## Bava Kamma Daf 86a

###### Bava Kamma 86a:1
[Bava Kamma 86a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:1)

חַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
is **liable to** pay **all of** the five types of indemnity.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:2
[Bava Kamma 86a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:2)

הַאי ״לֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ חַבּוּרָה״, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? לָאו כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכָּהוּ עַל יָדוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ לַחְזוֹר? וְקָתָנֵי: חַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s dilemma.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:3
[Bava Kamma 86a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:3)

אָמְרִי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁחֵירְשׁוֹ, וְלֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ חַבּוּרָה. וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה: (הַחוֹרֵשׁ) [חֵרֵשׁ] אֶת אָבִיו – נֶהֱרָג, לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַחֲרִישָׁה בְּלֹא חַבּוּרָה; טִיפְּתָא דִּדְמָא נְפַלָה לֵיהּ בְּאוּדְנֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s hearing loss is permanent, he is liable to pay all five types of indemnity, and this is not relevant to Rabba’s dilemma. The Gemara objects: **But doesn’t 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.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:4
[Bava Kamma 86a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:4)

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁגִּילְּחוֹ. גִּילְּחוֹ – מִהְדָּר הָדַר, וְהַיְינוּ בַּעְיָין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that **here we are dealing with** a case **where he shaved his** father’s 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’s dilemma.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:5
[Bava Kamma 86a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:5)

אָמְרִי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁסָּכוֹ נָשָׁא, דְּלָא הָדַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 86a:6
[Bava Kamma 86a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:6)

צַעַר – דְּאִית לֵיהּ קַרְטוּפָנֵי בְּרֵישֵׁיהּ, וְצָוַוחי [לֵיהּ] מֵהָנְהוּ קַרְטוּפָנֵי. רִיפּוּי – דְּבָעֵי אַסּוֹיֵי. שֶׁבֶת – דַּהֲוָה מְרַקֵּיד בֵּי כוּבֵּי, דְּבָעֵיא מַחְוֵי גַּוְנֵי אַרֵישֵׁיהּ; וְלָא מַחְוֵי – מֵהָנְהוּ קַרְטוּפָנֵי. בּוֹשֶׁת – אֵין לְךָ בּוֹשֶׁת גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s hair.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:7
[Bava Kamma 86a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:7)

וּמִילְּתָא דְּבַעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבָּה – פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְאַבָּיֵי לְהָךְ גִּיסָא, וּלְרָבָא לְהָךְ גִּיסָא. דְּאִתְּמַר: הִכָּהוּ עַל יָדוֹ וְצָמְתָה, וְסוֹפָהּ לַחֲזוֹר – אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ שֶׁבֶת גְּדוֹלָה וְשֶׁבֶת קְטַנָּה. וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי שִׁבְתּוֹ שֶׁבְּכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:8
[Bava Kamma 86a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:8)

אִיתְּמַר: הַקּוֹטֵעַ יַד עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ שֶׁבֶת גְּדוֹלָה לָעֶבֶד, וְשֶׁבֶת קְטַנָּה לָרַב. רָבָא אָמַר: הַכֹּל יִנָּתֵן לָעֶבֶד, וְיִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהָרַב אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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’s term of slavery.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:9
[Bava Kamma 86a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:9)

פְּשִׁיטָא – פִּיחֵת אֵצֶל עַצְמוֹ, וְאֵצֶל רַבּוֹ לֹא פִּיחֵת – הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? דְּפַסְקֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ אוּנֵּיה אוֹ לְרֵישׁ נְחִירֵיהּ – הַכֹּל לְעַצְמוֹ. פִּיחֵת אֵצֶל רַבּוֹ – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It is **obvious** that if one injured a slave and thereby **reduced** the slave’s value **for** the slave **himself, but he did not reduce** the slave’s 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’s 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’s value **for his master,** then this is the case of **the dispute of Abaye and Rava.**


###### Bava Kamma 86a:10
[Bava Kamma 86a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:10)

בּוֹשֶׁת – הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְבַיֵּישׁ וְהַמִּתְבַּיֵּישׁ. מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְלָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֶלָּא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Bava Kamma 86a:11
[Bava Kamma 86a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:11)

דִּתְנַן: וְכוּלָּן – רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ הֵם בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מִנִּכְסֵיהֶם, שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַגָּדוֹל לְפִי גּוֹדְלוֹ, וְהַקָּטָן לְפִי קׇטְנוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עֲשִׁירִים – רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ הֵם בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מִנִּכְסֵיהֶם, עֲנִיִּים – כִּפְחוּתִין שֶׁבָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:12
[Bava Kamma 86a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:12)

מַנִּי? הַשְׁתָּא אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר – מַתְנִיתִין קָתָנֵי: הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְבַיֵּישׁ וְהַמִּתְבַּיֵּישׁ; וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – כּוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ! וְאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – מַתְנִיתִין קָתָנֵי: הַמְבַיֵּישׁ אֶת הַסּוֹמֵא – חַיָּיב; וְאִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סוֹמֵא אֵין לוֹ בּוֹשֶׁת! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Bava Kamma 86a:13
[Bava Kamma 86a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:13)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סוֹמֵא אֵין לוֹ בּוֹשֶׁת – לְמִשְׁקַל מִינֵּיהּ, אֲבָל לְמִיתְּבָא לֵיהּ – יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:14
[Bava Kamma 86a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:14)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הַמְבַיֵּישׁ אֶת הַיָּשֵׁן – חַיָּיב, וְיָשֵׁן שֶׁבִּיֵּישׁ – פָּטוּר; וְלָא קָתָנֵי: סוֹמֵא שֶׁבִּיֵּישׁ – פָּטוּר; מִכְּלָל דְּלָא שְׁנָא הָכִי וְלָא שְׁנָא הָכִי! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Kamma 86a:15
[Bava Kamma 86a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:15)

מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִתְכַּוֵּון לְבַיֵּישׁ אֶת הַקָּטָן, וּבִיֵּישׁ אֶת הַגָּדוֹל – נוֹתֵן לַגָּדוֹל דְּמֵי בוֹשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל קָטָן. לְבַיֵּישׁ אֶת הָעֶבֶד, וּבִיֵּישׁ אֶת בֶּן חוֹרִין – נוֹתֵן לְבֶן חוֹרִין דְּמֵי בוֹשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל עֶבֶד. מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְלָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְלָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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’s **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’s 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.**


###### Bava Kamma 86a:16
[Bava Kamma 86a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:16)

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ: קָטָן – קָטָן בִּנְכָסִים, גָּדוֹל – גָּדוֹל בִּנְכָסִים. אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָאָמַר: כּוּלְּהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ! וְאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָאָמַר: אֵין לַעֲבָדִים בּוֹשֶׁת! וְאִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָאָמַר: נִתְכַּוֵּון לְבַיֵּישׁ אֶת זֶה, וּבִיֵּישׁ אֶת זֶה – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why this is not in accordance with the opinion of any of these *tanna’im*: 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’t 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’t 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’t he say:** If one **intended to humiliate this** one, **and** instead **humiliated that** one, he is **exempt?**


###### Bava Kamma 86a:17
[Bava Kamma 86a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:17)

מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּקְטָלָא; מָה קְטָלָא – עַד דְּמִתְכַּוֵּון לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאָרַב לוֹ וְקָם עָלָיו״ – עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּון לוֹ; בּוֹשֶׁת נָמֵי – עַד דְּמִיכַּוֵּין לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו״ – עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּון לוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains Rabbi Shimon’s 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: “And he lies in wait for him, and rises up against him”** (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: “And she put forth her hand, and took him by his genitals”** (Deuteronomy 25:11); this teaches that one is not liable for humiliation **unless** he **intended** to humiliate **him** specifically.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:18
[Bava Kamma 86a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:18)

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵין לַעֲבָדִים בּוֹשֶׁת – לְמִיתְּבָא לְהוּ; אֲבָל לְמֵישַׁם – שָׁיְימִינַן בְּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Kamma 86a:19
[Bava Kamma 86a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:19)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִי סָבְרַתְּ: גָּדוֹל – גָּדוֹל בִּנְכָסִים, קָטָן – קָטָן בִּנְכָסִים? לֹא; גָּדוֹל – גָּדוֹל מַמָּשׁ, וְקָטָן – קָטָן מַמָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*].**


###### Bava Kamma 86a:20
[Bava Kamma 86a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/86a:20)

וְקָטָן בַּר בּוֹשֶׁת הוּא?! אִין; כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּמַיכְלְמוּ לֵיהּ וּמִיכְּלַם; הָכָא נָמֵי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,**