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

Daf Yomi

January 27, 2024 | 讬状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讚

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

Bava Kamma 86

Raba asks if there is a requirement to pay for damages for causing a temporary injury (the injury will eventually heal completely). Rava and Abaye each have different positions on this question. They disagree as well in a case of permanent damage to a Jewish slave – to whom does the payment go – to the slave or the owner? According to which tanaitic opinion in our braita does the Mishna follow when it rules that regarding payment for humiliation, it depends on both the one who did the action of humiliating and the one who was humiliated? A different braita regarding humiliation payment is quoted, and the Gemara suggests two ways to understand it – according to Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yehuda. The Mishna deals with cases where one embarrassed a person who was naked, blind or sleeping and rules that in all these cases, the one who embarrassed needs to pay. What is meant by embarrassing a naked person? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asks a question regarding one who was embarrassed while sleeping and died before waking up, does one need to pay humiliation payment to the heirs? Rav Zevid and Rav Papa each explain the question differently. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the ruling of the Mishna regarding a blind person and exempts the one who embarrasses the blind person from payment. He also rules that a blind person is not obligated to go to a refuge city, and does not get lashes or death as a punishment. From where does he derive these laws?

讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜诇谉


is liable to pay all of the five types of indemnity.


讛讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 讞讘讜专讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讻讛讜 注诇 讬讚讜 讜住讜驻讜 诇讞讝讜专 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜诇谉


The Gemara explains: In this case of one who injured his parent but did not bruise him, what are the circumstances? Is it not a case where he struck him on his hand, and it will eventually return to its original health? And with regard to this case that mishna teaches: He is liable to pay all of the five types of indemnity. If so, this resolves Rabba鈥檚 dilemma.


讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讞讬专砖讜 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 讞讘讜专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讞讜专砖 讗转 讗讘讬讜 谞讛专讙 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讘诇讗 讞讘讜专讛 讟讬驻转讗 讚讚诪讗 谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 讘讗讜讚谞讬讛


The Sages object and say: Here we are dealing with a case where he deafened his parent by striking him, but did not bruise him. Since his father鈥檚 hearing loss is permanent, he is liable to pay all five types of indemnity, and this is not relevant to Rabba鈥檚 dilemma. The Gemara objects: But doesn鈥檛 Rabba himself say: One who deafens his father is executed, even though no bruise is visible, because it is impossible for deafening to occur without a bruise? It is certain that a drop of blood fell into his ear from the blow, even if it is not visible from the outside.


讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讬诇讞讜 讙讬诇讞讜 诪讛讚专 讛讚专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讘注讬讬谉


Rather, it must be that here we are dealing with a case where he shaved his father鈥檚 hair without causing a bruise. In a case where he shaved him, his hair will return, and this is an example of our dilemma, i.e., of an injury to a limb that will return to its original health. If so, this resolves Rabba鈥檚 dilemma.


讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖住讻讜 谞砖讗 讚诇讗 讛讚专


The Sages object and say: It is possible that here we are dealing with a case where he smeared his father with a depilatory agent [nasha] that caused his hair to fall out, so that his hair will not return.


爪注专 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 讘专讬砖讬讛 讜爪讜讜讞讬 诪讛谞讛讜 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 专讬驻讜讬 讚讘注讬讗 讗住讜讬讬 砖讘转 讚讛讜讛 诪专拽讬讚 讘讬 讻讜讘讬 讚讘注讬讗 诪讞讜讬 讙讜谞讬 讗专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 诪讞讜讬 诪讛谞讛讜 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 讘讜砖转 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讜砖转 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛


The Gemara explains how one could be liable for each of the five types of indemnity by smearing a depilatory agent: The father experiences pain in a case where he has fissures on his head and has pain from those fissures. He incurs medical costs because he requires healing for the fissures. He incurs loss of livelihood in a case where he would dance in taverns to earn money, which requires him to make various gestures with his head and his hair while dancing; and now he cannot gesture because of those fissures on his head. He experiences humiliation, because there is no humiliation greater than losing one鈥檚 hair.


讜诪讬诇转讗 讚讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讜诇专讘讗 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讚讗转诪专 讛讻讛讜 注诇 讬讚讜 讜爪诪转讛 讜住讜驻讛 诇讞讝讜专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讘转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜砖讘转 拽讟谞讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 砖讘转讜 砖讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐


The Gemara comments: And the matter that is a dilemma for Rabba is obvious to Abaye on this side of the dilemma, and to Rava on that side of the dilemma; they each resolved the dilemma but with opposing conclusions. As it was stated: If one struck another on his hand and the hand was weakened, but it will ultimately return to its original health, Abaye says: He gives him compensation for his major loss of livelihood, i.e., the decrease in his value, due to his temporary paralysis, as measured by his price on the slave market; and his minor loss of livelihood, i.e., the money he would have earned while idle during his recovery. And Rava says: He gives him only the value of his loss of livelihood for each and every day, and he does not give him the full value of his hand.


讗讬转诪专 讛拽讜讟注 讬讚 注讘讚 注讘专讬 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讘转 讙讚讜诇讛 诇注讘讚 讜砖讘转 拽讟谞讛 诇专讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讻诇 讬谞转谉 诇注讘讚 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛专讘 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转


搂 The Gemara presents another dispute between Abaye and Rava. It was stated: With regard to one who severs the hand of a Hebrew slave who belongs to another, Abaye says: He gives compensation for the major loss of livelihood to the slave, and compensation for the minor loss of livelihood to the master. Rava says: All the compensation shall be given to the slave, and land shall be purchased with the money; and the master garners the profits from the land for the duration of the slave鈥檚 term of slavery.


驻砖讬讟讗 驻讬讞转 讗爪诇 注爪诪讜 讜讗爪诇 专讘讜 诇讗 驻讬讞转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚驻住拽讬讛 诇专讬砖 讗讜谞讬讛 讗讜 诇专讬砖 谞讞讬专讬讛 讛讻诇 诇注爪诪讜 驻讬讞转 讗爪诇 专讘讜 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗


The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if one injured a slave and thereby reduced the slave鈥檚 value for the slave himself, but he did not reduce the slave鈥檚 value for his master; the Gemara interjects: What are the circumstances where this is possible? This is possible in a case where he split the tip of his ear or the tip of his nostril, which does not impact the slave鈥檚 ability to perform labor. The Gemara returns to continue the statement: In such a case, all of the compensation goes to the slave himself. If the injury reduced the slave鈥檚 value for his master, then this is the case of the dispute of Abaye and Rava.


讘讜砖转 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讜讛诪转讘讬讬砖 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗


搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it is not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, it is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讚转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讛诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 砖讬专讚讜 诪谞讻住讬讛诐 砖讛谉 讘谞讬 讗讘专讛诐 讬爪讞拽 讜讬注拽讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讙讚讜诇 诇驻讬 讙讜讚诇讜 讜讛拽讟谉 诇驻讬 拽讟谞讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注砖讬专讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讛诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 砖讬专讚讜 诪谞讻住讬讛诐 注谞讬讬诐 讻驻讞讜转讬谉 砖讘讛谉


These opinions are as we learned in a baraita: And in all of those cases of Jews who were humiliated, regardless of their individual stature, they are viewed as though they were freemen who lost their property and were impoverished, and their humiliation is calculated according to this status, as they are the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and are all of prominent lineage. Humiliation is assessed according to a standard formula, regardless of who was humiliated. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court views each person according to his stature, the great person according to his greatness, and the small person according to his smallness. Rabbi Shimon says: In a case of wealthy people, the court views them as though they were freemen who lost their property; in a case of poor people, the court views them as the least among the poor. This lessens the payment of compensation for the one who caused humiliation.


诪谞讬 讛砖转讗 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讜讛诪转讘讬讬砖 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛住讜诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗


The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? Now, if it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the mishna teaches: It all depends on the stature of the one who humiliates the other and the one who is humiliated, and Rabbi Meir holds in the baraita that all of those who were humiliated are considered alike to one another. And if it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, a mishna teaches (86b): One who humiliates a blind person is liable, whereas Rabbi Yehuda says in a baraita: A blind person does not have humiliation. Rather, is the opinion expressed in the mishna not that of Rabbi Shimon?


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 诇诪砖拽诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: You can even say that the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. When Rabbi Yehuda said that a blind person does not have humiliation, he meant with regard to another taking compensation for humiliation from him. A blind person is not fully aware of what he does, and one can be rendered liable for causing humiliation only if he intended to humiliate the other. But with regard to giving him compensation for humiliation, he is given compensation.


讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛讬砖谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讬砖谉 砖讘讬讬砖 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 住讜诪讗 砖讘讬讬砖 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗


The Gemara challenges this explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: But from the fact that the latter clause of that mishna teaches that one who humiliates a sleeping person is liable but a sleeping person who humiliates another is exempt, and does not teach that a blind person who humiliates another is exempt, by inference, the mishna teaches that there is no difference this way, and no difference that way; whether a blind person humiliates another or is humiliated, the one who causes humiliation is liable to pay compensation. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讜讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇 谞讜转谉 诇讙讚讜诇 讚诪讬 讘讜砖转讜 砖诇 拽讟谉 诇讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛注讘讚 讜讘讬讬砖 讗转 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 谞讜转谉 诇讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讚诪讬 讘讜砖转讜 砖诇 注讘讚 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


搂 The Gemara analyzes a related baraita in light of the three opinions cited earlier. Who is the tanna who taught this baraita, as the Sages taught: If one intended to humiliate a small man [katan] and instead humiliated a great man [gadol], he gives the money he would have owed for the small man鈥檚 humiliation to the great man. If one intended to humiliate a slave and instead humiliated a freeman, he gives the money he would have owed for the slave鈥檚 humiliation to the freeman. Whose opinion is this? It is not the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and not the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽讟谉 拽讟谉 讘谞讻住讬诐 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗诪专 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇注讘讚讬诐 讘讜砖转 讜讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讘讬讬砖 讗转 讝讛 讜讘讬讬砖 讗转 讝讛 驻讟讜专


The Gemara explains why this is not in accordance with the opinion of any of these tanna鈥檌m: It enters your mind to say that when the baraita is referring to a katan, it means that he is small in terms of his property, i.e., he is poor; and when the baraita is referring to a gadol, it means that he is great in terms of his property, i.e., he is wealthy. If this baraita is stating the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn鈥檛 he say in the baraita that all of those who were humiliated are considered similar to one another? And if it is stating the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn鈥檛 he say: Slaves have no humiliation; whereas the baraita discusses the compensation owed to a slave. And if it is stating the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, doesn鈥檛 he say: If one intended to humiliate this one, and instead humiliated that one, he is exempt?


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻拽讟诇讗 诪讛 拽讟诇讗 注讚 讚诪转讻讜讜谉 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗专讘 诇讜 讜拽诐 注诇讬讜 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讜谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 谞诪讬 注讚 讚诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诇讞讛 讬讚讛 讜讛讞讝讬拽讛 讘诪讘砖讬讜 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讜谉 诇讜


The Gemara explains Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement: What is the reason for exempting one who humiliated a person whom he did not intend to humiliate? The halakha of humiliation is like the halakha of killing. Just as in a case of killing, the murderer is not executed unless he intended to kill the victim specifically, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he lies in wait for him, and rises up against him鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:11), which means he is not liable unless he intended to kill him specifically, so too, in a case of humiliation, the one who humiliated is not liable unless he intended to humiliate him specifically, as it is written: 鈥淎nd she put forth her hand, and took him by his genitals鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:11); this teaches that one is not liable for humiliation unless he intended to humiliate him specifically.


诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇注讘讚讬诐 讘讜砖转 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 诇诪讬砖诐 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讘讛讜


The Gemara returns to analyzing the baraita: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and when Rabbi Yehuda said: Slaves have no humiliation, he meant that one would not be liable to give them compensation for humiliation; but if the court needs to appraise compensation for the humiliation of others according to their humiliation, and thereby determine the compensation one owes to a freeman when he intended to humiliate a slave, then we do appraise according to their humiliation.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬 住讘专转 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 讘谞讻住讬诐 拽讟谉 拽讟谉 讘谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 诪诪砖 讜拽讟谉 拽讟谉 诪诪砖


The Gemara presents an alternative explanation of the baraita: And if you wish, say instead: You can even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Do you maintain that when the baraita is referring to a gadol, it means he is great in terms of his property, and when the baraita is referring to a katan, it means he is small in terms of his property? No, rather, when the baraita is referring to a gadol, it means an actual adult [gadol]; and when the baraita is referring to a katan, it means an actual minor [katan].


讜拽讟谉 讘专 讘讜砖转 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬


The Gemara asks: But is a minor subject to humiliation? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rav Pappa said with regard to another halakha: The case involves a minor who has reached a stage in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation; here, too,


讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐


say that the baraita discusses a case involving a minor who has reached a stage in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛注专讜诐 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛住讜诪讗 讜讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛讬砖谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讬砖谉 砖讘讬讬砖 驻讟讜专 谞驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讜讛讝讬拽 讜讘讬讬砖 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛谞讝拽 讜驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讘讜砖转 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诪转讻讜讬谉


MISHNA: One who humiliates a naked person, or one who humiliates a blind person, or one who humiliates a sleeping person is liable, but a sleeping person who humiliates another is exempt. If one fell from the roof onto another person, and thereby caused him damage and humiliated him, then the one who fell is liable for the indemnity of damage, since a person is always considered forewarned, and exempt from the indemnity of humiliation, since a person is not liable for humiliation unless he intends to humiliate the other person.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬讬砖讜 注专讜诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讘讬讬砖讜 注专讜诐 诇讘讬讬砖讜 诇讘讜砖 讘讬讬砖讜 讘讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讘讬讬砖讜 讘讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 诇讘讬讬砖讜 讘砖讜拽


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:12): If one humiliated another who was naked, he is liable, but the magnitude of humiliation felt when he humiliated him while naked is not comparable to the magnitude of humiliation felt had he humiliated him while clothed, since one who chooses to be naked is less sensitive to humiliation. Similarly, if one humiliated another in a bathhouse, he is liable, but the magnitude of humiliation felt when he humiliated him in a bathhouse is not comparable to the magnitude of humiliation felt had he humiliated him in the marketplace.


讗诪专 诪专 讘讬讬砖讜 注专讜诐 讞讬讬讘 注专讜诐 讘专 讘讜砖转 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 注专讜诐 讚讗转讗 讝讬拽讗 讻专讻讬谞讛讜 诇诪讗谞讬讛 讜讗转讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讬谞讛讜 讟驻讬 讜讘讬讬砖讬讛


The Gemara clarifies the baraita: The Master says: If one humiliated another who was naked, the one who humiliated him is liable. The Gemara asks: Is a naked person subject to humiliation? Is it possible to humiliate him in this state? Rav Pappa said: What does the baraita mean when it says: Naked? It means a case where a gust of wind came and lifted his clothes, and then this one came and raised them higher and humiliated him.


讘讬讬砖讜 讘讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讞讬讬讘 讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讘专 讘讜砖转 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讘讬讬砖讜 注诇 讙讘 讛谞讛专


The baraita also teaches: If one humiliated another in a bathhouse, he is liable. The Gemara asks: Is one in a bathhouse subject to humiliation? In a place where people stand naked, can a person be humiliated by having his clothes removed? Rav Pappa said: This is a case where he humiliated him not in an actual bathhouse, but on the bank of the river, which is a place where people behave more discreetly when they undress.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讘讬讬砖讜 讬砖谉 讜诪转 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讻讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诪讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻讬住讜驻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讗讜讝诇讬讛


Rabbi Abba bar Memel raises a dilemma: If one humiliated another who was asleep, and he died before he awoke, so he never knew of his humiliation, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? Rav Zevid said that this is his dilemma: Is the compensation for humiliation due to embarrassment, i.e., that his feelings suffer because of what he experienced, and this one died and does not have that feeling of embarrassment? Or perhaps the compensation for humiliation is due to disgrace, i.e., lessening of his honor in front of other people, and he disgraced him.


转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讞专砖 讜拽讟谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 讘讜砖转 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 拽讟谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 拽讟谉 讘专 讘讜砖转 讛讜讗


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: A deaf-mute and a minor have the right to receive compensation for humiliation; an imbecile does not have the right to receive compensation for humiliation. The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that the compensation is due to disgrace, this explanation is consistent with that which the baraita teaches concerning a minor, who can be disgraced; but if you say that the compensation is due to embarrassment, is a minor subject to humiliation?


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讟讛 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讜砖转 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rather, what do you mean by stating that the compensation is due to disgrace? If compensation is granted due to disgrace, then an imbecile should receive compensation as well. The Sages say in response: With regard to an imbecile, you can have no greater humiliation than this. It is impossible to degrade him further.


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 谞讬驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 拽讟谉 讘专 讻讬住讜驻讗 讛讜讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐


The Gemara returns to the original suggestion: In any case, resolve from this baraita that the compensation is due to disgrace, as, if it is due to embarrassment, is a minor subject to embarrassment? The Gemara rejects this proof: This is as Rav Pappa said with regard to a different halakha, cited later by the Gemara: The case involves a minor who has reached an age in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation; here, too, say that this baraita discusses a case involving a minor who has reached an age in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation. This is how Rav Zevid understands the dilemma of Rabbi Abba bar Memel.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讜讗 诪讬讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讜砖转 诪砖驻讞讛


Rav Pappa explains Rabbi Abba bar Memel鈥檚 dilemma differently: Rav Pappa said that this is his dilemma: Is the compensation for humiliation due to his own embarrassment, and this one died and was not embarrassed? Or perhaps the compensation for humiliation is due to his family鈥檚 humiliation, and therefore the one who humiliated him must pay compensation to his family?


转讗 砖诪注 讞专砖 讜拽讟谉 讬砖 诇讜 讘讜砖转 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讜砖转 诪砖驻讞讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 拽讟谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讟谉 讘专 讘讜砖转 讛讜讗


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the same baraita: A deaf-mute and a minor have the right to receive compensation for humiliation; an imbecile does not have the right to receive compensation for humiliation. The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that the compensation is due to his family鈥檚 humiliation, this explanation is consistent with that which the baraita teaches concerning a minor, whose family can experience humiliation based on what was done to their relative; but if you say that the compensation is due to his own embarrassment, is a minor subject to humiliation?


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讜砖转 讚讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讟讛 谞诪讬 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讜砖转 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rather, what do you mean by stating that the compensation is due to the humiliation of members of his family? If this is the case, an imbecile should receive compensation as well. The Sages say in response: If one is an imbecile, you can have no greater humiliation than this.


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 谞讬驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚诪砖讜诐 讘讜砖转 诪砖驻讞讛 讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 拽讟谉 讘专 讻讬住讜驻讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬谉 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐


The Gemara returns to the original suggestion: In any case, resolve from this that the compensation is due to his family鈥檚 humiliation, as, if it is due to embarrassment, is a minor subject to embarrassment? Rav Pappa said: Yes, he is subject to embarrassment, as the baraita discusses a case involving a minor who has reached an age in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation.


讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讞专砖 讬砖 诇讜 讘讜砖转 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 拽讟谉 驻注诪讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 驻注诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛讗 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐 讛讗 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讻诇诐


The Gemara adds: And this distinction is taught in a baraita, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A deaf-mute has the right to receive compensation for humiliation; an imbecile does not have the right to receive compensation for humiliation. With regard to a minor, sometimes he has the right to receive compensation for humiliation, and sometimes he does not have the right. Why is this so? This case where he has the right to receive compensation for humiliation is one involving a minor who has reached the stage in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation; that case where he does not have the right to receive compensation for humiliation is one involving a minor who has not reached the stage in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation.


讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛住讜诪讗 讜讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 讙诇讬讜转 讜诪讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 讜诪讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches: One who humiliates a blind person is liable to pay compensation. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A blind person who humiliated another does not have liability for humiliation. And in this way Rabbi Yehuda deemed a blind person exempt from being among those liable to be exiled for killing unintentionally, and from being among those liable to receive lashes, and from being among those liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, if he transgresses a prohibition for which the Torah mandates one of these punishments.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙诪专 注讬谞讱 注讬谞讱 诪注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪讛 讛转诐 住讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 住讜诪讬谉 诇讗


The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? He derives a verbal analogy to: 鈥淵our eye shall not pity鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:12), stated with regard to humiliation, from: 鈥淵our eye shall not pity鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:21), stated with regard to conspiring witnesses. The analogy teaches that just as there, with regard to the halakha of conspiring witnesses, blind people are not included, as blind people cannot see events occur in order to testify, so too here, with regard to the halakha of compensation for humiliation, blind people are not included.


诪讞讬讬讘讬 讙诇讬讜转 讚转谞讬讗 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 驻专讟 诇住讜诪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讜诪讗


The Gemara continues its explanation: Why did Rabbi Yehuda deem a blind person exempt from being among those liable to be exiled for killing unintentionally? As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to an unintentional killing: 鈥淥r with any stone, whereby one may die, seeing him not鈥 (Numbers 35:23), this formulation serves to exclude a blind person; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: The verse serves to include a blind person.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 诇讞讟讘 注爪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 住讜诪讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇诪注讜讟讬


The Gemara explains the dispute: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? He would say to you: The verse states with regard to an unintentional killing, without any further limiting clause: 鈥淎s when one goes into the forest with his neighbor to hew wood鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), and this includes even a blind person; therefore, the Merciful One wrote in the Torah: 鈥淪eeing him not鈥 (Numbers 35:23), to exclude a blind person.


讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讜讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转


And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? The Merciful One wrote in the Torah: 鈥淪eeing him not鈥 (Numbers 35:23), apparently to exclude one who happened to not see the one he killed; and the Merciful One wrote in the Torah: 鈥淲ho kills his neighbor unawares鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:4), apparently to exclude a blind person, who is not aware of where others are standing. This is a restriction following a restriction, and there is a hermeneutical principle that a restriction following a restriction serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. Therefore, a blind person is included in the halakha of those liable to be exiled for unintentional killing.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讛讜讗 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


The Gemara asks: And what would Rabbi Yehuda respond to this reasoning? The Gemara explains: That verse: 鈥淲ho kills his neighbor unawares,鈥 does not exclude one who could not see, but rather, it comes to exclude one who was intending to kill a particular person and unintentionally killed someone else. That killer is not exiled.


讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗转讬讗 专爪讞 专爪讞 诪讞讬讬讘讬 讙诇讬讜转


The Gemara continues to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Why did he deem a blind person exempt from being among those liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment? That halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy to: 鈥淏ut if he smote him with an instrument of iron so that he died, he is a killer; the killer shall be put to death鈥 (Numbers 35:16), written with regard to capital punishment, from: 鈥淵ou shall appoint for yourselves cities, to be cities of refuge for you, that a killer who killed any person unintentionally may flee there鈥 (Numbers 35:11), written with regard to those liable to be exiled.


讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 讗转讬讗 专砖注 专砖注 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉


Why did Rabbi Yehuda deem a blind person exempt from being among those liable to receive lashes? That halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy to: 鈥淭hen it shall be, if the guilty one deserves to be beaten鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2), written with regard to lashes, from: 鈥淢oreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death鈥 (Numbers 35:31), written with regard to those liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转


The Gemara presents another statement of Rabbi Yehuda: It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A blind person does not have humiliation,


  • 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: Daf 84-90 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we continue discussing the 5 payments a person makes if he injured another person. One needs to pay...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 85: Repui and Boshet

The daf continues the discussion in different types of payments when a person injures another person specifically repui and boshet...

Bava Kamma 86

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 86

讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜诇谉


is liable to pay all of the five types of indemnity.


讛讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 讞讘讜专讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讻讛讜 注诇 讬讚讜 讜住讜驻讜 诇讞讝讜专 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜诇谉


The Gemara explains: In this case of one who injured his parent but did not bruise him, what are the circumstances? Is it not a case where he struck him on his hand, and it will eventually return to its original health? And with regard to this case that mishna teaches: He is liable to pay all of the five types of indemnity. If so, this resolves Rabba鈥檚 dilemma.


讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讞讬专砖讜 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 讞讘讜专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讞讜专砖 讗转 讗讘讬讜 谞讛专讙 诇驻讬 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讘诇讗 讞讘讜专讛 讟讬驻转讗 讚讚诪讗 谞驻诇讛 诇讬讛 讘讗讜讚谞讬讛


The Sages object and say: Here we are dealing with a case where he deafened his parent by striking him, but did not bruise him. Since his father鈥檚 hearing loss is permanent, he is liable to pay all five types of indemnity, and this is not relevant to Rabba鈥檚 dilemma. The Gemara objects: But doesn鈥檛 Rabba himself say: One who deafens his father is executed, even though no bruise is visible, because it is impossible for deafening to occur without a bruise? It is certain that a drop of blood fell into his ear from the blow, even if it is not visible from the outside.


讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讬诇讞讜 讙讬诇讞讜 诪讛讚专 讛讚专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讘注讬讬谉


Rather, it must be that here we are dealing with a case where he shaved his father鈥檚 hair without causing a bruise. In a case where he shaved him, his hair will return, and this is an example of our dilemma, i.e., of an injury to a limb that will return to its original health. If so, this resolves Rabba鈥檚 dilemma.


讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖住讻讜 谞砖讗 讚诇讗 讛讚专


The Sages object and say: It is possible that here we are dealing with a case where he smeared his father with a depilatory agent [nasha] that caused his hair to fall out, so that his hair will not return.


爪注专 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 讘专讬砖讬讛 讜爪讜讜讞讬 诪讛谞讛讜 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 专讬驻讜讬 讚讘注讬讗 讗住讜讬讬 砖讘转 讚讛讜讛 诪专拽讬讚 讘讬 讻讜讘讬 讚讘注讬讗 诪讞讜讬 讙讜谞讬 讗专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 诪讞讜讬 诪讛谞讛讜 拽专讟讜驻谞讬 讘讜砖转 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讜砖转 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛


The Gemara explains how one could be liable for each of the five types of indemnity by smearing a depilatory agent: The father experiences pain in a case where he has fissures on his head and has pain from those fissures. He incurs medical costs because he requires healing for the fissures. He incurs loss of livelihood in a case where he would dance in taverns to earn money, which requires him to make various gestures with his head and his hair while dancing; and now he cannot gesture because of those fissures on his head. He experiences humiliation, because there is no humiliation greater than losing one鈥檚 hair.


讜诪讬诇转讗 讚讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讜诇专讘讗 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讚讗转诪专 讛讻讛讜 注诇 讬讚讜 讜爪诪转讛 讜住讜驻讛 诇讞讝讜专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讘转 讙讚讜诇讛 讜砖讘转 拽讟谞讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 砖讘转讜 砖讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐


The Gemara comments: And the matter that is a dilemma for Rabba is obvious to Abaye on this side of the dilemma, and to Rava on that side of the dilemma; they each resolved the dilemma but with opposing conclusions. As it was stated: If one struck another on his hand and the hand was weakened, but it will ultimately return to its original health, Abaye says: He gives him compensation for his major loss of livelihood, i.e., the decrease in his value, due to his temporary paralysis, as measured by his price on the slave market; and his minor loss of livelihood, i.e., the money he would have earned while idle during his recovery. And Rava says: He gives him only the value of his loss of livelihood for each and every day, and he does not give him the full value of his hand.


讗讬转诪专 讛拽讜讟注 讬讚 注讘讚 注讘专讬 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讘转 讙讚讜诇讛 诇注讘讚 讜砖讘转 拽讟谞讛 诇专讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讻诇 讬谞转谉 诇注讘讚 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛专讘 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转


搂 The Gemara presents another dispute between Abaye and Rava. It was stated: With regard to one who severs the hand of a Hebrew slave who belongs to another, Abaye says: He gives compensation for the major loss of livelihood to the slave, and compensation for the minor loss of livelihood to the master. Rava says: All the compensation shall be given to the slave, and land shall be purchased with the money; and the master garners the profits from the land for the duration of the slave鈥檚 term of slavery.


驻砖讬讟讗 驻讬讞转 讗爪诇 注爪诪讜 讜讗爪诇 专讘讜 诇讗 驻讬讞转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚驻住拽讬讛 诇专讬砖 讗讜谞讬讛 讗讜 诇专讬砖 谞讞讬专讬讛 讛讻诇 诇注爪诪讜 驻讬讞转 讗爪诇 专讘讜 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗


The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if one injured a slave and thereby reduced the slave鈥檚 value for the slave himself, but he did not reduce the slave鈥檚 value for his master; the Gemara interjects: What are the circumstances where this is possible? This is possible in a case where he split the tip of his ear or the tip of his nostril, which does not impact the slave鈥檚 ability to perform labor. The Gemara returns to continue the statement: In such a case, all of the compensation goes to the slave himself. If the injury reduced the slave鈥檚 value for his master, then this is the case of the dispute of Abaye and Rava.


讘讜砖转 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讜讛诪转讘讬讬砖 诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗


搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is not the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it is not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, it is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


讚转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讛诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 砖讬专讚讜 诪谞讻住讬讛诐 砖讛谉 讘谞讬 讗讘专讛诐 讬爪讞拽 讜讬注拽讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讙讚讜诇 诇驻讬 讙讜讚诇讜 讜讛拽讟谉 诇驻讬 拽讟谞讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注砖讬专讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讛诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 砖讬专讚讜 诪谞讻住讬讛诐 注谞讬讬诐 讻驻讞讜转讬谉 砖讘讛谉


These opinions are as we learned in a baraita: And in all of those cases of Jews who were humiliated, regardless of their individual stature, they are viewed as though they were freemen who lost their property and were impoverished, and their humiliation is calculated according to this status, as they are the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and are all of prominent lineage. Humiliation is assessed according to a standard formula, regardless of who was humiliated. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court views each person according to his stature, the great person according to his greatness, and the small person according to his smallness. Rabbi Shimon says: In a case of wealthy people, the court views them as though they were freemen who lost their property; in a case of poor people, the court views them as the least among the poor. This lessens the payment of compensation for the one who caused humiliation.


诪谞讬 讛砖转讗 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讜讛诪转讘讬讬砖 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽转谞讬 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛住讜诪讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗


The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? Now, if it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the mishna teaches: It all depends on the stature of the one who humiliates the other and the one who is humiliated, and Rabbi Meir holds in the baraita that all of those who were humiliated are considered alike to one another. And if it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, a mishna teaches (86b): One who humiliates a blind person is liable, whereas Rabbi Yehuda says in a baraita: A blind person does not have humiliation. Rather, is the opinion expressed in the mishna not that of Rabbi Shimon?


讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 诇诪砖拽诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: You can even say that the mishna expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. When Rabbi Yehuda said that a blind person does not have humiliation, he meant with regard to another taking compensation for humiliation from him. A blind person is not fully aware of what he does, and one can be rendered liable for causing humiliation only if he intended to humiliate the other. But with regard to giving him compensation for humiliation, he is given compensation.


讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛讬砖谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讬砖谉 砖讘讬讬砖 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 住讜诪讗 砖讘讬讬砖 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讻讬 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗


The Gemara challenges this explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: But from the fact that the latter clause of that mishna teaches that one who humiliates a sleeping person is liable but a sleeping person who humiliates another is exempt, and does not teach that a blind person who humiliates another is exempt, by inference, the mishna teaches that there is no difference this way, and no difference that way; whether a blind person humiliates another or is humiliated, the one who causes humiliation is liable to pay compensation. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讜讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇 谞讜转谉 诇讙讚讜诇 讚诪讬 讘讜砖转讜 砖诇 拽讟谉 诇讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛注讘讚 讜讘讬讬砖 讗转 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 谞讜转谉 诇讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讚诪讬 讘讜砖转讜 砖诇 注讘讚 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


搂 The Gemara analyzes a related baraita in light of the three opinions cited earlier. Who is the tanna who taught this baraita, as the Sages taught: If one intended to humiliate a small man [katan] and instead humiliated a great man [gadol], he gives the money he would have owed for the small man鈥檚 humiliation to the great man. If one intended to humiliate a slave and instead humiliated a freeman, he gives the money he would have owed for the slave鈥檚 humiliation to the freeman. Whose opinion is this? It is not the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and not the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽讟谉 拽讟谉 讘谞讻住讬诐 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 讘谞讻住讬诐 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗诪专 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇注讘讚讬诐 讘讜砖转 讜讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讘讬讬砖 讗转 讝讛 讜讘讬讬砖 讗转 讝讛 驻讟讜专


The Gemara explains why this is not in accordance with the opinion of any of these tanna鈥檌m: It enters your mind to say that when the baraita is referring to a katan, it means that he is small in terms of his property, i.e., he is poor; and when the baraita is referring to a gadol, it means that he is great in terms of his property, i.e., he is wealthy. If this baraita is stating the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn鈥檛 he say in the baraita that all of those who were humiliated are considered similar to one another? And if it is stating the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn鈥檛 he say: Slaves have no humiliation; whereas the baraita discusses the compensation owed to a slave. And if it is stating the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, doesn鈥檛 he say: If one intended to humiliate this one, and instead humiliated that one, he is exempt?


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻拽讟诇讗 诪讛 拽讟诇讗 注讚 讚诪转讻讜讜谉 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗专讘 诇讜 讜拽诐 注诇讬讜 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讜谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 谞诪讬 注讚 讚诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诇讞讛 讬讚讛 讜讛讞讝讬拽讛 讘诪讘砖讬讜 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讜谉 诇讜


The Gemara explains Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement: What is the reason for exempting one who humiliated a person whom he did not intend to humiliate? The halakha of humiliation is like the halakha of killing. Just as in a case of killing, the murderer is not executed unless he intended to kill the victim specifically, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he lies in wait for him, and rises up against him鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:11), which means he is not liable unless he intended to kill him specifically, so too, in a case of humiliation, the one who humiliated is not liable unless he intended to humiliate him specifically, as it is written: 鈥淎nd she put forth her hand, and took him by his genitals鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:11); this teaches that one is not liable for humiliation unless he intended to humiliate him specifically.


诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇注讘讚讬诐 讘讜砖转 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 诇诪讬砖诐 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讘讛讜


The Gemara returns to analyzing the baraita: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and when Rabbi Yehuda said: Slaves have no humiliation, he meant that one would not be liable to give them compensation for humiliation; but if the court needs to appraise compensation for the humiliation of others according to their humiliation, and thereby determine the compensation one owes to a freeman when he intended to humiliate a slave, then we do appraise according to their humiliation.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讬 住讘专转 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 讘谞讻住讬诐 拽讟谉 拽讟谉 讘谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 诪诪砖 讜拽讟谉 拽讟谉 诪诪砖


The Gemara presents an alternative explanation of the baraita: And if you wish, say instead: You can even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Do you maintain that when the baraita is referring to a gadol, it means he is great in terms of his property, and when the baraita is referring to a katan, it means he is small in terms of his property? No, rather, when the baraita is referring to a gadol, it means an actual adult [gadol]; and when the baraita is referring to a katan, it means an actual minor [katan].


讜拽讟谉 讘专 讘讜砖转 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬


The Gemara asks: But is a minor subject to humiliation? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rav Pappa said with regard to another halakha: The case involves a minor who has reached a stage in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation; here, too,


讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐


say that the baraita discusses a case involving a minor who has reached a stage in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛注专讜诐 讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛住讜诪讗 讜讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛讬砖谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讬砖谉 砖讘讬讬砖 驻讟讜专 谞驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讜讛讝讬拽 讜讘讬讬砖 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛谞讝拽 讜驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讘讜砖转 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诪转讻讜讬谉


MISHNA: One who humiliates a naked person, or one who humiliates a blind person, or one who humiliates a sleeping person is liable, but a sleeping person who humiliates another is exempt. If one fell from the roof onto another person, and thereby caused him damage and humiliated him, then the one who fell is liable for the indemnity of damage, since a person is always considered forewarned, and exempt from the indemnity of humiliation, since a person is not liable for humiliation unless he intends to humiliate the other person.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬讬砖讜 注专讜诐 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讘讬讬砖讜 注专讜诐 诇讘讬讬砖讜 诇讘讜砖 讘讬讬砖讜 讘讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讘讬讬砖讜 讘讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 诇讘讬讬砖讜 讘砖讜拽


GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:12): If one humiliated another who was naked, he is liable, but the magnitude of humiliation felt when he humiliated him while naked is not comparable to the magnitude of humiliation felt had he humiliated him while clothed, since one who chooses to be naked is less sensitive to humiliation. Similarly, if one humiliated another in a bathhouse, he is liable, but the magnitude of humiliation felt when he humiliated him in a bathhouse is not comparable to the magnitude of humiliation felt had he humiliated him in the marketplace.


讗诪专 诪专 讘讬讬砖讜 注专讜诐 讞讬讬讘 注专讜诐 讘专 讘讜砖转 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 注专讜诐 讚讗转讗 讝讬拽讗 讻专讻讬谞讛讜 诇诪讗谞讬讛 讜讗转讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讬谞讛讜 讟驻讬 讜讘讬讬砖讬讛


The Gemara clarifies the baraita: The Master says: If one humiliated another who was naked, the one who humiliated him is liable. The Gemara asks: Is a naked person subject to humiliation? Is it possible to humiliate him in this state? Rav Pappa said: What does the baraita mean when it says: Naked? It means a case where a gust of wind came and lifted his clothes, and then this one came and raised them higher and humiliated him.


讘讬讬砖讜 讘讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讞讬讬讘 讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讘专 讘讜砖转 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讘讬讬砖讜 注诇 讙讘 讛谞讛专


The baraita also teaches: If one humiliated another in a bathhouse, he is liable. The Gemara asks: Is one in a bathhouse subject to humiliation? In a place where people stand naked, can a person be humiliated by having his clothes removed? Rav Pappa said: This is a case where he humiliated him not in an actual bathhouse, but on the bank of the river, which is a place where people behave more discreetly when they undress.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讘讬讬砖讜 讬砖谉 讜诪转 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讻讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 诪讬转 诇讬讛 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻讬住讜驻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讗讜讝诇讬讛


Rabbi Abba bar Memel raises a dilemma: If one humiliated another who was asleep, and he died before he awoke, so he never knew of his humiliation, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: What is his dilemma? Rav Zevid said that this is his dilemma: Is the compensation for humiliation due to embarrassment, i.e., that his feelings suffer because of what he experienced, and this one died and does not have that feeling of embarrassment? Or perhaps the compensation for humiliation is due to disgrace, i.e., lessening of his honor in front of other people, and he disgraced him.


转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讞专砖 讜拽讟谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 讘讜砖转 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 拽讟谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 拽讟谉 讘专 讘讜砖转 讛讜讗


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: Rabbi Meir says: A deaf-mute and a minor have the right to receive compensation for humiliation; an imbecile does not have the right to receive compensation for humiliation. The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that the compensation is due to disgrace, this explanation is consistent with that which the baraita teaches concerning a minor, who can be disgraced; but if you say that the compensation is due to embarrassment, is a minor subject to humiliation?


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讟讛 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讜砖转 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rather, what do you mean by stating that the compensation is due to disgrace? If compensation is granted due to disgrace, then an imbecile should receive compensation as well. The Sages say in response: With regard to an imbecile, you can have no greater humiliation than this. It is impossible to degrade him further.


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 谞讬驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚诪砖讜诐 讝讬诇讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 拽讟谉 讘专 讻讬住讜驻讗 讛讜讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐


The Gemara returns to the original suggestion: In any case, resolve from this baraita that the compensation is due to disgrace, as, if it is due to embarrassment, is a minor subject to embarrassment? The Gemara rejects this proof: This is as Rav Pappa said with regard to a different halakha, cited later by the Gemara: The case involves a minor who has reached an age in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation; here, too, say that this baraita discusses a case involving a minor who has reached an age in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation. This is how Rav Zevid understands the dilemma of Rabbi Abba bar Memel.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讜讗 诪讬讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讜砖转 诪砖驻讞讛


Rav Pappa explains Rabbi Abba bar Memel鈥檚 dilemma differently: Rav Pappa said that this is his dilemma: Is the compensation for humiliation due to his own embarrassment, and this one died and was not embarrassed? Or perhaps the compensation for humiliation is due to his family鈥檚 humiliation, and therefore the one who humiliated him must pay compensation to his family?


转讗 砖诪注 讞专砖 讜拽讟谉 讬砖 诇讜 讘讜砖转 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讜砖转 诪砖驻讞讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 拽讟谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讟谉 讘专 讘讜砖转 讛讜讗


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the same baraita: A deaf-mute and a minor have the right to receive compensation for humiliation; an imbecile does not have the right to receive compensation for humiliation. The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that the compensation is due to his family鈥檚 humiliation, this explanation is consistent with that which the baraita teaches concerning a minor, whose family can experience humiliation based on what was done to their relative; but if you say that the compensation is due to his own embarrassment, is a minor subject to humiliation?


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讜砖转 讚讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讟讛 谞诪讬 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讜砖转 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讝讜


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Rather, what do you mean by stating that the compensation is due to the humiliation of members of his family? If this is the case, an imbecile should receive compensation as well. The Sages say in response: If one is an imbecile, you can have no greater humiliation than this.


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 谞讬驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚诪砖讜诐 讘讜砖转 诪砖驻讞讛 讚讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗 拽讟谉 讘专 讻讬住讜驻讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬谉 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐


The Gemara returns to the original suggestion: In any case, resolve from this that the compensation is due to his family鈥檚 humiliation, as, if it is due to embarrassment, is a minor subject to embarrassment? Rav Pappa said: Yes, he is subject to embarrassment, as the baraita discusses a case involving a minor who has reached an age in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation.


讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讞专砖 讬砖 诇讜 讘讜砖转 砖讜讟讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 拽讟谉 驻注诪讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 驻注诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛讗 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讻诇诐 讛讗 讚诪讬讻诇诪讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讻诇诐


The Gemara adds: And this distinction is taught in a baraita, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A deaf-mute has the right to receive compensation for humiliation; an imbecile does not have the right to receive compensation for humiliation. With regard to a minor, sometimes he has the right to receive compensation for humiliation, and sometimes he does not have the right. Why is this so? This case where he has the right to receive compensation for humiliation is one involving a minor who has reached the stage in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation; that case where he does not have the right to receive compensation for humiliation is one involving a minor who has not reached the stage in which when others humiliate him he feels humiliation.


讛诪讘讬讬砖 讗转 讛住讜诪讗 讜讻讜壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 讙诇讬讜转 讜诪讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 讜诪讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches: One who humiliates a blind person is liable to pay compensation. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A blind person who humiliated another does not have liability for humiliation. And in this way Rabbi Yehuda deemed a blind person exempt from being among those liable to be exiled for killing unintentionally, and from being among those liable to receive lashes, and from being among those liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, if he transgresses a prohibition for which the Torah mandates one of these punishments.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙诪专 注讬谞讱 注讬谞讱 诪注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪讛 讛转诐 住讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讗祝 讛讻讗 住讜诪讬谉 诇讗


The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? He derives a verbal analogy to: 鈥淵our eye shall not pity鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:12), stated with regard to humiliation, from: 鈥淵our eye shall not pity鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:21), stated with regard to conspiring witnesses. The analogy teaches that just as there, with regard to the halakha of conspiring witnesses, blind people are not included, as blind people cannot see events occur in order to testify, so too here, with regard to the halakha of compensation for humiliation, blind people are not included.


诪讞讬讬讘讬 讙诇讬讜转 讚转谞讬讗 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 驻专讟 诇住讜诪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讜诪讗


The Gemara continues its explanation: Why did Rabbi Yehuda deem a blind person exempt from being among those liable to be exiled for killing unintentionally? As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to an unintentional killing: 鈥淥r with any stone, whereby one may die, seeing him not鈥 (Numbers 35:23), this formulation serves to exclude a blind person; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: The verse serves to include a blind person.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 诇讞讟讘 注爪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 住讜诪讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇诪注讜讟讬


The Gemara explains the dispute: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? He would say to you: The verse states with regard to an unintentional killing, without any further limiting clause: 鈥淎s when one goes into the forest with his neighbor to hew wood鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), and this includes even a blind person; therefore, the Merciful One wrote in the Torah: 鈥淪eeing him not鈥 (Numbers 35:23), to exclude a blind person.


讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讜讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转


And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? The Merciful One wrote in the Torah: 鈥淪eeing him not鈥 (Numbers 35:23), apparently to exclude one who happened to not see the one he killed; and the Merciful One wrote in the Torah: 鈥淲ho kills his neighbor unawares鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:4), apparently to exclude a blind person, who is not aware of where others are standing. This is a restriction following a restriction, and there is a hermeneutical principle that a restriction following a restriction serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. Therefore, a blind person is included in the halakha of those liable to be exiled for unintentional killing.


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讛讜讗 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗


The Gemara asks: And what would Rabbi Yehuda respond to this reasoning? The Gemara explains: That verse: 鈥淲ho kills his neighbor unawares,鈥 does not exclude one who could not see, but rather, it comes to exclude one who was intending to kill a particular person and unintentionally killed someone else. That killer is not exiled.


讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗转讬讗 专爪讞 专爪讞 诪讞讬讬讘讬 讙诇讬讜转


The Gemara continues to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Why did he deem a blind person exempt from being among those liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment? That halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy to: 鈥淏ut if he smote him with an instrument of iron so that he died, he is a killer; the killer shall be put to death鈥 (Numbers 35:16), written with regard to capital punishment, from: 鈥淵ou shall appoint for yourselves cities, to be cities of refuge for you, that a killer who killed any person unintentionally may flee there鈥 (Numbers 35:11), written with regard to those liable to be exiled.


讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 讗转讬讗 专砖注 专砖注 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉


Why did Rabbi Yehuda deem a blind person exempt from being among those liable to receive lashes? That halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy to: 鈥淭hen it shall be, if the guilty one deserves to be beaten鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2), written with regard to lashes, from: 鈥淢oreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death鈥 (Numbers 35:31), written with regard to those liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讜诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讜砖转


The Gemara presents another statement of Rabbi Yehuda: It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A blind person does not have humiliation,


Scroll To Top