## Bava Kamma Daf 88a

###### Bava Kamma 88a:1
[Bava Kamma 88a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:1)

דְּאַפְחֲתַהּ מִכַּסְפַּהּ; אֲבָל פְּצִיעָה – דְּלָא אַפְחֲתַהּ מִכַּסְפַּהּ, לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
by **which he lowered her monetary** value, diminishing the amount of money that her father will receive for her betrothal. **But** with regard to **a wound,** by **which he did not lower her monetary** value, **Rabbi Elazar did not** even **raise a dilemma.**


###### Bava Kamma 88a:2
[Bava Kamma 88a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: שֶׁפְּצָעָהּ בְּפָנֶיהָ, וְאַפְחֲתַהּ מִכַּסְפַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:** Rabbi Yoḥanan is discussing a case **where** someone **wounded her on her face, and he** thereby **lowered her monetary** value, as this affects the amount of money that her father will receive for her betrothal.


###### Bava Kamma 88a:3
[Bava Kamma 88a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:3)

הַחוֹבֵל בְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים – חַיָּיב וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים יַחְדָּו אִישׁ וְאָחִיו״ – בְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַחְוָה, יָצָא עֶבֶד שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אַחְוָה. וְרַבָּנַן – אָחִיו הוּא בְּמִצְוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **One who injures a Canaanite slave belonging to others** is **liable** for all of the five types of indemnity. Rabbi Yehuda says: Canaanite slaves do not have humiliation, so one who injures a slave pays only the other four types of indemnity. **What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda?** The Gemara explains: The **verse states** with regard to the indemnity of humiliation: **“When men strive together, a man and his brother”** (Deuteronomy 25:11). The formulation “and his brother” teaches that the payment of compensation for humiliation is applicable **with regard to someone who has** a relationship of **brotherhood** with a Jew. This is **excluding** a Canaanite **slave, who does not have** a relationship of **brotherhood** with Jews. **And the Sages,** who hold that a Canaanite slave is included in the *halakhot* of compensation for humiliation, maintain that **he is** the Jews’ **brother with regard to** the observance of **mitzvot,** as a Canaanite slave is obligated to observe most mitzvot.


###### Bava Kamma 88a:4
[Bava Kamma 88a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:4)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – זוֹמְמֵי עֶבֶד לֹא יֵהָרְגוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו״! אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If that is so,** then **according to Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that slaves are not in the category of brothers, **conspiring witnesses** who testify that a Canaanite **slave** committed a sin punishable by capital punishment **should not be put to death** by the court, **as it is written: “You shall do unto him as he conspired to do unto his brother”** (Deuteronomy 19:19), and the slave is not considered a brother. **Rava said** that **Rav Sheshet said: The** same **verse states** with regard to conspiring witnesses: **“And you shall put away the evil from your midst,”** indicating that the punishment for conspiring witnesses should be applied **in any case,** including when they testified about a slave.


###### Bava Kamma 88a:5
[Bava Kamma 88a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:5)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לְרַבָּנַן – עֶבֶד יְהֵא כָּשֵׁר לַמַּלְכוּת! אָמְרִי: וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ גֵּר – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל! אֶלָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ״ – מִמּוּבְחָר שֶׁבְּאַחֶיךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another challenge: **If that is so,** then **according to the Sages,** who hold that slaves are in the category of brothers, a Canaanite **slave should be fit for kingship,** as it is written: “One from among your brothers shall you set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15). The Sages **say** in response: **But according to your reasoning,** the *halakha* disqualifying **a convert** from being king **should pose a difficulty for you according to all** opinions, both according to the opinion of the Sages and of Rabbi Yehuda: Why is a convert not fit to be a king, as he is certainly in the category of brother? The Gemara answers: **Rather, the verse states: “One from among your brothers** shall you set a king over you,” which indicates that the king must be **from the choicest among your brothers,** which disqualifies both converts and slaves.


###### Bava Kamma 88a:6
[Bava Kamma 88a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:6)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, לְרַבָּנַן – יְהֵא עֶבֶד כָּשֵׁר לְעֵדוּת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִנֵּה עֵד שֶׁקֶר הָעֵד, שֶׁקֶר עָנָה בְאָחִיו״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges further: **If that is so,** then **according to the Sages,** who hold that slaves are in the category of brothers, a Canaanite **slave should be fit to bear witness, as it is written: “And behold, the witness is a false witness, and has testified falsely against his brother”** (Deuteronomy 19:18). If a slave is considered a brother, why is he not eligible to testify in court?


###### Bava Kamma 88a:7
[Bava Kamma 88a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:7)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: עֵדוּת לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ; אָתְיָא עֵדוּת בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵאִשָּׁה: וּמָה אִשָּׁה, שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל – פְּסוּלָה לְעֵדוּת; עֶבֶד, שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁפָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said: You cannot say** that a slave is fit to bear **witness,** because the *halakha* concerning the **testimony** of a slave **is derived by an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the *halakha* concerning the testimony of **a woman: And just as a woman, who is fit to enter into the congregation,** i.e., to marry a Jew of fit lineage, **is** nevertheless **disqualified from bearing witness,** so too, with regard to **a slave, who is not fit to enter the congregation, is it not logical that** he is **disqualified from bearing witness?**


###### Bava Kamma 88a:8
[Bava Kamma 88a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:8)

מָה לְאִשָּׁה – שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְמִילָה; תֹּאמַר בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְמִילָה?! קָטָן יוֹכִיחַ – שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּמִילָה, וּפָסוּל לְעֵדוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters this derivation: **What** is notable **about a woman?** She is notable **in that she is not fit to** undergo the mitzva of **circumcision.** Would **you say** that from the fact that a woman is disqualified from bearing witness one can derive that the same is true **for a slave, who is fit to** undergo **circumcision?** The Gemara responds: The *halakha* of **a minor shall prove** that one’s fitness to undergo circumcision is not germane to one’s qualification to bear witness, **as** a minor **is** included **in** the mitzva to undergo **circumcision, and** yet he **is disqualified from bearing witness.**


###### Bava Kamma 88a:9
[Bava Kamma 88a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:9)

מָה לְקָטָן – שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּמִצְוֹת; תֹּאמַר בְּעֶבֶד, שֶׁהוּא בְּמִצְוֹת?! אִשָּׁה תּוֹכִיחַ – שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָהּ בְּמִצְוֹת, וּפְסוּלָה לְעֵדוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is countered: **What** is notable **about a minor?** He is notable **in that he is not** obligated **in** the performance of **mitzvot.** Would **you say** that from the fact that a minor is disqualified from bearing witness one can derive that the same is true **for a slave, who is** obligated **in** the performance of **mitzvot?** The Gemara responds: The *halakha* of **a woman shall prove** the matter, **as she is** obligated **in** the performance of **mitzvot and is disqualified from bearing witness.**


###### Bava Kamma 88a:10
[Bava Kamma 88a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:10)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין: לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָן בְּכׇל הַמִּצְוֹת, וּפְסוּלִין לְהָעִיד; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אֶת הָעֶבֶד – שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּכׇל הַמִּצְוֹת, וּפָסוּל לְהָעִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the derivation has reverted** to its starting point. **The aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case, **and the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case, as each case has its own unique *halakha*. **Their common denominator** is **that** both a woman and a minor **are not** obligated **in** the performance of **all the mitzvot and are disqualified from bearing witness. I will also bring** the case of **the slave** for inclusion in this *halakha*, **as he is** also **not** obligated **in** the performance of **all the mitzvot and is disqualified from bearing witness.**


###### Bava Kamma 88a:11
[Bava Kamma 88a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:11)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶם – שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ אִישׁ; תֹּאמַר בְּעֶבֶד, שֶׁהוּא אִישׁ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This derivation is rejected: **What** is notable **about their common denominator?** It is notable **in that** a woman or a minor **is not a man,** and this is why they are disqualified from bearing witness. Would **you say** that from the fact that they are disqualified from bearing witness one can derive that the same is true **for a slave, who is a man?**


###### Bava Kamma 88a:12
[Bava Kamma 88a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:12)

אֶלָּא תֵּיתֵי מִגַּזְלָן. מָה לְגַזְלָן – שֶׁכֵּן מַעֲשָׂיו גָּרְמוּ לוֹ; תֹּאמַר בְּעֶבֶד – שֶׁאֵין מַעֲשָׂיו גָּרְמוּ לוֹ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers a different derivation: **Rather, derive** the *halakha* that a slave is disqualified from bearing witness **from** that of **a robber,** who is disqualified from bearing witness. The Gemara objects: **What** is notable **about a robber?** He is notable **in that his actions caused him** to be disqualified. Would **you say** that from the fact that a robber is disqualified from bearing witness one can derive that the same is true **for a slave, whose actions did not cause him** to be unfit?


###### Bava Kamma 88a:13
[Bava Kamma 88a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:13)

אֶלָּא תֵּיתֵי מִגַּזְלָן וּמֵחַד מֵהָנָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, derive** the *halakha* **from a robber and from one of these** other two, either a woman or a minor. Their common denominator is that they do not observe all the mitzvot and are disqualified from bearing witness. So too, a slave does not observe all the mitzvot and is disqualified from bearing witness.


###### Bava Kamma 88a:14
[Bava Kamma 88a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:14)

מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים״ – לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל פִּי אָבוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חַיִיס בָּנִים. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כִּדְאָמְרִינַן: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים״ – בְּעֵדוּת בָּנִים; לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בְּנֵיהֶם״! מַאי ״בָּנִים״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּלֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל פִּי אָבוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חַיִיס בָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar, son of Ravina, said** another derivation. **The verse states: “Fathers shall not be put to death for children”** (Deuteronomy 24:16), meaning that people **shall not be put to death based on** the testimony of **fathers who do not have** common **lineage [*ḥayis*] with** their **children.** This is referring to Canaanite slaves, whose children are not considered to be related to them. **For if** it **enters your mind** to interpret the verse according to its straightforward meaning, **as we say: “Fathers shall not be put to death for children,”** meaning **by the testimony of** their **children,** then **let the Merciful One write: Fathers shall not be put to death for their children. What** does the verse teach by stating only: **“Children,”** without the word their? **Learn from** this formulation **that** people **shall not be put to death based on** the testimony of **fathers who do not have** common **lineage with** their **children.**


###### Bava Kamma 88a:15
[Bava Kamma 88a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:15)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״וּבָנִים לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל אָבוֹת״ – הָכִי נָמֵי, לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל פִּי בָּנִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חַיִיס אָבוֹת? אֶלָּא גֵּר הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפָסוּל לְעֵדוּת?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: **If that is so,** when the end of the verse states: **“Nor shall children be put to death for fathers”** (Deuteronomy 24:16), does this **also** mean that people **shall not be put to death based on** the testimony of **children who do not have** common **lineage with** their **fathers? But** if that were the case, it would **also** be the case that **a convert** would be **disqualified from bearing witness,** as one who converts no longer shares common lineage with his parents.


###### Bava Kamma 88a:16
[Bava Kamma 88a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:16)

אָמְרִי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! גֵּר, נְהִי דְּאֵין לוֹ חַיִיס לְמַעְלָה, לְמַטָּה יֵשׁ לוֹ חַיִיס; לְאַפּוֹקֵי עֶבֶד, דְּאֵין לוֹ חַיִיס לֹא לְמַעְלָה וְלֹא לְמַטָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: **How can** these cases **be compared?** With regard to **a convert, although he has no** common **lineage** with those **above** him, i.e., his parents, **he** does **have** common **lineage** with those **below** him, i.e., his children. This serves **to exclude a slave, who has no** common **lineage either** with those **above** him **or** with those **below** him.


###### Bava Kamma 88a:17
[Bava Kamma 88a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:17)

דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ גֵּר פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בְּנֵיהֶם״ לְכִדְאָמְרִינַן – לֹא יוּמְתוּ בְּעֵדוּת בָּנִים; וְנִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וּבָנִים לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל אָבוֹת״ – דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תְּרֵי: חֲדָא – לֹא יוּמְתוּ בָּנִים בְּעֵדוּת אָבוֹת, וְאִידַּךְ – לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל פִּי בָּנִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חַיִיס אָבוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages prove that a convert is fit to bear witness: **As, if** it **enters your mind** that **a convert is disqualified from bearing witness,** then **let the Merciful One write: Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, according to** the interpretation **that we say:** Fathers **shall not be put to death based on the testimony of** their **children; and let the Merciful One** also **write: “Nor shall children be put to death for fathers,” from which you learn two** *halakhot*: **One,** that **children shall not be put to death by** the **testimony of** their **fathers, and another,** that people **shall not be put to death based on** the testimony of **children who do not have** common **lineage with** their **fathers,** i.e., converts.


###### Bava Kamma 88a:18
[Bava Kamma 88a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:18)

וְעֶבֶד – נָפְקָא לֵיהּ בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִגֵּר; וּמָה גֵּר, דִּלְמַעְלָה הוּא דְּאֵין לוֹ חַיִיס, אֲבָל לְמַטָּה יֵשׁ לוֹ חַיִיס – פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת; עֶבֶד, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חַיִיס לֹא לְמַעְלָה וְלֹא לְמַטָּה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא פָּסוּל לְעֵדוּת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the statement: **And** the *halakha* with regard to **a slave** being disqualified from bearing witness **is derived by an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the *halakha* of **a convert: And just as** with regard to **a convert, that it is** the case concerning those **above** him **that he has no** common **lineage, but** with those **below** him **he** does **have** common **lineage,** and he is **disqualified from bearing witness,** then with regard to **a slave, who has no** common **lineage** with those **above** him **or** those **below** him, all the more so **is it not logical that he is disqualified from bearing witness?**


###### Bava Kamma 88a:19
[Bava Kamma 88a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:19)

אֶלָּא מִדִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע: לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל פִּי אָבוֹת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חַיִיס בָּנִים; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, עֶבֶד, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חַיִיס לֹא לְמַעְלָה וְלֹא לְמַטָּה – הוּא דְּפָסוּל לְעֵדוּת; אֲבָל גֵּר, כֵּיוָן דְּיֵשׁ לוֹ חַיִיס לְמַטָּה – כָּשֵׁר לְעֵדוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the statement: **Rather, due to** the fact **that the Merciful One** did not write the verse that way, but instead **wrote: “Fathers shall not be put to death for children,” which indicates** that people **shall not be put to death based on** the testimony of **fathers who do not have** common **lineage with** their **children, learn from** this formulation that with regard to **a slave, who has no** common **lineage** with those **above** him **or** those **below** him, **he** is the one **who is disqualified from bearing witness. But** with regard to **a convert, since he has** common **lineage** with those **below** him, he is **fit to bear witness.**


###### Bava Kamma 88a:20
[Bava Kamma 88a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:20)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וּבָנִים לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם״, לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וּבָנִים לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל אָבוֹת״ – דְּמַשְׁמַע: לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל פִּי בָּנִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חַיִיס אָבוֹת? אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתַב: ״לָא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים״, כְּתַב נָמֵי: ״וּבָנִים לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל אָבוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let the Merciful One write: Nor shall children be put to death for their fathers, why do I** need **that** which **the Merciful One wrote: “Nor shall children be put to death for fathers,” which indicates** that people **shall not be put to death based on** the testimony of **children who do not have** common **lineage** with their **fathers?** The Gemara answers: **Since** the Merciful One **wrote: “Fathers shall not be put to death for children,”** He **also wrote** in the same manner: **“Nor shall children be put to death for fathers.”**


###### Bava Kamma 88a:21
[Bava Kamma 88a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88a:21)

חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן פְּגִיעָתָן רָעָה. אִימֵּיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא מֵהַגְרוֹנְיָא הֲוָת נְסִיבָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַבָּא, כְּתַבְתִּינְהוּ (לְנִכְסֵי) [לְנִכְסַהּ] לְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בְּרַהּ. בָּתַר דִּשְׁכִיבָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna (87a) teaches: With regard to **a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, an encounter with them is disadvantageous,** since one who injures them is liable. But if they were the ones who injured, they are exempt. The Gemara relates an incident: **The mother of Rav Shmuel bar Abba from** the city of **Hagroneya was married to Rabbi Abba. She wrote,** i.e., signed over, her **property to Rav Shmuel bar Abba, her son. After she died,**