Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TEMPORARY DAMAGE

(a) Question (Rabah): Reuven damaged Shimon; Shimon will later return to full health, but because he cannot work now, he is worth less - what is the law?

1. Question: What is the case?
2. Answer: He hit him on the hand; it contracted, and later it will return to normal.
3. Do we say, since it will later return to normal, Reuven is exempt?
4. Or - since Shimon is worth less now, Reuven is liable?

(b) Answer #1 (Mishnah): One who strikes his father or mother and does not make a wound, or one who strikes a person on Yom Kipur is liable for all damages.

1. Question: What is the case that he does not make a wound?
2. Answer: He hit him on the hand, and later it will return to normal; the Mishnah says, he is liable for all damages.

(c) Rejection #1: No - the case is, he deafened him without making a wound.
(d) Question: But Rabah taught, one who deafens his father is killed, for it is impossible to deafen someone without making a wound, a drop of blood surely fell into the ear!
(e) Rejection #2: No - the case is, he shaved him.
(f) Question: But his hair will grow back, the damage is only temporary - we can still settle our question from the Mishnah!
(g) Answer: No, the case is, Reuven anointed Shimon with Nasa (a potion which permanently stops hair from growing).

1. There is a case when all the other damages apply:

i. Pain - for example, he has sores in ridges on is head (and the potion aggravated them).
ii. Healing - he must heal the sores;
iii. Unemployment - he used to get rewarded for dancing, and the sores prevent him from shaking his head as he dances.
iv. Embarrassment - baldness is the ultimate embarrassment!

(h) Abaye and Rava argued on the law Rabah was unsure about.
(i) (Abaye): Reuven hit Shimon on the hand, and later it will return to normal - he pays Nezek and unemployment;
(j) (Rava): He only pays unemployment.
(k) (Abaye): Reuven cut off the hand of Shimon's slave (a Yisrael) - he pays Nezek to the slave, and unemployment to Shimon;
(l) (Rava): The slave gets the whole payment; we buy land with the money, the master gets the fruit (until the slave goes free).
(m) If the slave was damaged, and this affects only the slave, not the master - obviously, the slave gets the whole payment.

1. Question: What is the case?
2. Answer: He cut off the end of the ear or nostrils.

(n) If the slave was damaged, and this affects only the master, not the slave - Abaye and Rava argue on this (as above).

(a) (Mishnah): Embarrassment - we evaluate according to the one who embarrassed and the one who was embarrassed.
(b) Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah?
(c) Answer #1: It is not R. Meir or R. Yehudah, rather R. Shimon.

1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): Rich and poor people (that were embarrassed) are judged equally, as if they were rich people that lost their property, for all descend from Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov.
2. R. Yehudah says, a rich person is judged according to his wealth, a poor person according to his poverty;
3. R. Shimon says, a rich person is judged as a rich person that lost his property, a poor person is judged as the poorest man there is.

i. Our Mishnah cannot be R. Meir - he says, rich and poor are judged equally, but our Mishnah says, it varies according to the one who embarrassed and the one who was embarrassed!
ii. It cannot be R. Yehudah - he says, embarrassment does not apply to a blind person, but our Mishnah says that it does!

(d) Answer #2: Our Mishnah is as R. Yehudah; he says, a blind person does not pay embarrassment, but he can receive it!

1. Objection: But the end of the Mishnah says, one who embarrasses a sleeping person is liable, but a sleeping person that embarrasses is exempt;

i. It did not exempt a blind person that embarrasses, implying that he can receive and pay for embarrassment!
ii. We must answer as Answer #1.

(e) Question: Who is the Tana of the following Beraisa?

1. (Beraisa): One who intended to embarrass a Katan (one of small wealth) and embarrassed a Gadol (rich person), he pays the Gadol what is fitting for a Katan;
2. One who intended to embarrass a slave and embarrassed a free person, he pays the free person what is fitting for embarrassing a slave
3. Summation of question: This is not as R. Meir nor as R. Yehudah nor as R. Shimon!

i. It is not as R. Meir - he holds that rich and poor people are judged equally!
ii. It is not as R. Yehudah - he holds that slaves do not receive compensation for embarrassment!
iii. It is not as R. Shimon - he holds that one who intended to embarrass Reuven and embarrassed Shimon is exempt!
iv. Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
v. Answer: He learns from murder. One who intended to kill Reuven and killed Shimon is exempt - "He waited in ambush for him and rose against him" - he is only liable if he intended for his victim;
vi. Also regarding embarrassment - "She sent her hand and grabbed his private parts" - she is only liable if she intended for him.

(f) Answer #1: Really, the Beraisa is as R. Yehudah; he says, a slave does not receive (payment for) embarrassment, but we can evaluate how much he would want to receive to suffer such an indignity!
(g) Answer #2: Really, it is as R. Meir; Katan means a minor, Gadol means an adult.
(h) Question: Do minors really suffer (and therefore receive) embarrassment?!
(i) Answer: Yes - as Rav Papa taught (in a different context).

1. (Rav Papa): When reminded of the embarrassment, he is pained.

3) SPECIAL CASES

(a) (Mishnah): One is liable for embarrassing a blind, naked or sleeping person;

1. A sleeping person that embarrassed someone is exempt.

(b) Reuven fell from the roof and damaged and embarrassed - he is liable for the damage and exempt for the embarrassment, unless he intended to embarrass.
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa): Reuven embarrassed Shimon when Shimon was naked (or in the bathhouse) - Reuven is liable, but not as much as one who embarrasses a clothed person (or in the market).
(d) Question: Does a naked person really feel embarrassment?!
(e) Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, a wind lifted up Shimon's garment; Reuven lifted it higher (exposing more of Shimon).
(f) Question: Does a person really feel embarrassment in the bathhouse (everyone is naked there)?!
(g) Answer (Rav Papa): He embarrassed him by the riverbank.
(h) Question (R. Aba bar Mamal): Reuven embarrassed Shimon when Shimon was sleeping; Shimon (never woke up and) died - what is the law?

1. Question: What is the crux of the question?
2. [Understanding #1 (Rav Zvid): If one pays because the victim feels shame - if so, (since Shimon never found out,) Reuven is exempt;
3. If one pays because he disgraced the victim, Reuven is liable.

(i) Answer (Beraisa - R. Meir): A deaf person or child receives payment for embarrassment; a lunatic does not.

1. If one pays because of disgrace - we understand why a child collects;
2. Question: But if it is because the victim feels shame - a child does not feel shame!
3. Counter-question: If one pays because of disgrace - even a lunatic is disgraced!
4. Answer: Being a lunatic is the greatest disgrace, he cannot be disgraced more.
5. Suggestion: The original answer remains - since a child collects, it must be that one pays for the disgrace.

(j) Rejection: A child suffers shame as Rav Papa taught (in a different context).

1. (Rav Papa): When he is reminded of the embarrassment, he is pained.]
2. [Understanding #2 (of question (h) - Rav Papa): If one pays because the victim feels shame - if so, (since Shimon never found out,) Reuven is exempt;
3. If one pays because the victim's family is embarrassed, Reuven is liable.

(k) Answer (Beraisa): A deaf person or child receives payment for embarrassment; a lunatic does not.

1. If one pays because the victim's family is embarrassed - we understand why a child collects;
2. Question: But if it is because the victim feels shame - a child does not feel shame!
3. Counter-question: If one pays because the victim's family is embarrassed - even a lunatic's family is disgraced!
4. Answer: Having a lunatic in the family is the greatest disgrace, the family cannot be embarrassed more.
5. Suggestion: The original answer remains - since a child collects, it must be that one pays for the family's embarrassment.

(l) Rejection: (Rav Papa): When a child is reminded of the embarrassment, he is pained.
(m) Support (Beraisa - Rebbi): A deaf person receives embarrassment; a lunatic does not; sometimes a child receives, sometimes not.

1. A child that is pained when reminded of the embarrassment, he collects.]

(a) (Mishnah): One who embarrasses a blind person...
(b) The Mishnah (does not exempt a blind person who embarrasses - this) is not as R. Yehudah.

1. (Beraisa #1 - R. Yehudah): A blind person does not pay for embarrassment; also, he is exempt from exile, lashes and capital punishment.
2. Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
3. Answer #1 (regarding embarrassment): He learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Einecha-Einecha" from Zomemim witnesses.

i. Just as a blind person never pays as a Zomem witness (he cannot be a witness), also he never pays for embarrassment.

4. Answer #2 (regarding exile - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Without seeing" - this excludes a blind person;

i. R. Meir says, this includes a blind person.
ii. Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
iii. Answer: "That will come in the forest when his fellowman is there" - this includes a blind person;
iv. "Without seeing" excludes a blind person.
v. R. Meir explains, "without knowing" also excludes a blind person - 2 exclusions come to include.
vi. R. Yehudah says, we need "without knowing" to exclude one who intends to kill.

5. Answer #3 (regarding capital punishment): He learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Rotze'ach-Rotze'ach" from exile.
6. Answer #4 (regarding lashes): He learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Rasha-Rasha" from exile.