reopened, and again healed, and then reopened, the one who struck him remains liable to heal the injured party by paying for his medical costs, as it is apparent that the current wound resulted from the original injury. If the injury healed fully, the one who struck him is not liable to heal him by paying for any subsequent medical costs.


专讬驻讜讬 讛讻讛讜 讞讬讬讘 诇专驻讗讜转讜 注诇讛 讘讜 爪诪讞讬诐 讗诐 诪讞诪转 讛诪讻讛 讞讬讬讘 砖诇讗 诪讞诪转 讛诪讻讛 驻讟讜专 讞讬讬转讛 讜谞住转专讛 讞讬讬转讛 讜谞住转专讛 讞讬讬讘 诇专驻讗讜转讜 讞讬讬转讛 讻诇 爪讜专讻讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇专驻讗讜转讜


How is payment for loss of livelihood assessed? The court views the injured party as though he were a watchman of cucumbers, and the one who caused him injury must compensate him based on that pay scale for the income that he lost during his convalescence. This indemnity does not take into account the value of the standard wages of the injured party because the one who caused him injury already gave him compensation for his hand or compensation for his leg, and that compensation took into account his professional skills.


砖讘转 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 砖讜诪专 拽讬砖讜讗讬谉 砖讻讘专 谞转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讬讚讜 讜讚诪讬 专讙诇讜


How is payment for humiliation assessed? It all depends on the stature of the one who humiliates the other and the one who is humiliated.


讘讜砖转 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讜讛诪转讘讬讬砖


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna take for granted the fact that one who caused injury is liable to pay compensation to the injured party? The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎n eye for an eye鈥 (Exodus 21:24). You might say that this means that the one who caused injury shall lose an actual eye rather than pay money.


讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 注讬谉 转讞转 注讬谉 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬诪讗 注讬谉 诪诪砖


The Gemara responds: That interpretation should not enter your mind. The principle implicit in the mishna is derived from a verbal analogy in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita: Based on the verse: 鈥淎n eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot鈥 (Exodus 21:24), one might have thought that if one blinded the eye of another, the court blinds his eye as punishment; or if one severed the hand of another, the court severs his hand; or if one broke the leg of another, the court breaks his leg. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥ne who strikes a person,鈥 and the verse also states: 鈥淎nd one who strikes an animal,鈥 to teach that just as one who strikes an animal is liable to pay monetary compensation, so too, one who strikes a person is liable to pay monetary compensation.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 诪住诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 拽讟注 讗转 讬讚讜 诪拽讟注 讗转 讬讚讜 砖讬讘专 讗转 专讙诇讜 诪砖讘专 讗转 专讙诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉


And if it is your wish to say that there is an objection to this derivation, there is an alternative derivation: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, for he shall die鈥 (Numbers 35:31). This indicates that it is only for the life of a murderer that you shall not take ransom; but you shall take ransom for one who severed another鈥檚 extremities, which is analogous to the death of a limb, as severed limbs do not regenerate.


讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻驻专 诇谞驻砖 专爪讞 讗砖专 讛讜讗 专砖注 诇诪讜转 诇谞驻砖 专讜爪讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 诇专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讬谉


The Gemara asks: To which verse is the baraita referring when it quotes: 鈥淥ne who strikes a person鈥 and: 鈥淥ne who strikes an animal鈥? If we say that the baraita is referring to the verse: 鈥淥ne who strikes an animal shall pay its compensation, and one who strikes a person shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:21), this cannot be, as that verse is written with regard to killing, not injury, and there is no monetary compensation for killing.


讛讬 诪讻讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 讜诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讬讜诪转 讛讛讜讗 讘拽讟诇讗 讻转讬讘


Rather, the baraita references the verse from here: 鈥淥ne who strikes an animal mortally shall pay its compensation, a life for a life鈥 (Leviticus 24:18); and juxtaposed to that is the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man maims his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him鈥 (Leviticus 24:19). The Gemara challenges: But this latter verse does not use the expression: 鈥淥ne who strikes,鈥 which is the basis for the comparison in the baraita. The Gemara responds: We are stating an analogy from striking to striking that is based not upon the exact phrasing of the verse but upon the details of the halakha, as follows: Just as the act of striking that is stated with regard to an animal renders one liable to pay monetary compensation, so too, the act of striking that is stated with regard to a person renders one liable to pay monetary compensation.


讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬转谉 诪讜诐 讘注诪讬转讜 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讻讛 讛讜讗 讛讻讗讛 讛讻讗讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 讛讻讗讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘讛诪讛 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讛讻讗讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讗讚诐 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉


The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it written in the verses discussing one who injures another: 鈥淎nd a man who strikes any person mortally shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:17), which presumably means that in the case of one who severs another鈥檚 extremity the same injury, i.e., death of a limb, is done to the one who caused the injury, and he does not pay monetary compensation? The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that his limb shall be put to death, i.e., removed, but rather, that he should pay compensation with money. The Gemara asks: From where do you say that the verse is referring to paying compensation with money? Why not say that he is punished with actual death i.e., loss of a limb?


讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讻讛 讻诇 谞驻砖 讗讚诐 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘诪诪讜谉 诪诪讗讬 讚讘诪诪讜谉 讗讬诪讗 讘诪讬转讛 诪诪砖


The Gemara answers: That interpretation should not enter your mind for two reasons. One reason is that this verse is juxtaposed to the following verse: 鈥淥ne who strikes an animal mortally shall pay its compensation鈥 (Leviticus 24:18). And furthermore, it is written after it: 鈥淎 fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; as he has given a blemish to a person, so shall it be given unto him鈥 (Leviticus 24:20); and learn from the use of the word 鈥済iven鈥 that the verse is referring to money.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讚讗 讚讛讗 讗讬转拽砖 诇诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 讜注讜讚 讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讻讗砖专 讬转谉 诪讜诐 讘讗讚诐 讻谉 讬谞转谉 讘讜 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉


The Gemara asks: And what potential difficulty with the first derivation did the baraita refer to when it prefaced its second derivation with the phrase: If it is your wish to say? The Gemara explains: The baraita means that a further difficulty was troubling to the tanna: What did you see that led you to derive the principle of monetary payment from the phrase 鈥渙ne who strikes an animal鈥? Why not derive the halakha from the verse: 鈥淥ne who strikes a person shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:21), and learn that causing an injury renders one liable to receive physical retribution, which is analogous to death, and not monetary payment?


讜诪讗讬 讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 转讜 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇转谞讗 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讬诇驻转 诪诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讬诇祝 诪诪讻讛 讗讚诐


The Sages say in response: The halakhot of damages are derived from a verse concerning damages, and the halakhot of damages are not derived from a verse concerning death. The Gemara questions this statement: On the contrary, why not say that the halakhot concerning a person are derived from a verse concerning a person, and the halakhot concerning a person are not derived from a verse concerning animals?


讗诪专讬 讚谞讬谉 谞讬讝拽讬谉 诪谞讬讝拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 谞讬讝拽讬谉 诪诪讬转讛 讗讚专讘讛 讚谞讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讗讚诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讘讛诪讛


To deflect this question, this is consistent with that which the second derivation of the baraita teaches: If it is your wish to say that there is an objection to this derivation, there is an alternative derivation, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, for he shall die鈥 (Numbers 35:31). This indicates that it is only for the life of a murderer that you shall not take ransom; but you shall take ransom for one who severed another鈥檚 extremities, which is analogous to the death of a limb, as severed limbs do not regenerate.


讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻驻专 诇谞驻砖 专爪讞 讗砖专 讛讜讗 专砖注 诇诪讜转 讻讬 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 诇谞驻砖 专讜爪讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 诇专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讞讜讝专讬谉


The Gemara challenges this claim: But is this verse: 鈥淵ou shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer,鈥 coming to exclude the case of one who severs another鈥檚 extremities from the prohibition against taking ransom? Isn鈥檛 this verse necessary to teach that which the Merciful One states: You shall not mete out two punishments to him; i.e., do not take money from him as ransom and also kill him? The Gemara answers: That halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淭hen it shall be, if the guilty deserves to be lashed, that the judge shall lie him down and flog him before him, according to the measure of his evildoing鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2). From the fact that 鈥渆vildoing鈥 is singular, the Gemara homiletically infers: For one evildoing, you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two evildoings, i.e., one cannot receive two punishments for the same act.


讜讛讗讬 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻驻专 诇谞驻砖 专爪讞 诇诪注讜讟讬 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 转专转讬 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪诪讜谉 讜转拽讟诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诪讻讚讬 专砖注转讜 谞驻拽讗 专砖注讛 讗讞转 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 砖转讬 专砖注讬讜转


The Gemara challenges this explanation: But the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer, for one who is guilty of death鈥 is still necessary to teach the primary halakha taught in that verse, in which the Merciful One states: You shall not take money and thereby exempt the guilty from being put to death. The verse does not serve to exclude liability to pay damages from the prohibition against paying restitution. The Gemara answers: If so, i.e., if the Torah desires to teach only that the court cannot take ransom to spare the murderer from being put to death, let the Merciful One write in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall not take ransom鈥 and follow it immediately with the phrase 鈥渇or one who is guilty of death.鈥 Why do I need the Torah to also state: 鈥淔or the life of a murderer鈥? Learn from the addition of that phrase that it is only for a murderer that you shall not take ransom; but you shall take ransom for one who severed another鈥檚 extremities, which do not regenerate once severed.


讜讗讻转讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谉 讜转驻讟专讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻讜驻专 诇讗砖专 讛讜讗 专砖注 诇诪讜转 诇谞驻砖 专爪讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇谞驻砖 专讜爪讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 诇专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讞讜讝专讬谉


The Gemara asks: And once it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not take ransom,鈥 why do I need the first derivation of the baraita, which juxtaposes: 鈥淥ne who strikes a person鈥 to: 鈥淥ne who strikes an animal鈥? The Sages say in response: If the halakha were to be derived only from that verse which states: 鈥淵ou shall not take ransom鈥 (Numbers 35:31), I would say: If the one who caused the damage desires, he may choose to give his eye, and if he desires, he may choose to give the monetary value of his eye. Therefore, the Torah teaches us to derive this halakha from that of an animal: Just as one who strikes an animal is liable to pay monetary compensation and does not receive corporal punishment, so too, one who strikes a person is liable to pay monetary compensation and does not receive corporal punishment.


讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻驻专 诪讻讛 诪讻讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专讬 讗讬 诪讛讗讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬 讘注讬 注讬谞讜 谞讬转讬讘 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讚诪讬 注讬谞讜 谞讬转讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讘讛诪讛 诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉


搂 The Gemara presents a series of derivations for the principle that one who injures another is liable to pay monetary compensation. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says: The phrase: 鈥淎n eye for an eye鈥 (Leviticus 24:20), means monetary restitution. Do you say that he must pay the victim monetary restitution, or is it only teaching that the one who caused the injury must lose an actual eye? You say: There may be a case where the eye of the one who caused the injury is large and the eye of the injured party is small. How can I read and literally apply the phrase 鈥渁n eye for an eye鈥 in this case?


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讬谉 转讞转 注讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪诪讜谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 注讬谉 诪诪砖 讗诪专转 讛专讬 砖讛讬转讛 注讬谞讜 砖诇 讝讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜注讬谞讜 砖诇 讝讛 拽讟谞讛 讛讬讗讱 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讬讛 注讬谉 转讞转 注讬谉


The Gemara continues the derivation: And if you would say that in all cases like this, where their eyes are different sizes, the injured party takes monetary restitution from the one who caused him injury, but in a case where their eyes are the same size, the one who caused injury is punished by actually having his eye removed, this cannot be, as the Torah said: 鈥淵ou shall have one manner of law鈥 (Leviticus 24:22), teaching that the law shall be equal for all of you.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诪砖驻讟 讗讞讚 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪砖驻讟 讛砖讜讛 诇讻讜诇讻诐


The Sages object to this derivation and say: What is the difficulty in saying that his eye should be blinded? Perhaps, as the one who caused the injury took the sight from the injured party鈥檚 eye, the Merciful One states that the court should take the sight from his eye as well, no matter the size of the eye. Since, if you do not say so, then by the same logic,


讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 谞讛讜专讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 谞讛讜专讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬



  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma 77-83 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a thief who stole an animal and then sold it but retained some ownership....
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 83: If You Learn Greek, Must You Think Greek Thoughts?

Finishing up chapter 7... With more on the prohibition against Greek wisdom, and the language, as well as other "foreign"...
din and daf with elana stein hain gemara shiur for women

Din & Daf: When Peshat and Derash Do Not Match (Episode 5)

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain When Peshat and Derash Do...
eye saadia street

Seeing Eye to Eye

One of the most famous Rabbinic reinterpretations of Torah law is for the precept of 鈥渁n eye for an eye鈥...

Bava Kamma 83

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 83

诇砖讜谉 住讜专住讬 诇诪讛 讗讜 诇砖讜谉 讛拽讚砖 讗讜 诇砖讜谉 讬讜谞讬转 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讘诇 诇砖讜谉 讗专诪讬 诇诪讛 讗讜 诇砖讜谉 讛拽讚砖 讗讜 诇砖讜谉 驻专住讬 讗诪专讬 诇砖讜谉 讬讜谞讬 诇讞讜讚 讞讻诪转 讬讜谞讬转 诇讞讜讚


why would one speak the Syriac [Sursi] language? One should speak either the sacred tongue, Hebrew, or the Greek language. And Rabbi Yosei said similarly: In Babylonia, why would one speak the Aramaic language? One should speak either the sacred tongue or the Persian language. At any rate, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement indicates that there is nothing wrong with learning and speaking Greek. The Sages say in response: The Greek language is discrete, and Greek wisdom is discrete. In other words, these are two separate issues; only Greek wisdom is prohibited, not the Greek language.


讜讞讻诪转 讬讜谞讬转 诪讬 讗住讬专讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讬谞讬 注讜诇诇讛 诇谞驻砖讬 诪讻诇 讘谞讜转 注讬专讬 讗诇祝 讬诇讚讬诐 讛讬讜 讘讘讬转 讗讘讗 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 诪讛诐 诇诪讚讜 转讜专讛 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 诇诪讚讜 讞讻诪转 讬讜谞讬转 讜诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 诪讛诐 讗诇讗 讗谞讬 讻讗谉 讜讘谉 讗讞讬 讗讘讗 讘注住讬讗


The Gemara further pursues this line of inquiry: And is Greek wisdom itself actually prohibited? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: It is written: 鈥淢y eye affected my soul, because of all the daughters of my city鈥 (Lamentations 3:51). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel applied this verse to a personal tragedy: There were a thousand children in the household of my father, Rabban Gamliel; five hundred of them studied the Torah, and five hundred of them studied Greek wisdom. All of them were killed by the Romans; and the only ones that remain of them are I, who is here, and the son of my father鈥檚 brother, who is in Asia Minor [Asya]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 statement indicates that it is permitted to study Greek wisdom.


讗诪专讬 砖讗谞讬 讘讬转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖讛讬讜 拽专讜讘讬诐 诇诪诇讻讜转 讜讻讚转谞讬讗 讛诪住驻专 拽讜诪讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讚专讻讬 讛讗诪讜专讬 讗讘讟讜诇诪讜住 讘专 专讗讜讘谉 讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇住驻专 拽讜诪讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 拽专讜讘 诇诪诇讻讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛转讬专讜 诇讛诐 诇住驻专 讘讞讻诪转 讬讜谞讬转 诪驻谞讬 砖拽专讜讘讬诐 诇诪诇讻讜转


The Sages say in response: The household of Rabban Gamliel is different, as they held close ties with the government. Since knowledge of Greek wisdom was crucial for the members of this family, the Sages exempted them from the general decree, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who cuts his hair in the fashion of komi, a certain haircut favored by the Romans, this is considered one of the ways of the Amorites, i.e., a gentile practice prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:3). Despite this, the Sages permitted Avtolmos bar Reuven to cut his hair in the fashion of komi, because he had close ties with the government. Likewise, they permitted the members of the household of Rabban Gamliel to discuss matters of Greek wisdom, because they had close ties with the government.


诇讗 讬讙讚诇 讗讚诐 讗转 讛讻诇讘 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讜专 讘砖诇砖诇讗讜转 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬讙讚诇 讗讚诐 讗转 讛讻诇讘 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讜专 讘砖诇砖诇转 讗讘诇 诪讙讚诇 讛讜讗 讘注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讜拽讜砖专讜 讘讬讜诐 讜诪转讬专讜 讘诇讬诇讛


搂 The mishna teaches: A person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with chains. The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with a chain. But he may raise a dog in a city that is close to the border of the country, and in that case he should tie it during the day but may release it at night.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讙讚讜诇 讗讜诪专 讛诪讙讚诇 讻诇讘讬诐 讻诪讙讚诇 讞讝讬专讬诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讬拽诐 注诇讬讛 讘讗专讜专


It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: One who raises dogs is like one who raises pigs. The Gemara asks: What is the practical significance of this statement? Since both are prohibited, what is the point of this comparison? The Gemara answers: The significance is with regard to determining when one is liable to be cursed for it. Rabbi Eliezer is saying that the same curse meted out to one who raises pigs also applies to one who raises dogs.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讘诇 讻注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讚诪讬 转专讙诪讛 谞讛专讚注讗


Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says: Babylonia is considered like a city close to the border, and therefore it is permitted to raise dogs there. The Gemara qualifies this statement, and in this context, Babylonia is interpreted as referring only to Neharde鈥檃, a city that was close to the border.


讚专讬砖 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讚诪谉 讘讬专讬 讜讘谞讞讛 讬讗诪专 砖讜讘讛 讛壮 专讘讘讜转 讗诇驻讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讗讬谉 砖讻讬谞讛 砖讜专讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 讗诇驻讬诐 讜砖谞讬 专讘讘讜转 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讛讬转讛 讗砖讛 诪注讜讘专转 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讜谞讘讞 讘讛 讻诇讘 讜讛驻讬诇讛 谞诪爪讗 讝讛 讙讜专诐 诇砖讻讬谞讛 砖转住转诇拽 诪讬砖专讗诇


With regard to raising dogs, Rabbi Dostai from Biri expounded: It is written in connection to the Ark of the Covenant: 鈥淎nd when it rested, he said: Return, O Lord, to the myriads of the thousands of Israel鈥 (Numbers 10:36). This verse serves to teach you that the Divine Presence does not rest upon the Jewish people if they number fewer than two thousand and two myriads, where one myriad is equal to ten thousand. The plural form of 鈥渕yriads鈥 and 鈥渢housands鈥 indicates at least two of each. If they are lacking one individual from this total, and there was a pregnant woman among them, who was fit to complete the number by giving birth, and a dog barked at her and she miscarried as a result of the fright, this owner of the dog is found to have caused the Divine Presence to depart from the Jewish people.


讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚注诇转 诇诪讬驻讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讘讬转讗 谞讘讞 讘讛 讻诇讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诪专讬讛 诇讗 转讬住转驻讬 诪讬谞讬讛 砖拽讜诇讬 谞讬讘讬讛 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 砖拽讬诇讬 讟讬讘讜转讬讱 讜砖讚讬讗 讗讞讬讝专讬 讻讘专 谞讚 讜诇讚


There was a certain woman who entered a certain building to bake. A dog barked at her. Its owner said to her: Do not be afraid of it; its canine teeth have been removed. She said to him: It is too late for your reassurances. Take your favors and throw them on the thorns! I have felt that the baby has already moved from its place in the womb and will not be born alive.


讗讬谉 驻讜专住讬谉 谞讬砖讘讬谉 诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讜诪讬 讗讝诇讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讛转谞谉 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛砖讜讘讱 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬砖讟 砖讬讬讟讬 讟讜讘讗 讻专住讬讬讛讜 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诪诇讬讗


搂 The mishna teaches: One may spread out traps for pigeons only if this was performed at a distance of at least thirty ris, which is eight thousand cubits, from any settled area, to ensure that privately owned pigeons are not caught in the traps. The Gemara asks: And do pigeons really travel that far from their established places? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bava Batra 23a): One must distance a dovecote fifty cubits from the city, so that the pigeons that settle in the cotes do not eat the crops that grow in the gardens of the city. This shows that the range of a pigeon is only fifty cubits, whereas four mil is eight thousand cubits. Abaye said: Pigeons fly much more than fifty cubits away from their cotes, but their stomachs become full from the food they find within fifty cubits, and therefore they do not eat any more beyond that range.


讜诪讬砖讟 砖诇砖讬诐 专讬住 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讬砖讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 诪讬诇 诇讗 讬驻专讜住 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讬砖讜讘 讻专诪讬诐 专讘讛 讗诪专 讘讬砖讜讘 砖讜讘讻讬谉


The Gemara asks: And with regard to flying, is their range only thirty ris and no more? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In a settled area, one may not spread out a trap for pigeons even at a distance of one hundred mil from the settlement? This indicates that a privately owned pigeon might be trapped even one hundred mil away from a settled area. Why, then, does the mishna permit trapping beyond four mil? Rav Yosef said: The baraita is not talking about an ordinary city but about a settled area where vineyards are grown. Since the pigeons rest in the vineyards as they travel, they are able to traverse great distances. Rabba stated a different answer: The baraita is dealing with a settled area where there are many dovecotes in which they can rest from their flight.


讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讜讘讻讬谉 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讚讙讜讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讚讛驻拽专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讚讬讚讬讛


The Gemara asks: If there are many dovecotes along the way, let the tanna derive the prohibition against setting pigeon traps due to the dovecotes themselves. Since the mishna teaches that it is prohibited to trap pigeons within four mil of privately owned dovecotes, it should be irrelevant that there is a city one hundred mil away. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is dealing with dovecotes that belong to a gentile, and the prohibition against trapping pigeons from private dovecotes applies only to birds owned by Jews. Or if you wish, say that the baraita is dealing with abandoned dovecotes that are ownerless. Or if you wish, say that it is referring to dovecotes that are his, i.e., they belong to the same individual who is setting the pigeon trap.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪专讜讘讛


MISHNA: One who injures another is liable to pay compensation for that injury due to five types of indemnity: He must pay for damage, for pain, for medical costs, for loss of livelihood, and for humiliation.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讞讘讬专讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘谞讝拽 讘爪注专 讘专讬驻讜讬 讘砖讘转 讜讘讜砖转


How is payment for damage assessed? If one blinded another鈥檚 eye, severed his hand, broke his leg, or caused any other injury, the court views the injured party as though he were a slave being sold in the slave market, and the court appraises how much he was worth before the injury and how much he is worth after the injury. The difference between these two sums is the amount that one must pay for causing damage.


讘谞讝拽 讻讬爪讚 住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 拽讟注 讗转 讬讚讜 砖讬讘专 讗转 专讙诇讜 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 注讘讚 谞诪讻专 讘砖讜拽 讜砖诪讬谉 讻诪讛 讛讬讛 讬驻讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 讬驻讛


How is payment for pain assessed? If one burned another with a skewer [beshapud] or with a hot nail, or even if one burned another on his fingernail, which is a place where he does not cause a bruise that would affect the victim鈥檚 value on the slave market, the court evaluates how much money a person with a similar threshold for pain as the victim is willing to take in order to be made to suffer in this way. The one who burned the victim must then pay this amount.


爪注专 讻讜讗讜 (讗讜) 讘砖驻讜讚 讗讜 讘诪住诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 爪讬驻讜专谞讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讞讘讜专讛 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讻诪讛 讗讚诐 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讝讛 专讜爪讛 诇讬讟讜诇 诇讛讬讜转 诪爪讟注专 讻讱


How is payment for medical costs assessed? If one struck another, then he is liable to heal him by paying for his medical costs. In a case where growths, e.g., blisters or rashes, appeared on the injured party, if the growths are due to the blow, the one who struck him is liable; if the growths are not due to the blow, the one who struck him is exempt. In a case where the wound healed, and then reopened, and again healed, and then reopened, the one who struck him remains liable to heal the injured party by paying for his medical costs, as it is apparent that the current wound resulted from the original injury. If the injury healed fully, the one who struck him is not liable to heal him by paying for any subsequent medical costs.


专讬驻讜讬 讛讻讛讜 讞讬讬讘 诇专驻讗讜转讜 注诇讛 讘讜 爪诪讞讬诐 讗诐 诪讞诪转 讛诪讻讛 讞讬讬讘 砖诇讗 诪讞诪转 讛诪讻讛 驻讟讜专 讞讬讬转讛 讜谞住转专讛 讞讬讬转讛 讜谞住转专讛 讞讬讬讘 诇专驻讗讜转讜 讞讬讬转讛 讻诇 爪讜专讻讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇专驻讗讜转讜


How is payment for loss of livelihood assessed? The court views the injured party as though he were a watchman of cucumbers, and the one who caused him injury must compensate him based on that pay scale for the income that he lost during his convalescence. This indemnity does not take into account the value of the standard wages of the injured party because the one who caused him injury already gave him compensation for his hand or compensation for his leg, and that compensation took into account his professional skills.


砖讘转 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 砖讜诪专 拽讬砖讜讗讬谉 砖讻讘专 谞转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讬讚讜 讜讚诪讬 专讙诇讜


How is payment for humiliation assessed? It all depends on the stature of the one who humiliates the other and the one who is humiliated.


讘讜砖转 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讜讛诪转讘讬讬砖


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna take for granted the fact that one who caused injury is liable to pay compensation to the injured party? The Merciful One states in the Torah: 鈥淎n eye for an eye鈥 (Exodus 21:24). You might say that this means that the one who caused injury shall lose an actual eye rather than pay money.


讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 注讬谉 转讞转 注讬谉 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讬诪讗 注讬谉 诪诪砖


The Gemara responds: That interpretation should not enter your mind. The principle implicit in the mishna is derived from a verbal analogy in the Torah, as it is taught in a baraita: Based on the verse: 鈥淎n eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot鈥 (Exodus 21:24), one might have thought that if one blinded the eye of another, the court blinds his eye as punishment; or if one severed the hand of another, the court severs his hand; or if one broke the leg of another, the court breaks his leg. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥ne who strikes a person,鈥 and the verse also states: 鈥淎nd one who strikes an animal,鈥 to teach that just as one who strikes an animal is liable to pay monetary compensation, so too, one who strikes a person is liable to pay monetary compensation.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 诪住诪讗 讗转 注讬谞讜 拽讟注 讗转 讬讚讜 诪拽讟注 讗转 讬讚讜 砖讬讘专 讗转 专讙诇讜 诪砖讘专 讗转 专讙诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉


And if it is your wish to say that there is an objection to this derivation, there is an alternative derivation: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, for he shall die鈥 (Numbers 35:31). This indicates that it is only for the life of a murderer that you shall not take ransom; but you shall take ransom for one who severed another鈥檚 extremities, which is analogous to the death of a limb, as severed limbs do not regenerate.


讜讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻驻专 诇谞驻砖 专爪讞 讗砖专 讛讜讗 专砖注 诇诪讜转 诇谞驻砖 专讜爪讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 诇专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讜讝专讬谉


The Gemara asks: To which verse is the baraita referring when it quotes: 鈥淥ne who strikes a person鈥 and: 鈥淥ne who strikes an animal鈥? If we say that the baraita is referring to the verse: 鈥淥ne who strikes an animal shall pay its compensation, and one who strikes a person shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:21), this cannot be, as that verse is written with regard to killing, not injury, and there is no monetary compensation for killing.


讛讬 诪讻讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 讜诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讬讜诪转 讛讛讜讗 讘拽讟诇讗 讻转讬讘


Rather, the baraita references the verse from here: 鈥淥ne who strikes an animal mortally shall pay its compensation, a life for a life鈥 (Leviticus 24:18); and juxtaposed to that is the verse: 鈥淎nd if a man maims his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him鈥 (Leviticus 24:19). The Gemara challenges: But this latter verse does not use the expression: 鈥淥ne who strikes,鈥 which is the basis for the comparison in the baraita. The Gemara responds: We are stating an analogy from striking to striking that is based not upon the exact phrasing of the verse but upon the details of the halakha, as follows: Just as the act of striking that is stated with regard to an animal renders one liable to pay monetary compensation, so too, the act of striking that is stated with regard to a person renders one liable to pay monetary compensation.


讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬转谉 诪讜诐 讘注诪讬转讜 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讻讛 讛讜讗 讛讻讗讛 讛讻讗讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 讛讻讗讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘讛诪讛 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讛讻讗讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讗讚诐 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉


The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it written in the verses discussing one who injures another: 鈥淎nd a man who strikes any person mortally shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:17), which presumably means that in the case of one who severs another鈥檚 extremity the same injury, i.e., death of a limb, is done to the one who caused the injury, and he does not pay monetary compensation? The Gemara answers: The verse does not mean that his limb shall be put to death, i.e., removed, but rather, that he should pay compensation with money. The Gemara asks: From where do you say that the verse is referring to paying compensation with money? Why not say that he is punished with actual death i.e., loss of a limb?


讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬讻讛 讻诇 谞驻砖 讗讚诐 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘诪诪讜谉 诪诪讗讬 讚讘诪诪讜谉 讗讬诪讗 讘诪讬转讛 诪诪砖


The Gemara answers: That interpretation should not enter your mind for two reasons. One reason is that this verse is juxtaposed to the following verse: 鈥淥ne who strikes an animal mortally shall pay its compensation鈥 (Leviticus 24:18). And furthermore, it is written after it: 鈥淎 fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; as he has given a blemish to a person, so shall it be given unto him鈥 (Leviticus 24:20); and learn from the use of the word 鈥済iven鈥 that the verse is referring to money.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讞讚讗 讚讛讗 讗讬转拽砖 诇诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 讬砖诇诪谞讛 讜注讜讚 讻转讬讘 讘转专讬讛 讻讗砖专 讬转谉 诪讜诐 讘讗讚诐 讻谉 讬谞转谉 讘讜 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪诪讜谉


The Gemara asks: And what potential difficulty with the first derivation did the baraita refer to when it prefaced its second derivation with the phrase: If it is your wish to say? The Gemara explains: The baraita means that a further difficulty was troubling to the tanna: What did you see that led you to derive the principle of monetary payment from the phrase 鈥渙ne who strikes an animal鈥? Why not derive the halakha from the verse: 鈥淥ne who strikes a person shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:21), and learn that causing an injury renders one liable to receive physical retribution, which is analogous to death, and not monetary payment?


讜诪讗讬 讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 转讜 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇转谞讗 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讬诇驻转 诪诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讬诇祝 诪诪讻讛 讗讚诐


The Sages say in response: The halakhot of damages are derived from a verse concerning damages, and the halakhot of damages are not derived from a verse concerning death. The Gemara questions this statement: On the contrary, why not say that the halakhot concerning a person are derived from a verse concerning a person, and the halakhot concerning a person are not derived from a verse concerning animals?


讗诪专讬 讚谞讬谉 谞讬讝拽讬谉 诪谞讬讝拽讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 谞讬讝拽讬谉 诪诪讬转讛 讗讚专讘讛 讚谞讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讗讚诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讘讛诪讛


To deflect this question, this is consistent with that which the second derivation of the baraita teaches: If it is your wish to say that there is an objection to this derivation, there is an alternative derivation, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, for he shall die鈥 (Numbers 35:31). This indicates that it is only for the life of a murderer that you shall not take ransom; but you shall take ransom for one who severed another鈥檚 extremities, which is analogous to the death of a limb, as severed limbs do not regenerate.


讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 谞驻砖讱 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻驻专 诇谞驻砖 专爪讞 讗砖专 讛讜讗 专砖注 诇诪讜转 讻讬 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 诇谞驻砖 专讜爪讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 诇专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讞讜讝专讬谉


The Gemara challenges this claim: But is this verse: 鈥淵ou shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer,鈥 coming to exclude the case of one who severs another鈥檚 extremities from the prohibition against taking ransom? Isn鈥檛 this verse necessary to teach that which the Merciful One states: You shall not mete out two punishments to him; i.e., do not take money from him as ransom and also kill him? The Gemara answers: That halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淭hen it shall be, if the guilty deserves to be lashed, that the judge shall lie him down and flog him before him, according to the measure of his evildoing鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2). From the fact that 鈥渆vildoing鈥 is singular, the Gemara homiletically infers: For one evildoing, you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two evildoings, i.e., one cannot receive two punishments for the same act.


讜讛讗讬 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻驻专 诇谞驻砖 专爪讞 诇诪注讜讟讬 专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 转专转讬 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪诪讜谉 讜转拽讟诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诪讻讚讬 专砖注转讜 谞驻拽讗 专砖注讛 讗讞转 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讬讬讘讜 砖转讬 专砖注讬讜转


The Gemara challenges this explanation: But the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer, for one who is guilty of death鈥 is still necessary to teach the primary halakha taught in that verse, in which the Merciful One states: You shall not take money and thereby exempt the guilty from being put to death. The verse does not serve to exclude liability to pay damages from the prohibition against paying restitution. The Gemara answers: If so, i.e., if the Torah desires to teach only that the court cannot take ransom to spare the murderer from being put to death, let the Merciful One write in the Torah: 鈥淵ou shall not take ransom鈥 and follow it immediately with the phrase 鈥渇or one who is guilty of death.鈥 Why do I need the Torah to also state: 鈥淔or the life of a murderer鈥? Learn from the addition of that phrase that it is only for a murderer that you shall not take ransom; but you shall take ransom for one who severed another鈥檚 extremities, which do not regenerate once severed.


讜讗讻转讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转砖拽讜诇 诪诪讜谉 讜转驻讟专讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻讜驻专 诇讗砖专 讛讜讗 专砖注 诇诪讜转 诇谞驻砖 专爪讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇谞驻砖 专讜爪讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诇讜拽讞 讻讜驻专 诇专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讞讜讝专讬谉


The Gemara asks: And once it is written: 鈥淵ou shall not take ransom,鈥 why do I need the first derivation of the baraita, which juxtaposes: 鈥淥ne who strikes a person鈥 to: 鈥淥ne who strikes an animal鈥? The Sages say in response: If the halakha were to be derived only from that verse which states: 鈥淵ou shall not take ransom鈥 (Numbers 35:31), I would say: If the one who caused the damage desires, he may choose to give his eye, and if he desires, he may choose to give the monetary value of his eye. Therefore, the Torah teaches us to derive this halakha from that of an animal: Just as one who strikes an animal is liable to pay monetary compensation and does not receive corporal punishment, so too, one who strikes a person is liable to pay monetary compensation and does not receive corporal punishment.


讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转拽讞讜 讻驻专 诪讻讛 诪讻讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专讬 讗讬 诪讛讗讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬 讘注讬 注讬谞讜 谞讬转讬讘 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讚诪讬 注讬谞讜 谞讬转讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讘讛诪讛 诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉


搂 The Gemara presents a series of derivations for the principle that one who injures another is liable to pay monetary compensation. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says: The phrase: 鈥淎n eye for an eye鈥 (Leviticus 24:20), means monetary restitution. Do you say that he must pay the victim monetary restitution, or is it only teaching that the one who caused the injury must lose an actual eye? You say: There may be a case where the eye of the one who caused the injury is large and the eye of the injured party is small. How can I read and literally apply the phrase 鈥渁n eye for an eye鈥 in this case?


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讬谉 转讞转 注讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪诪讜谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 注讬谉 诪诪砖 讗诪专转 讛专讬 砖讛讬转讛 注讬谞讜 砖诇 讝讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜注讬谞讜 砖诇 讝讛 拽讟谞讛 讛讬讗讱 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讬讛 注讬谉 转讞转 注讬谉


The Gemara continues the derivation: And if you would say that in all cases like this, where their eyes are different sizes, the injured party takes monetary restitution from the one who caused him injury, but in a case where their eyes are the same size, the one who caused injury is punished by actually having his eye removed, this cannot be, as the Torah said: 鈥淵ou shall have one manner of law鈥 (Leviticus 24:22), teaching that the law shall be equal for all of you.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪诪讜谞讗 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 诪砖驻讟 讗讞讚 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪砖驻讟 讛砖讜讛 诇讻讜诇讻诐


The Sages object to this derivation and say: What is the difficulty in saying that his eye should be blinded? Perhaps, as the one who caused the injury took the sight from the injured party鈥檚 eye, the Merciful One states that the court should take the sight from his eye as well, no matter the size of the eye. Since, if you do not say so, then by the same logic,


讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 谞讛讜专讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 谞讛讜专讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬



Scroll To Top