Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) OTHER SOURCES

(a) (Beraisa - R. Dosta'i ben Yehudah): "An eye in place of an eye" - this means, money (the value of the eye);

1. Suggestion: Perhaps it literally means, he loses his eye!
2. Rejection: If the damager's eye was bigger than the victim's, that would not fulfill "An eye in place of an eye".

i. Suggestion: Perhaps in such a case, money is paid (but not when their eyes are equal)!
ii. Rejection: "There will be 1 law for you" - 1 law for all of you.

3. Question: Even if the damager's eye is bigger - (the primary damage was that) he deprived the victim of sight, he will lose his sight!

i. Strengthening of question: Surely we must apply this principle when a person kills someone smaller or larger than himself - we cannot say, "do not kill the murderer in such a case, for it says 'There will be a single law for you!'" Rather, since (the primary damage was that) he took his soul, the murderer's soul is taken
ii. We can follow a similar logic with regard to the eye. The damager's sight is taken from his as punishment, whether his eyes are bigger or smaller than the victim's eyes!

(b) (Beraisa - R. Shimon): "An eye in place of an eye" - this means, money.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps it literally means, he loses his eye!
2. Rejection: If a man that was blind, missing a limb or lame, and he inflicted this defect on someone else, we could not fulfill "An eye in place of an eye" - and the Torah said "There will be 1 law for you"!
3. Question: This is no answer - when it is possible to fulfill "An eye in place of an eye", we do so; when we cannot, we cannot, and he is exempt!

i. Strengthening of question: We must say that by a Treifah (a man that was going to die from damage to an organ) who killed a healthy man! (We cannot accept testimony to kill him, since healthy witnesses, if found to be Zomemim, could not be killed for trying to kill a Treifah.)
ii. Rather, we must say, we kill a murderer when it is possible (e.g. he is healthy), when we cannot, we exempt him.

(c) (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "So will be given to him" - giving only refers to money.
(d) Question: But "As when (a man) will give a blemish in a man" does not refer to money!
(e) Answer: Tana d'vei R. Yishmael expounds the repetition in the next verse.

1. It already says "A man that will give a blemish in a man, as he did, so will be done to him";
2. "So will be given to him" is extra to teach that he gives money.

(f) Question: "As when (a man) will give a blemish in a man" is also extra - what does it teach?

1. Answer: It was only written for the sake of the end of the verse "So will be given to him".

(g) (D'vei R. Chiya): "A hand for a hand" - something given from hand to hand, i.e. money.
(h) Question: If so, we should similarly expound "A foot for a foot"!
(i) Answer: D'vei R. Chiya expound the repetition in the next verse.

1. It already says "You will do to (a Zomem witness) as he plotted to do to his brother";
2. If Beis Din cuts off the hand of one who cut off a hand, there would be no need to say "A hand for a hand"!

i. Rather, it is extra to teach that one who cut off a hand pays money.

(j) Question: Why does it say "A foot for a foot"?
(k) Answer: Since it had to write "A hand for a hand", it also said "A foot for a foot".
(l) (Abaye): We can learn (that money is paid) from Tana d'vei Chizkiyah.

1. (Tana d'vei Chizkiyah): "An eye for an eye, a soul for a soul", not an eye and a soul for an eye;
2. If Beis Din inflicted bodily damage, they would blind the eye of one who blinded an eye - sometimes this would kill him, and he lost his eye and his soul for an eye!

(m) Objection: Perhaps we only inflict bodily damage when we estimate that this will not kill him!

1. If we estimated that it will not kill him, and he died, this is not a problem.
2. (Mishnah): Beis Din estimated how many lashes a person can endure without dying, but the person died - no one is liable.

(n) (Rav Zvid): "A wound for a wound" - this teaches that there is compensation for pain even when there is also compensation for Nezek.

1. It cannot be that Beis Din inflicts the same damage on the damager - this would cause the same pain, the verse would not be needed!
2. Question: This is not always true - perhaps the victim by nature experiences more pain from the same wound than the damager!

i. Question: So what would the verse teach?
ii. Answer: The damager pays the victim for the additional pain the victim experienced.

(o) (Rav Papa): "Heal, he will heal" - this teaches that there is compensation for healing even when there is also compensation for Nezek.

1. It cannot be that Beis Din inflicts the same damage on the damager - he would also need to be healed, the verse would not be needed!
2. Question: This is not always true - perhaps the victim's skin heals slower from the same wound than the damager's!

i. Question: So what would the verse teach?
ii. Answer: The damager pays the victim for the additional medical expenses of the victim.

(a) (Rav Ashi): We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas-Tachas" from an ox.

1. By damages (of man to man) it says "an eye Tachas an eye"; by damages (of an ox to an ox) it says "an ox Tachas an ox";
2. Just as the compensation for an ox is monetary, also compensation for an eye.

(b) Question: Why learn the Gezeirah Shavah from an ox - we can learn from a man!

1. By a murderer it says "you will give a soul Tachas a soul";
2. Just as that compensation is literally true, also compensation for an eye!

(c) Answer: It is preferable to learn damages from damages, and not from murder.
(d) Objection: To the contrary - it is preferable to learn a man (that strikes) from man, and not from an animal (that damages)!
(e) Correction (Rav Ashi): Rather, we learn the Gezeirah Shavah from a rapist - "Tachas that he pained her".

1. This speaks of damages to and by people, as we seek to learn.

(f) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer) "An eye in place of an eye" - this is literal.
(g) Question: Does R. Eliezer really argue on all the previous Tana'im?!
(h) Answer #1 (Rabah): No - he only teaches that we do not evaluate the victim as a slave.
(i) Objection (Abaye): As whom will we evaluate him - as a free man? There is no value associated with a free man!
(j) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Rather, we do not evaluate the eye of the victim, rather the eye of the damager (as a redemption of his eye).

(a) A child's hand was severed (by a donkey); Rav Papa bar Shmuel said that they should evaluate the 4 damages.

1. Rava: But the Mishnah lists 5 damages!
2. Rav Papa: I meant, the 4 damages in addition to Nezek.
3. Abaye: But an animal only pays Nezek!
4. Rav Papa: An animal damaged him? Go evaluate the Nezek.
5. Question: But we must evaluate what he would be sold for as a slave!
6. Rav Papa: Go evaluate what he would be sold for as a slave.
7. The boy's father: No - that is a disgrace for him!
8. People: but you are depriving him of money he is entitled to!
9. His father: When he grows older, I will appease him with my money.

(b) An ox chewed the hand of a child.

1. Rava: Go evaluate what he would be sold for as a slave.
2. Rabanan: But you taught, anything that requires an evaluation of one's value as a slave, we do not collect it in Bavel!
3. Rava: I did not say that the damager must pay this - but if the victim grabs payment, we must know how much he may keep.

(a) (Rava): An ox was damaged by an ox or a man - we collect this in Bavel; a man was damaged by an ox or a man - we do not collect this in Bavel.
(b) Question: What is the difference between them?
(c) Answer: We don't collect damages to a man, because the Torah says 'judges', only ordained judges may judge this (and we lack such judges in Bavel).
(d) Question: Also by damages to an ox, it says 'judges'!

(e) Answer: We (judges in Chutz la'Aretz) collect damages to an ox, as agents of ordained judges in Eretz Yisrael, just as we judge cases of admissions and loans (as agents).
(f) Question: Also by damages to a man, we should be agents to collect!
(g) Answer #1: We are only agents for cases we know how to judge (and we do not know how to evaluate people as slaves).

1. Objection #1: Also by damages by an ox, we do not know how their value!

i. Rather, we see what people pay for oxen.
ii. Also by damage to people, we can see what people sell slaves for!

2. Objection #2: The double payment of a thief, also 4 and 5 are fixed - we should collect them (as agents)!

(h) Answer #2: We are only agents to collect principal, not to collect fines.

1. Objection: A man that damages a man, this is principal - we should collect it!

(i) Answer #3: We are only agents to collect things that are common - a man that strikes a man is not common.

1. Question: Embarrassment and blemish (of a virgin Na'arah that was raped or seduced) are common - we should be agents to collect them! 2. Answer: Indeed, we are!

i. Rav Papa collect 400 Zuz as embarrassment.

3. Rejection: No - Rav Papa erred.

i. Rav Chisda had asked Rav Nachman about payments for embarrassment - Rav Nachman replied that we do not collect them in Bavel.

(j) Answer #4: We are only agents to collect common things in which the victim loses money;

1. Even though a man struck by a man loses money, since it is not common, we are not agents to judge it.
2. Even though embarrassment is common, since the victim does not lose money, we are not agents to judge it.

(k) Question: Rava said above (end of 84A) that we collect for an ox that damages an ox - is this really true?

1. (Rava) We do not collect for an ox that damaged in Bavel.
2. Question: What did it damage?

i. Suggestion: If it struck a man - Rava should have said a bigger Chidush, even a man that strikes a man we do not collect!

3. Answer: Rather, it struck an ox - and Rava taught that we do not collect!

(l) Answer #1: That referred to a Tam; we collect from a Mu'ad.

1. Objection: But Rava taught, the law of Mu'ad does not apply in Bavel!

(m) Answer #2: The case is, it became Mu'ad in Eretz Yisrael, then it came to Bavel.

1. Objection: This is not common, we are not agents to judge uncommon things!

(n) Answer #3: The case is, judges of Eretz Yisrael came to Bavel, it became Mu'ad in front of them.

1. Objection: Also this is not common, we are not agents to judge it!

(o) Answer #4: When Rava said that we collect for an ox that damaged an ox -that referred to Shen and Regel, which are Mu'ad from the beginning.

(a) (Mishnah): To evaluate pain - if he burned him with a spit or nail (even on his fingernail)...
(b) Question: Which Tana holds that one pays for pain even if no Nezek was inflicted?
(c) Answer (Rava): It is ben Azai.

1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): The Torah first writes of a scalding;
2. Ben Azai: The Torah first writes of a wound.
3. Question: On what do they argue?
4. Answer: Rebbi holds, "Keviyah" (scalding) connotes that there is no wound; the Torah wrote "wound" to teach that one is only liable for a scalding with a wound;

i. Ben Azai holds, "Keviyah" connotes that there is a wound; the Torah wrote "wound" to teach that Keviyah refers to a scalding without a wound.

5. Answer #2 (Rav Papa): To the contrary! Rebbi says, the Torah first writes of a scalding - he holds, "Keviyah" connotes that there is a wound; "wound" teaches that Keviyah refers to a scalding without a wound;

i. Ben Azai says, the Torah first writes of a wound - he holds, "Keviyah" connotes that there is no wound; the Torah wrote "wound" to teach that one is only liable for a scalding with a wound.
ii. When the Tana'im say which was written first - they refer to the true meaning of the verse (after expounding it).

6. Answer #3: "Keviyah" connotes a scalding with or without a wound; they argue regarding a generality and specific that are distant from each other.

i. Rebbi holds, we do not expound this as a generality and specific;
ii. Ben Azai holds, we expound this as a generality and specific.
iii. Question: If so, according to Rebbi, what does "wound" teach (even without it, we include a scalding with or without a wound)?
iv. Answer: That when there is also a wound, one pays for both.