## Bava Kamma Daf 98a

###### Bava Kamma 98a:1
[Bava Kamma 98a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:1)

וְאִי מֵחֲמַת תַּרְעָא זִיל – לָא מְנַכֵּינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the produce **decreased in price due to the market** value, the debt **is not reduced for him.**


###### Bava Kamma 98a:2
[Bava Kamma 98a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:2)

וְהָא קָא שָׁבַח לְעִנְיַן נְסָכָא! אֶלָּא כִּי הָא דְּרַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עָבְדִי עוֹבָדָא בְּזוּזֵי דַּאֲגַרְדְּמִיס טַיָּיעָא, עַד עֲשָׂרָה בִּתְמָנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** the value of the coin **has** been **enhanced for the purpose of** melting it down into **a bar of metal.** Since this coin now contains a larger quantity of metal, if it were to be melted it would be worth more than an earlier coin of the same type, so it should be considered interest. **Rather,** in this case one must act **in accordance with how Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,** acted when they **performed an action with the dinars of Agardamis the Arab merchant [*tayya’a*]:** They considered **up to ten** old coins to be the equivalent **of eight** new coins. Since ten old coins were equivalent in value to eight new coins, they paid eight new coins in exchange for ten old ones.


###### Bava Kamma 98a:3
[Bava Kamma 98a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:3)

אָמַר רַבָּה: הַזּוֹרֵק מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ לַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר: הָא מַנַּח קַמָּךְ, אִי בָּעֵית שִׁקְלֵיהּ. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּצְלוּלִין – דְּקָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל עֲכוּרִין – דְּלָא קָחָזֵי לֵיהּ, לָא. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַדְּיֵיהּ אַדּוֹיֵי, אֲבָל שַׁקְלֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ – מִיגְזָל גַּזְלֵיהּ; הֲשָׁבָה בָּעֵי מֶיעְבַּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba says: One who throws another’s coin into the Great Sea is exempt** from liability. **What is the reason** for this? He can **say:** The coin **is resting before you; if you wish, take it.** The Gemara comments: **And this statement** applies only if the coin is **in translucent** water, **where** the owner of the coin **can see** the coin, **but** in **turbid** water, **where he cannot see** the coin, it does **not** apply, and the one that threw it will be liable to compensate the owner. **And this statement** applies only **when he rolled** the coin into the sea without picking it up, **but** if he **took** the coin **with his hands** and threw it into the sea, **he has robbed** the owner of **it, and** the robber **is required to perform** the mitzva of **returning** the coin to its owner.


###### Bava Kamma 98a:4
[Bava Kamma 98a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:4)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: אֵין מְחַלְּלִין עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. כֵּיצַד? הָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת בְּקַסְטְרָא אוֹ בְּהַר הַמֶּלֶךְ, אוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל כִּיסוֹ לַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל – אֵין מְחַלְּלִין! אָמַר רַבָּה: שָׁאנֵי לְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֵׂר, דְּבָעֵינַן מָצוּי בְּיָדְךָ; דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ״, וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** to the statement of Rabba from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Ma’aser Sheni* 1:6): One **cannot desacralize** second tithe by transferring its sanctity **onto money that is not in his possession. How so?** If **he had money in a fortress [*kastera*], or in the King’s Mountain [*Har HaMelekh*], or if his purse fell into the Great Sea,** one **may not desacralize** second tithe by transferring its sanctity onto that money. This indicates that money that fell into the Great Sea is considered lost. **Rabba said:** This is not difficult; it **is different with regard to** second **tithe, since it is necessary** that the money be **found in the hand** of the one who wishes to desacralize the tithe, **as the Merciful One states** in the Torah: “Then you shall turn it into money, **and bind up the money in your hand,** and shall go to the place that the Lord your God shall choose” (Deuteronomy 14:25), **and** if it is in the Great Sea, **it is not** in his hand, but nevertheless it is not considered lost.


###### Bava Kamma 98a:5
[Bava Kamma 98a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:5)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: הַשָּׁף מַטְבֵּעַ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָא לָא עֲבַד וְלָא מִידֵּי. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּמַחְיֵיהּ בְּקוּרְנָסָא וְטַרְשֵׁיהּ, אֲבָל שַׁיְיפֵהּ בְּשׁוֹפִינָא – חַסּוֹרֵי חַסְּרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba** also **says: One who effaces** the image of **another’s coin is exempt** from paying damages, even though he caused the coin to lose value. **What is the reason** for this? **As he did not do anything,** the coin remains the same size as before. The Gemara comments: **And this statement** applies only in a case where **he struck it with a hammer [*kurnesa*] and flattened it; but** if **he filed it with a file [*shofina*]** he must pay the amount of the reduction in value, since **he caused it to diminish** in size.


###### Bava Kamma 98a:6
[Bava Kamma 98a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:6)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: הִכָּהוּ עַל עֵינוֹ וְסִמְּאָהּ, עַל אׇזְנוֹ (וְחֵרְשׁוֹ) [וְחֵרְשָׁהּ] – עֶבֶד יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לְחֵירוּת. כְּנֶגֶד עֵינוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה, כְּנֶגֶד אׇזְנוֹ וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵע –ַ אֵין עֶבֶד יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לְחֵירוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** to the statement of Rabba from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 9:26): If a master **struck** his slave **on his eye and blinded it,** or **on his ear and deafened it, the slave is emancipated by means of these** injuries. If he struck the slave **near his eye and** as a result **he does not see,** or **near his ear and he does not hear, the slave is not emancipated by means of these** injuries. The first clause indicates that one is liable for damage caused even if it is not visible damage.


###### Bava Kamma 98a:7
[Bava Kamma 98a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:7)

רַבָּה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: חֵרְשׁוֹ לְאָבִיו – נֶהֱרָג; שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַחֲרִישָׁה בְּלֹא חַבּוּרָה, דְּטִפְּתָא דִּדְמָא נְפַלַת לֵיהּ בְּאוּנֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Rabba** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as Rabba says: One who deafens his father is put to death,** even though no bruise is visible, **because it is impossible for deafening** to occur **without a bruise,** as it is certain **that a drop of blood fell into his ear** from the blow, even if it is not visible from the outside. Striking someone in the ear in a manner that causes deafness results in a significant physical change, while striking a coin with a hammer does not detract from the actual size of the coin.


###### Bava Kamma 98a:8
[Bava Kamma 98a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:8)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: הַצּוֹרֵם אוֹזֶן פָּרָתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? פָּרָה כִּדְקָיְימָא קָיְימָא, דְּלָא עֲבַד וְלָא מִידֵּי; וְכוּלְּהוּ שְׁווֹרִים לָאו לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ קָיְימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba** also **says: One who slits the ear of another’s cow is exempt** from paying damages, even though this cow is no longer fit to be sacrificed as an offering due to the injury. **What is the reason** for this? **As** the **cow was available** for many uses until now, so **it is** still **available** for those uses now, **since** the one who slit its ear **did not do anything** to damage the cow in a substantial way. **And** concerning the fact that it is rendered disqualified from being sacrificed as an offering, **not all oxen stand near the altar,** i.e., most animals are not sacrificed as offerings anyway, so it is not considered a loss.


###### Bava Kamma 98a:9
[Bava Kamma 98a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:9)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּמֵי חַטָּאת וּבְפָרַת חַטָּאת – פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם. מְלָאכָה הוּא דְּלָא מִינְּכַר הֶיזֵּיקַהּ; אֲבָל צוֹרֵם – דְּמִינְּכַר הֶיזֵּיקַהּ, הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְחַיֵּיב בְּדִינֵי אָדָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **One who performs a task with** the **water of purification,** i.e., the water that is mixed with the ashes of the red heifer and sprinkled upon one who has become impure as part of the purification ritual, **or with** the red **heifer of purification,** whose ashes are mixed with springwater and sprinkled on those who have contracted impurity imparted by a corpse on the third and seventh days of their impurity, is **exempt according to human laws,** since he has not caused any discernible damage, **but** is **liable according to the laws of Heaven.** It may be inferred from here that one is exempt from liability according to human laws only if he performed **a task** with those items, **since the damage** that he caused **is not evident, but** in the case of one who **slits** the ear, **where the damage is evident,** he is **indeed liable according to human laws.**


###### Bava Kamma 98a:10
[Bava Kamma 98a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:10)

אָמְרִי: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ צוֹרֵם פָּטוּר, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דַּאֲפִילּוּ מְלָאכָה דְּלָא מִינְּכַר הֶיזֵּיקַהּ, חַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: **The same is true that even one who slits** the ear **is exempt** according to human laws, **and** the *baraita* that specified cases where the damage is not evident **teaches us this: That even** one who performs **a task** with the water of purification or the red heifer, **where the damage is not evident, is liable according to the laws of Heaven.**


###### Bava Kamma 98a:11
[Bava Kamma 98a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/98a:11)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: הַשּׂוֹרֵף שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּטוּר. דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְיָירָא קְלַאי מִינָּךְ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba** also **says: One who burns another’s** promissory **note is exempt, as** the one who burned it can **say to him: I have burned** only **your paper,** and he is not held liable for the fact that the creditor will no longer be able to prove that he had provided the loan. **Rami bar Ḥama objects to this: What are the circumstances?**