Previous daf

1)

(a) What someone who strikes his parents without actually wounding them and someone who wounds a fellow-Jew on Yom Kipur have in common is - the fact that both are Chayav to pay (since neither is Chayav Miysah), as we shall learn in the next Mishnah.

(b) We try to resolve our current She'eilah (She'ves ha'Pochsaso mi'Damim) - by establishing the case of striking one's parents without actually wounding them, when he wounds them only temporarily, which the Tana clearly considers Nezek.

(c) The counter-suggestion that the Tana is referring to a case where he deafened his parents without drawing blood is not acceptable - due to a ruling by Rabah, declaring someone who does so Chayav Miysah, seeing as becoming deaf in this way is an indication that there must have been a movement of blood inside the ear.

(d) When we then suggest that the Mishnah is talking about someone who did not actually strike his parents, but who shaved them - we can once again resolve our She'eilah, since hair that has been shaven tends to re-grow.

(a) We conclude that the Tana is speaking when he smeared his parents' heads with a permanent hair-remover. This accounts for Nezek, Ripuy and Bo'shes. It involves ...

1. ... Tza'ar - in a case where they already had a wound on the head, and shaving them caused them additional pain.
2. ... She'ves - in a case where they were professional clowns, who would make their rounds of the shops and put on a clownish acts which involved moving their heads in different directions and pulling funny faces, which they are now unable to do because of the pain.

(b) Abaye holds that if someone strikes his friend on the hand, and the hand shrivels temporarily, he is obligated to pay She'ves Gedolah and She'ves Ketanah. 'She'ves ...

1. ... Gedolah' is - another name for Nezek.
2. ... Ketanah' is - what we call 'She'ves' (work-loss).

(c) According to Rava - the Mazik pays only She'ves (i.e. the full work-loss, and not like a guard in a cucumber-field, seeing as he does not pay Nezek).

(d) This is indeed Rabah's She'eilah - and Abaye adopts one side of it, and Rava, the other.

(a) If Reuven cuts off the hand of Shimon's Eved Ivri, says Abaye, he pays Nezek to the Eved and She'ves to the master. According to Rava - he pays everything to the Eved Ivri, who buys with the money land, from which the master eats the Peyros.

(b) In a case where he cut off the tip of the Eved's ear, causing no loss to the master, everyone agrees - that the entire amount goes to the Eved, and nothing to his master.

(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, assesses all Jews equally with regard to Bo'shes. When he says 'Ro'in Osan Ke'ilu Heim B'nei Chorin she'Yardu mi'Nichseihem', he means - that we neither assess the rich according to their wealth (as that would be a tremendous Chumra), nor the poor according to their poverty (which would be an equally tremendous Kula). He reckons everyone as if he was a rich man who had fallen on hard times.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah says - that we reckon everyone according to his current situation.

(c) We suggest that the author of our Mishnah ('Bo'shes ha'Kol L'fi ha'Mevayesh ve'ha'Misbayesh') must be Rebbi Shimon, who says - that we reckon a rich man as if he has fallen on hard times (like Rebbi Meir), but a poor man as if he was the poorest of the poor.

(d) Our Mishnah cannot go like Rebbi Meir - because he makes no distinction between a rich man and a poor one regarding Bo'shes, whereas our Mishnah says 'ha'Kol Le'fi ha'Mevayesh ve'ha'Misbayesh'.

(a) Our Mishnah does not appear to go like Rebbi Yehudah either - because he says 'Suma Ein Lo Bo'shes', whereas our Mishnah states 'ha'Mevayesh es ha'Suma, Chayav'.

(b) In order to reconcile Rebbi Yehudah with our Mishnah, we draw a distinction between a blind man who shamed someone (who is Patur) and someone who shamed a blind man (who is Chayav).

(c) The Tana there makes this very same distinction regarding the Bo'shes of a sleeping man (absolving a sleeping man who shames someone else, but obligating someone else who shames him).

(d) This refutes our previous effort to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah - because if such a distinction existed in the case of a blind man, then the Tana ought to have said so; and seeing as he did not, the Mishnah clearly holds that a blind man who shamed is Chayav too (in which case, the author cannot be Rebbi Yehudah).

(a) The Tana says that if Reuven intended to shame a Katan and he shamed a Gadol, or an Eved, and he shamed a free man - he pays the Bo'shes that he would have had to give the person that he intended to shame.

(b) We initially interpret 'Katan' and 'Gadol' in this Beraisa to mean - small or big in property (in other words, a poor man and a rich man, respectively).

(c) The author of the Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Meir - because he does not differentiate between the Bo'shes' of a poor man and that of a rich man.

(d) And the author of the Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Yehudah - who says 'Ein la'Avadim Boshes', whereas the Beraisa assesses the Bo'shes of an Eved.

(a) Neither can the author be Rebbi Shimon, who says 'Niskaven le'Vayesh es Zeh, u'Biyesh es Zeh', Patur - whereas the Beraisa clearly holds 'Chayav'.

(b) Rebbi Shimon correlates the Pesukim "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav" and "ve'Shalchah Yadah ve'Hichzikah bi'Mevushav". From the Pasuk ...

1. ... "*ve'Arav Lo* ve'Kam Alav" he learns - that one is only Chayav Nezek if one actually aimed at the person that he ultimately hit.
2. ... "*ve'Shalchah Yadah* ve'Hichzikah bi'Mevushav" he learns - that one is only Chayav Bo'shes if one actually aimed at the person whom he ultimately shamed.

(c) To establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah ('Ein la'Avadim Boshes') - we establish Rebbi Yehudah with regard to paying an Eved Bo'shes, whereas the Beraisa is speaking about assessing him, and giving the Bo'shes to someone else.

(d) And to establish the author as Rebbi Meir, we reinterpret 'Katan' and 'Gadol' - to mean literally, a child and a grown-up. A Katan we assume, is generally not subject to Bo'shes; however, one who reacts to being shamed, obviously is.

8)

(a) What someone who shames a man who is naked, who is blind and who is asleep, have in common is - that the Tana obligates all three to pay Bo'shes.

(b) The Tana says that ...

1. ... a sleeping man who shames someone else - is Patur from Bo'shes.
2. ... someone who falls from a rooftop and shames someone as he lands on top of him - is Chayav Nezek, but Patur from Bo'shes unless he deliberately turns over in order to soften his fall when he lands on him (as we learned above in the second Perek).

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa draws a minor distinction between a shamed man ...

1. ... who is naked and one who is clothed - inasmuch as the shame is greater in the latter case (though in both cases, the 'Mazik' is Chayav). Note, that shame in this entire context (from this point on), is confined to uncovering his body.
2. ... who is in the bathhouse, and one who is in the street - in exactly the same way as in the previous case.

(d) Seeing as a man ...

1. ... who walks around naked is not subject to shame, the Beraisa, which obligates the person who shames him to pay Bo'shes - must be speaking (not when he is walking around naked, but) when the wind had already partially uncovered him, when the 'Mazik' adds to his shame by uncovering him more.
2. ... is not subject to Bo'shes in the bathhouse, Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa, which obligates the person who shames him there, to pay Bo'shes (not by a regular bathhouse, but) by a bathhouse in the open, beside a river, where the concept of Bo'shes is applicable apply.

(a) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asks whether someone who shames a sleeping man who subsequently dies in his sleep is obligated to pay Bo'shes. The two sides to the She'eilah are - whether Bo'shes comprises degradation (which applies in such a case) or embarrassment (which does not).

(b) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa rules - that Bo'shes applies to someone who shames a Cheresh and a Katan, but not to someone who shames a Shoteh.

(c) We attempt to resolve our current She'eilah from Rebbi Meir's ruling by a Katan - by assuming that although a Katan is subject to degradation, he is not subject to embarrassment (in which case we have a proof that the criterion for Bo'shes is the degradation).

(d) We refute ...

1. ... the counter-argument to this proof (that if it were a matter of degradation, then why is one not Chayav Bo'shes for shaming a Shoteh, too) - by establishing that the degradation of a Shoteh is total, and even degradation is not applicable to him, since it is not possible to degrade him any further.
2. ... the proof from a Katan that Bo'shes must therefore mean degradation by citing Rav Papa again - who says elsewhere that Rebbi Meir is speaking about a Katan who displays embarrassment when shamed (and who is therefore subject to embarrassment as well.

(a) Rav Papa has another interpretation of Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's She'eilah. In his opinion, the two sides of the She'eilah are - whether Bo'shes constitutes the Nizak's embarrassment or the family honor.

(b) We ...

1. ... try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Meir's ruling by a Shoteh (that we just cited) - because, if Bo'shes was a matter of family honor, why would it not apply even when one shamed a Shoteh?
2. ... We refute the proof however - on the grounds that even family honor no longer exists in the case of a Shoteh, and shaming him more makes no difference.

(c) Rav Papa refutes the proof from Rebbi Meir's ruling by a Katan that Bo'shes must be a matter of family honor because otherwise, since when is a Katan subject to Bo'shes - by differentiating between a S'tam Katan and one who displays embarrassment when shamed (as we have already quoted him twice as saying).

(d) Rav Papa's explanation is borne out by a Beraisa, where Rebbi rules ...

1. ... that a Cheresh receives Boshes ...
2. ... a Shoteh does not, and ...
3. ... a Katan sometimes does (when he displays embarrassment), and sometimes does not (when he doesn't).

(a) Our Mishnah obligates someone who shames a blind man to pay Bo'shes. This is the opinion of Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa. Rebbi Yehudah says - that a blind man is Patur ...

1. ... from Bo'shes.
2. ... from Chayvei Galuyos, Chayvei Malkiyos, and ...
3. ... from Chayvei Miysos Beis-Din.

(b) When Rebbi Yehudah says 'Suma Ein Lo Bo'shes', he is not referring exclusively to a blind man who was shamed (but not to one who shamed others) - because then, the Tana should have made this distinction with regard to a blind man in the same way as does by a sleeping man (as we explained earlier).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Katzosa es Kapah, Lo Sachos *Einecha*" from "Lo Sachos *Einecha*" - that just as blind man cannot become an Eid Zomem, so too, is he not punishable for shaming someone.

(d) A blind man cannot become an Eid Zomem - because someone who is blind cannot be a witness (since he cannot even profess to having seen what happened [see Gilyon ha'Shas]).

(a) And he learns the P'tur of Chayvei Galuyos from the Pasuk "be'Lo Re'os", 'P'rat le'Suma'. His starting point is the fact that the Torah writes "va'Asher Yavo es Re'eihu ba'Ya'ar" - which, by implication, includes someone who is blind. Consequently, "be'Lo Re'os" must come to preclude him.

(b) Were it not for the first Pasuk "va'Asher Yavo ... "), Rebbi Yehudah would have included a blind man from "be'Lo Re'os", which implies that he is able to see, but failed to do so.

(c) Rebbi Meir extrapolates from the two Pesukim "be'Lo Re'os" and "Bi'vli Da'as" to include a blind man - due to the principle "Ein Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut Ela Le'rabos" (when two exclusions follow one another other, they come to include).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah uses "Bi'vli Da'as" - to preclude someone who skilled on purpose, from Galus (even if there are no witnesses or if there was no warning).

1. ... "La'nus Shamah Rotze'ach" is written in connection with - Chayvei Galuyos, and ...
2. ... "Asher Hu Rasha La'mus" - in connection with Chayvei Miysos Beis-Din.