## Bava Kamma Daf 90b

###### Bava Kamma 90b:1
[Bava Kamma 90b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:1)

זֶה הַכְּלָל – הַכֹּל לְפִי כְּבוֹדוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֲפִילּוּ עֲנִיִּים שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, רוֹאִין אוֹתָם כְּאִילּוּ הֵם בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מִנִּכְסֵיהֶם; שֶׁהֵם בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is the principle** of assessing payment for humiliation caused to another: It is **all** evaluated **in accordance with the honor of** the one who was humiliated, as the Gemara will explain. **Rabbi Akiva said: Even** with regard to the **poor among the Jewish people, 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 children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,** and are all of prominent lineage.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:2
[Bava Kamma 90b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:2)

וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁפָּרַע רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק, בָּאת לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְחִיְּיבוֹ לִיתֵּן לָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, תֵּן לִי זְמַן. וְנָתַן לוֹ זְמַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna relates: **And an incident** occurred **involving one who uncovered the head of a woman in the marketplace,** and the woman **came before Rabbi Akiva** to request that he render the assailant liable to pay for the humiliation that she suffered, **and** Rabbi Akiva **rendered** the assailant **liable to give her four hundred dinars.** The man **said to** Rabbi Akiva: **My teacher, give me time** to pay the penalty, **and** Rabbi Akiva **gave him time.**


###### Bava Kamma 90b:3
[Bava Kamma 90b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:3)

שְׁמָרָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת עַל פֶּתַח חֲצֵרָהּ, וְשָׁבַר אֶת הַכַּד בְּפָנֶיהָ, וּבוֹ כְּאִיסָּר שֶׁמֶן. גִּילְּתָה אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ, וְהָיְתָה מְטַפַּחַת וּמַנַּחַת יָדָהּ עַל רֹאשָׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The man then **waited for her** until **she was standing by the opening of her courtyard, and he broke a jug in front of her, and** there was the value of **about an *issar* of oil inside** the jug. The woman then **exposed her** own **head and she was wetting [*metapaḥat*]** her hand in the oil, **and placing her hand on her head** to make use of the oil.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:4
[Bava Kamma 90b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:4)

הֶעֱמִיד עָלֶיהָ עֵדִים, וּבָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא; אָמַר לוֹ: לָזוֹ אֲנִי נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The man **set up witnesses** to observe **her** actions, **and he came before Rabbi Akiva,** and **he said to him: Will I give four hundred dinars to this** woman for having uncovered her head? By uncovering her head for a minimal benefit, she has demonstrated that this does not cause her humiliation.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:5
[Bava Kamma 90b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:5)

אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא אָמַרְתָּ כְּלוּם. הַחוֹבֵל בְּעַצְמוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי – פָּטוּר; אֲחֵרִים שֶׁחָבְלוּ בּוֹ – חַיָּיבִים. וְהַקּוֹצֵץ נְטִיעוֹתָיו, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי – פָּטוּר; אֲחֵרִים – חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Akiva **said to him: You did not say anything,** i.e., this claim will not exempt you. **One who injures himself, although it is not permitted for him** to do so, is nevertheless **exempt** from any sort of penalty, but **others who injured him** are **liable** to pay him. In this case as well, the man was liable to compensate the woman for shaming her, despite the fact that she did the same to herself. Similarly, **one who cuts** down **his** own **saplings, although it is not permitted for him** to do so, as this violates the prohibition of: “You shall not destroy” (see Deuteronomy 20:19), is **exempt** from any penalty, but **others** who cut down his saplings are **liable** to pay him.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:6
[Bava Kamma 90b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מָנֶה צוֹרִי תְּנַן, אוֹ מָנֶה מְדִינָה תְּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, one who strikes another must pay him one hundred dinars. The Gemara clarifies this opinion. **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Did **we learn** in the mishna that he must pay **one hundred dinars** of **Tyrian** coinage, **or** did **we learn** in the mishna that he must pay **one hundred dinars** of **state** coinage, which is worth one-eighth of Tyrian coinage, i.e., twelve and a half dinars of Tyrian coinage?


###### Bava Kamma 90b:7
[Bava Kamma 90b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּתְקַע לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא אֲנָא, הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, הַב לֵיהּ מָנֶה צוֹרִי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מָנֶה צוֹרִי תְּנַן! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** a proof: It happened **that there was a certain man who struck another** man, and the latter **came before Rabbi Yehuda Nesia** to request an assessment for the humiliation he suffered. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia **said to** the assailant: **This is I,** and **this is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Give him one hundred dinars** of **Tyrian** coinage. The Gemara suggests: **Conclude from** the incident that **we learned** in the mishna he must pay **one hundred dinars** of **Tyrian** coinage. The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** it that it is so.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:8
[Bava Kamma 90b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:8)

מַאי ״הָא אֲנָא, הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי״? אִילֵּימָא הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: הָא אֲנָא – דַּחֲזֵיתָךְ, וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – דְּאָמַר מָנֶה צוֹרִי, זִיל הַב לֵיהּ מָנֶה צוֹרִי. לְמֵימְרָא דְּעֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What** did Rabbi Yehuda Nesia mean when he stated: **This is I,** and **this is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? If we say** that **this is** what Rabbi Yehuda Nesia **said to** the assailant: **This is I, who saw you** strike the man, **and this is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says** that the penalty for this act is **one hundred dinars** of **Tyrian** coinage; therefore, **go** and **give him one hundred dinars** of **Tyrian** coinage, **is this to say that a witness can become a judge,** i.e., that one who witnessed an event can himself serve as a judge concerning the matter, and consequently Rabbi Yehuda Nesia was able to act as both witness and judge in the same case?


###### Bava Kamma 90b:9
[Bava Kamma 90b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:9)

וְהָתַנְיָא: סַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁרָאוּ אֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ – מִקְצָתָן נַעֲשׂוּ עֵדִים, וּמִקְצָתָן נַעֲשׂוּ דַּיָּינִין; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כּוּלָּם עֵדִים הֵם, וְאֵין עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that if there was **a Sanhedrin that saw one kill** another **person, some of them have become witnesses** and testify before the others, **and some of them have become judges** to issue a verdict; this is **the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. Rabbi Akiva says: They are all witnesses** to the act, **and a witness cannot become a judge.**


###### Bava Kamma 90b:10
[Bava Kamma 90b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:10)

עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – אֶלָּא דְּמִקְצָתָן נַעֲשׂוּ עֵדִים וּמִקְצָתָן נַעֲשׂוּ דַּיָּינִין; אֲבָל עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין – לָא קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from this *baraita* that even **Rabbi Tarfon says** his opinion **only** in a case **where some of** the members of the Sanhedrin **have become witnesses and some of them have become judges, but he did not say** that **a witness becomes a judge** without anyone else testifying. All the more so according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva would it not be permitted for Rabbi Yehuda Nesia to act as a judge as well as serving as a witness.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:11
[Bava Kamma 90b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:11)

כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – כְּגוֹן שֶׁרָאוּ בַּלַּיְלָה, דְּלָא (לְמֶעְבַּד) [בְּנֵי מֶעְבַּד] דִּינָא נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: One could say that **when that** *baraita* **is taught,** it is taught in a case **where** the Sanhedrin **saw** the murder **at night,** at which time **it is not** permitted **for them to practice judgment,** since cases of capital law may be judged only during the daytime. They were therefore not functioning as judges at that time. On the following day, testimony must be heard from some, now acting as witnesses, in front of the others, now acting as judges. By contrast, in the case of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, he was able to serve as both the witness and the judge, as he witnessed the event while functioning as a judge.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:12
[Bava Kamma 90b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:12)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: הָא אֲנָא – דִּסְבִירָא לִי כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר מָנֶה צוֹרִי; וְהָא סָהֲדִי דְּמַסְהֲדִי בָּךְ; זִיל הַב לֵיהּ מָנֶה צוֹרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: **And if you wish, say** instead that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia did not witness the incident, and **this is** what he **said to** the assailant: **This is I, that I hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says** that **one hundred dinars** of **Tyrian** coinage must be paid; **and these are witnesses who testify concerning you** that you struck the other. Therefore, **go** and **give him one hundred dinars** of **Tyrian** coinage.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:13
[Bava Kamma 90b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:13)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאֵין עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses the previously mentioned opinion of Rabbi Akiva: **But does Rabbi Akiva hold that a witness cannot become a judge?**


###### Bava Kamma 90b:14
[Bava Kamma 90b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:14)

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְהִכָּה אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף״ – שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי אוֹמֵר: מָה אֶגְרוֹף מְיוּחָד – שֶׁמָּסוּר לָעֵדָה וְלָעֵדִים, אַף כֹּל שֶׁמָּסוּר לָעֵדָה וְלָעֵדִים; פְּרָט לְשֶׁיָּצְתָה מִתַּחַת יַד הָעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Sanhedrin* 12:3) with regard to what is stated in the Torah concerning injuries: “And if men contend, **and one smite the other with a stone, or with his fist”** (Exodus 21:18), that **Shimon HaTimni says: Just as a fist is unique** in **that it is submitted to the assembly** of judges to assess its ability to injure **and to the witnesses** who attest that it was the fist used to strike, as a fist remains attached to the assailant, **so too,** a ruling can be issued in the case of **any** item **that is submitted to the assembly** of judges to assess its ability to injure **and to the witnesses** who attest that this was the item used to strike? This serves to **exclude** a case **where** the stone that injured **left the possession of the witnesses** and is not available to be inspected by the court to assess if it is capable of causing the purported injury.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:15
[Bava Kamma 90b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:15)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וְכִי בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין הִכָּהוּ – שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין כַּמָּה הִכָּהוּ, וְעַל מָה הִכָּהוּ – אִם עַל שׁוֹקוֹ אוֹ צִיפַּר נַפְשׁוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva said to him: But** is it the case that in all incidents of injury the assailant **struck him in the presence of the court,** so **that they know** exactly **how** hard **he struck him and on what** part of the body **he struck him,** e.g., **if** he struck him **on his thigh** or **if** he struck him on **the lobe of his heart?** Rather, the court relies on witnesses to testify about the injury. Therefore, the witnesses should be able to testify about the item used as well.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:16
[Bava Kamma 90b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:16)

וְעוֹד, הֲרֵי שֶׁדָּחַף אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג אוֹ מֵרֹאשׁ הַבִּירָה וָמֵת – בֵּית דִּין הוֹלְכִין אֵצֶל בִּירָה, אוֹ בִירָה הוֹלֶכֶת אֵצֶל בֵּית דִּין? וְעוֹד, אִם נָפְלָה, חוֹזֵר וּבוֹנֶה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** if **there** was one **who pushed another from the top of the roof or from the top of a building, and** the one who was pushed **died** as a result of the fall, do the members of **the court go to the building** to inspect how high it is, **or** does the **building go to the court?** Obviously neither, and the court relies upon the testimony of witnesses who state how tall the building is. **And furthermore, if** the building **collapsed,** must the court **rebuild it** in order to assess its height? The witnesses should then be able to testify about the item used as well.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:17
[Bava Kamma 90b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:17)

אֶלָּא מָה אֶגְרוֹף מְיוּחָד – שֶׁהוּא מָסוּר לָעֵדִים, אַף כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מָסוּר לָעֵדִים;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabbi Akiva interprets the verse differently: **Just as a fist is unique** in **that it is submitted to the witnesses** for them to testify about it, **so too,** a ruling can be issued in the case of **any** item **that is submitted to the witnesses** to testify about, despite the item’s not being available for the court to assess.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:18
[Bava Kamma 90b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:18)

פְּרָט לִכְשֶׁיָּצְתָה אֶבֶן מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ שֶׁל מַכֶּה – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This serves to **exclude** a case **where** the **stone** that injured **left the possession of the assailant** and cannot be found, and even the witnesses were unable to see it. In such a case the assailant is **exempt** from payment, since even the witnesses cannot testify about whether the stone was capable of inflicting the purported injuries.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:19
[Bava Kamma 90b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:19)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וְכִי בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין הִכָּהוּ, שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין כַּמָּה הִכָּהוּ? הָא הִכָּהוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם – עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states its question: **In any event,** it **teaches** that **Rabbi Akiva said to** Shimon HaTimni: **Are** all cases of injury such that the assailant **struck him in the presence of the court** so **that they know** exactly **how** hard **he struck him?** It can be inferred from this **that** if **he did** in fact **strike him in front of them,** Rabbi Akiva would agree that **a witness can become a judge.** This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the *baraita*, that a witness cannot become a judge.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:20
[Bava Kamma 90b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:20)

לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that there is no proof as to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, since it may be that he **stated** his refutation **in accordance with the statement of Shimon HaTimni, but he himself does not hold accordingly.** Perhaps Rabbi Akiva himself holds that if the court had witnessed the act, they would not be able to render judgment concerning it.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:21
[Bava Kamma 90b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:21)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹר תָּם שֶׁהֵמִית וְהִזִּיק – דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, וְאֵין דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara quotes a related *halakha*. **The Sages taught:** In the case of **an innocuous ox that killed** a person **and** subsequently went and **caused damage,** the court **judges it** as a case of **capital law** and the ox is killed, **and** the court **does not judge it** as a case of **monetary law,** despite the damage that it caused.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:22
[Bava Kamma 90b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:22)

מוּעָד שֶׁהֵמִית וְהִזִּיק – דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, וְחוֹזְרִין וְדָנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. קָדְמוּ וְדָנוּהוּ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת – אֵין חוֹזְרִין וְדָנִין אוֹתוֹ דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, in the case of **a forewarned** ox **that killed** a person **and** subsequently went and **caused damage,** the court **judges it** as a case of **monetary law,** and the owner is liable to pay for the damage it caused, **and** then the court **goes back and judges it** again as a case of **capital law,** and the ox is killed. But if the court **proceeded and judged it** first as a case of **capital law,** the court **does not go back and judge it** again as a case of **monetary law,** since it has already been sentenced to be killed.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:23
[Bava Kamma 90b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:23)

וְכִי קָדְמוּ וְדָנוּהוּ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַאי הָוֵי? לִיהְדַּר וְלִידַיְינֵיהּ (נָמֵי) [דִּינֵי] מָמוֹנוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And if they proceeded and judged it** first as a case of **capital law, what of it? Let them go back and judge it** again **also** as a case of **monetary** law.


###### Bava Kamma 90b:24
[Bava Kamma 90b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/90b:24)

אֲמַר רָבָא: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב, דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַתִּימְנִי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: ״מָה אֶגְרוֹף מְיוּחָד – שֶׁמָּסוּר לָעֵדָה וְלָעֵדִים״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav who were sitting and saying** to explain this: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon HaTimni, who says** that **just as a fist is unique** in **that it is submitted to the assembly** of judges to assess its ability to injure **and to the witnesses** to attest that this was the fist used to strike, so too, a ruling can be issued in the case of any item that is submitted to the assembly of judges to assess its ability to injure and to the witnesses to attest that this was the item used to strike.