## Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma Chapter 8

###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:1:1)

**משנה:** הַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ חַיָיב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים בְּנֶזֶק בְּצַעַר בְּרִיפּוּי בְּשֶׁבֶת וּבְבוֹשֶׁת. בְּנֶזֶק כֵּיצַד סִימָּא אֶת עֵינוֹ קָטַע אֶת יָדוֹ שָׁבַר אֶת רַגְלוֹ רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא עֶבֶד נִמְכַּר כַּמָּה הָיָה יַָפֶה וְכַמָּה הוּא יָפֶה. צַעַר כְּוָייוֹ בַשְׁפוּד אוֹ בַמַּסְמֵר וַאֲפִילוּ עַל צִיפָּרְנוֹ מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה רוֹצֶה לִיטּוֹל לִהְיוֹת מִצְטָעֵר כָּךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One who injures another person owes him under five categories: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings¹. 21:19., and embarrassment. How are damages determined? If he blinded his eye, or cut off his hand, or broke his leg, one considers it as if he were sold as a slave; how much was he worth and how much is he worth now². Suffering: If he burned him with a spit, or with a nail, even on his fingernails where it does not cause a wound³, one estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.

footnotes:
¹ Payment of medical costs and replacement of lost earnings are biblical obligations, Ex
² Since slaves are bought for their working power (Halakhah 7:1), what has to be estimated is the loss of earning power.
³ If no open wound is caused, no damages are due. The payment for pain is independent of the payment for damages.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:1:2)

**הלכה:** הַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ כול׳. תַּנֵּי. הַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה נוֹתֵן לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה. אַרְבָּעָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ אַרְבָּעָה. שְׁלשָׁה נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׁלשָׁה. שְׁנַיִם נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׁנַיִם. אֶחָד נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶחָד. וְהֵיכִי. הִכָּהוּ עַל יָדוֹ וּקְטָעָהּ נוֹתֵן לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה. נֶזֶק צַעַר רִיפּוּי שֶׁבֶת וּבוֹשֶׁת. הִכָּהוּ עַל יָדוֹ וְצָבַת נוֹתֵן לוֹ ד̇. צַעַר רִיפּוּי שֶׁבֶת וּבוֹשֶׁת. הִכָּהוּ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְצָבַת נוֹתֵן לוֹ ג̇. צַעַר רִיפּוּי שֶׁבֶת. בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה נוֹתֵן לוֹ ב̇. צַעַר רִיפּוּי. בְּטוֹמוֹס שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ א̇. בּוֹשֶׁת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated⁴: “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen⁵, he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings⁶ *Hovel* *umazziq* 2:2) and Rosh (Chapter 8, §1) read: embarrassment. This is reasonable since a person with a swollen head is embarrassed but not disabled. But the Genizah text supports the Leiden reading; the error, if it is one, must be a very old one. E hs a lacuna at this place.. At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs⁷. With a tome⁸ “cut”, Greek τόμος “piece, slice”. There is no injury or hurt; therefore payment is only due for embarassment. E reads בניומוס, a scribal error. A differently formulated parallel in *Sifra* *Emor* *Pereq* 20(4) reads בְּלוּחַ וּבְפִינַקְס וּבְטוֹמוֹס נְייָרוֹת “with a plank, or a wooden writing tablet (πίναξ), or a bundle of papers.” in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.

footnotes:
⁴ Tosephta 9:1.
⁵ Since the damage is not permanent, no damages are due.
⁶ Maimonides (Hilkhot
⁷ This supports the reading of Maimonides and Rosh.
⁸ Latin tomus


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:1:3)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵי. קָטַע יָדוֹ וְחָזַר וְקָטַע יָדוֹ מִמַעֲלָן מָהוּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ צַעַר שֶֶׁל שָׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he severed his hand and returned and severed the arm, does he have to pay additionally for the pain inflicted the first time⁹?

footnotes:
⁹ If the case came to court only after the second attack. In the Babli, 85b, it is considered obvious that suffering and embarrassment must be treated separately for each attack whereas the other payments can be combined.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:1:4)

כְּתִיב עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן. וּבְמָקוֹם אַחֵר הוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ. אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד. יֹאמַר שׁוֹגֵג וְאַל יֹאמַר מֵזִיד. שֶׁאִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר שׁוֹגֵג וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר מֵזִיד הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. שׁוֹגֵג יְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן מֵזִיד [יִקְטַע אֶת יָדוֹ. הֲוֵי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר מֵזִיד. אוֹ אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר מֵזִיד וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר שׁוֹגֵג הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. מֵזִיד יְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן שׁוֹגֵג] לא יְשַׁלֵּם כְּלוּם. הֲוֵי צוֹרֶךְ לוֹמַר שׁוֹגֵג וְצוֹרֶךְ לוֹמַר מֵזִיד. שֶׁאִם הָיָה סוּמֶא וְסִימָּא אֵת עֵינוֹ קִיטֵּעַ וְקִיטַּע אֶת יָדוֹ הֵיאַךְ זֶה מִתְקַיֵים וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֵשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו. מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא מָמוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is written: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth¹⁰. 24:20, speaking of payment for either animal or man..” At another place, He says: “Do not be softhearted.¹¹. 19:21, 25:12.” One refers to inadvertent acts, the other to intentional ones¹² *Deut*. 293. The quote *Deut*. 19:21 refers to the punishment of the perjured witnesses. Since in injury cases the false accuser wanted to extort money and therefore would have to pay money, it is concluded that *Deut*. 25:12 which prescribes punishment for intentional injury also must mean payment of money. Therefore *Lev*. 24:20 refers to payment for unintentional injury.. He could mention the inadvertent but not mention the intentional. But if the inadvertent had been mentioned but not the intentional, I would have said that for the inadvertent act he shall pay money, for the intentional [have his hand cut off. Therefore it was necessary to mention the intentional. Or if the intentional had been mentioned but not the inadvertent, I would have said that for the intentional act he shall pay money, for the inadvertent]¹³ he should not pay at all. Therefore it was necessary to mention both inadvertent and intentional. And if he blinded a blind man or cut off the arm of an amputee, how could one fulfill: “Do to him as he intended to do to his brother”¹⁴. 19:19, referring to the punishment of perjured witnesses. The quote is confirmed by all three ms. sources but probably the reference should be to *Lev*. 23:19: “As a person injures another, so should be done to him”. The Babli, 84a, in quoting a similar *baraita* refers to *Lev*. 24:22: “A uniform law shall it be for you”; cf. also *Sifra* *Emor* *Pereq* 20(7).? This indicates that he only pays money.

footnotes:
¹⁰ Lev
¹¹ Deut
¹² Cf. Sifry
¹³ Text missing in the Leiden ms., supplied from E and supported by the Genizah text.
¹⁴ Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:1:5)

צַעַר. כְּוָייוֹ בַשְׁפוּד אוֹ בַמַּסְמֵר אֲפִילוּ עַל צִפּוֹרְנוֹ מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה. כְּתִיב כְּוִיָיה תַּחַת כְּוִיָיה וגו׳. הֵיכִי דָמֵי. אִם בְּשֶׁפְּצָעוֹ וְהוֹצִיא דָמוֹ כְּבָר כְּתִיב פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר חַבּוּרָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם כְּוָייוֹ בַשְׁפוּד עַל כַּף יָדוֹ וְצָבַת עַל כַּף רַגְלוֹ וְצָבַת. אוֹ שֶׁהִטִּיל עָלָיו שֶׁלֶג אוֹ צִינִּים בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה חַיָיב לְרַפּוֹתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Suffering: If he burned him with a spit, or with a nail, even on his fingernails where it does not cause a wound.” How is this¹⁵? If he wounded him so that he lost blood, it already is written: “A wound for a wound¹⁶. 21:25. Of the three expressions mentioned there, the third one, חַבּוּרָה, “contusion”, already seems to be subsumed under the first, כְּוִיָּה, “burn”, or the second, פצע, “open wound”. A similar discussion is in the Babli, 84b..” Why does the verse say “a contusion”? To tell you that if he burned him with a spit on the palm of his hand and it swelled, on the sole of his foot and it swelled, or he put snow or ice on him at a place which is not visible, he has to pay his medical expenses.¹⁷ *dR*. *Ismael* *Neziqin* 8: “If he wounded him so that he lost blood, it already is written: ‘A wound for a wound’; if he caused a contusion, is there not written ‘a contusion for a contusion’? Why is written ‘a burn for a burn’? To tell you that if he burned him with a spit on the palm of his hand or on the sole of his foot and *it* *was* *not* *noticeable*, or he put snow on his head and gave him a cold, he has to pay for his *suffering*.”

footnotes:
¹⁵ The Genizah and E texts do not have דמי; cf. Chapter 7, Note 50.
¹⁶ Ex
¹⁷ A somewhat different text is in Mekhilta


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:1:6)

אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה רוֹצֶה לִיטּוֹל לִהְיוֹת מִצְטָעֵר בְּכָךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה. חֲמֵיי בַּר נַשׁ וְאָמְרִין לֵיהּ. כַּמָּה אַתְּ בָּעֵי לְמִיתָּן וְלָא יֵיאבָךְ אָהֵן צַעֲרָא. וּמַה דְהוּא אֲמַר יְהָבִין לֵיהּ. אָמַר מַר עוּקְבָּה. כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיטּוֹל הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. וְתֵימַר אָכֵן. אֶלָּא חֲמֵיי בַּר נַשׁ וְאָמְרִין לֵיהּ. כַּמָּה אַתְּ בָּעֵי מֵיסָב וְיֵאבָךְ אָהֵן צַעֲרָא. וּמַה דְוּ אֲמַר יְהָבִין לֵיהּ. תַּנֵּי. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר. נוֹתְנִין נִכְאֵי מָזוֹן. מָהוּ נִכְאֵי מָזוֹן. בְּקַדְמִיתָא הֲוִינָא אֲכִיל טְלוֹפְחִין וְיָרָק. וּכְדוֹן לֵית בִּי מֵיכַל אֶלָּא בֵּיעִין וְתַרְנוֹגַלִּין. וּמַה דְוּ אֲמַר יְהָבִין לֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יַעֲקֹב. אָהֵן רוֹמַיי כַּד מִיבְאַשׁ לֹא נְפִיק לִקְרָבָא עַד דְּיֵיכוּל מַה דְחָסֵר יוֹמִין בְּיוֹמִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“One estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one sees a person and asks him, how much would you give that such pain would not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give¹⁸. Mar Uqba said, the Mishnah is “how much a person would ask to be paid,” and you say so? But one sees a person and asks him, how much would you ask that such pain not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give¹⁹ *dR*. *Ismael* *Neziqin* 8 explains this as the meaning of payment “burn for burn”.. Ben Azai said, one gives food invalidity²⁰. What is food invalidity? Before that, I was eating lentils and vegetables but now I can only eat eggs and chicken. What he asks one²¹ gives him. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, a Roman who was sick would not go into battle until he could eat all he had been missing those days.

footnotes:
¹⁸ The court determines the payment for suffering by asking a randomly chosen member of the public. The amount indicated by that person is imposed on the attacker.
¹⁹ Mekhilta
²⁰ Tosephta 9:3. The Erfurt text reads “the cost of food”, for the additional cost of a sick person’s diet.
²¹ The court imposes the additional costs on the attacker.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:2:1)

**משנה:** רִיפּוּי הִכָּהוּ חַיָיב לְרַפּוֹתוֹ. עָלוּ בוֹ צְמָחִים אִם מַחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה חַיָיב שֶׁלֹּא מַחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה פָּטוּר. חָיְיתָה וְנִסְתְּרָה חָיְיתָה וְנִסְתְּרָה חַיָיב לְרַפּוֹתוֹ. חָיְיתָה כָּל צָרְכָּהּ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב לְרַפּוֹתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs. In case a growth on that person’s body developed, if it was a consequence of the injury, he has to pay medical costs. If it started to heal but regressed several times, he has to pay medical costs. After it was healed completely he no longer has to pay medical costs.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:2:2)

**הלכה:** רִיפּוּי הִכָּהוּ חַיָיב לְרַפּוֹתוֹ כול׳. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. עָלוּ בוֹ צְמָחִין סְבִיבוֹת הַמַּכָּה וְנִסְתְּרָה מַחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה מָהוּ. מִן מַה דִכְתִיב וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא. שֶׁאִם עָבַר עַל דְּבַר רוֹפֵא [פָּטוּר]. תַּנֵּי חוֹרִין וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא. שֶׁאִם עָלַת גַּרְגּוּתְנִי חַיָיב לְרַפּוֹתוֹ. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָן אוֹמֵר. עָלוּ בוֹ צְמָחִים סְבִיבוֹת הַמַּכָּה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּסְתְּרָה [מַחֲמַת] הַמַּכָּה חַיָיב לְרַפּוֹתוֹ וְאֵין חַיָיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ דְּמֵי שִׁבְתּוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. חִידּוּשׁ חִידֵּשׁ הַכָּתוּב בַּפָּרָשָׁה הַזֹּאת שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ שֶׁבֶת וְרִיפּוּי. רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If there was a growth around the wound and complications ensued because of the wound, what is the rule²⁴? Since it is written¹. 21:19.: “And healing he shall heal,” if [the patient] did not follow the doctor’s instructions, he is [not liable]²⁵. It was stated in another *baraita*: If [the wound] was covered with scab, he must pay for medical treatment. It was stated²⁵: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah²⁶ says, if there was a growth around the wound, even if complications ensued because of the wound, he must pay for medical treatment but he is not liable to pay for his loss of earnings. Rebbi Simeon²⁷ says, in this paragraph¹. 21:19. Scripture introduced a novelty stating that he has to pay for loss of earnings together with medical treatment: ‘Only his loss of earnings he shall compensate and healing he shall heal.’ ”

footnotes:
²⁴ Is the attacker liable for delayed consequences of his attack?
¹ Payment of medical costs and replacement of lost earnings are biblical obligations, Ex
²⁵ For continued medical care. Babli 85a, Tosephta 9:4.
²⁵ For continued medical care. Babli 85a, Tosephta 9:4.
²⁶ In the parallel texts, this is R. Jehudah’s own opinion.
²⁷ In the Babli, this is quoted as “the Sages’ ” opinion. Whenever one is obligated to pay for medical treatment, he automatically is obligated to pay for lost earnings. This answers R. Jeremiah’s question in full.
¹ Payment of medical costs and replacement of lost earnings are biblical obligations, Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:3:1)

**משנה:** שֶׁבֶת. רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא שׁוֹמֵר קִישּׁוּאִין שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ דְמֵי יָדוֹ וּדְמֵי רַגְלוֹ. בּוֹשֶׁת. הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְבַיֵישׁ וְהַמִּתְבַּיֵישׁ. הַמְבַיֵישׁ אֶת הֶעָרוֹם הַמְבַיֵישׁ אֶת הַסּוֹמֶא וְהַמְבַיֵישׁ אֶת הַיָּשֵׁן חַיָיב וְיָשֵׁן שֶׁבִּיֵישׁ פָּטוּר. נָפַל מִן הַגַּג וְהִזִּיק וּבִיֵישׁ חַיָיב עַל הַנֶּזֶק וּפָטוּר עַל הַבּוֹשֶׁת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבוּשָׁיו אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל הַבּוֹשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מִתְכַּוֵין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Loss of earnings. One considers him as if he were a watchman of pumpkins since he already compensated him for the loss of his hand or loss of his foot²⁸. Embarrassment. Everything depends on the person embarrassing and the one embarrassed²⁹. One who embarrassed a naked person³⁰, or embarrassed a blind person³¹, or embarrassed a sleeping person³² is liable, but the sleeper who embarrassed is not liable. If a person fell from a roof and caused damage and embarrassed, he is liable for the damage but not liable for the embarrassment since is was said³³. 25:11.: “She reached out with her hand and grabbed him at his private parts;” one is not liable for embarrassment unless if was intended.

footnotes:
²⁸ Once long-term disability has been compensated for, short term inability to work has to be compensated on the level of his remaining long term earning power.
²⁹ The lower the social standing of the agressor, the more weighty is his insult. The higher the social standing of the victim, the more damaging is the insult.
³⁰ Who is in an embarrassing situation.
³¹ Who cannot see the reaction of others to his embarrassment.
³² Who does not notice his embarrassment.
³³ Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:3:2)

**הלכה:** שֶׁבֶת. רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כול׳. הָכָא אַתָּ מַר. רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כִּילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר קִישּׁוּאִין. וְהָכָא אַתָּ מַר. הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה מְנָה בַיּוֹם נוֹתֵן לוֹ מְנָה. סֶלַע נוֹתֵן לוֹ סֶלַע. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. תְּרֵין שִׁבְתִּין אִינּוּן. הִכָּהוּ עַל יָדוֹ וּקְטָעָהּ אֵין רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כִּילּוּ עוֹשֶׂה מְנָה בַיּוֹם אֶלָּא רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כִּילּוּ חִיגֵּר יוֹשֵׁב וְשׁוֹמֵֵר קִישּׁוּאִין. שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ דְמֵי יָדוֹ וּדְמֵי רַגְלוֹ. שֶׁאִם כְּוִייוֹ עַל כַּף יָדוֹ וְצָבַת עַל כַּף רֹאשׁוֹ וְצָבָה. אוֹ שֶׁהִטִּיל עָלָיו שֶׁלֶג אוֹ צוֹנָן בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה. חַיָיב לְרַפּוֹתוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Loss of earnings. One considers him,” etc. Here you say, “one considers him as if he were a watchman of pumpkins.” But there, you say³³. 25:11., “if he was earning a mina per day, he pays him a mina; a tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma.” Rebbi Isaac said, there are two kinds of inability to work. If he hit him on his hand and cut it off, one does not consider him as if he earned a mina a day but one considers him as if he were a lame person watching pumpkins, because he already compensated him for the loss of his hand or loss of his foot. But if he burned him on the palm of his hand and it swelled, on the flat of his head and it swelled, or he put on him snow or cold water at a place which is not visible, then he has to pay his medical expenses³⁴.

footnotes:
³³ Deut
³⁴ The last sentence is a quote from Halakhah 1 (Note 17). According to the preceding Halakhah, the obligation of paying for medical care implies the obligation to pay for loss of temporary earnings.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:3:3)

תַּנֵּי. וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ. וְלֹא אֵשֶׁת שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין. תַּנַּיֵי חוֹרָן תַנֵּי. וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ. לְרַבּוֹת אֵשֶׁת שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין. מָאן דָּמַר. וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ. וְלֹא אֵשֶׁת שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין. בְּשֶׁהִכָּהוּ בִּרְשׁוּת. מָאן דָּמַר. לְרַבּוֹת אֵשֶׁת שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין. בְּשֶׁהִכָּהוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת. תַּנֵּי. לֹא אֵשֶׁת שְׁנַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
³⁵ *Deut*. #292. The verse *Deut*. 25:11 reads: “If men quarreled, a person with his brother, and the wife of one of them intervened to save her husband from the hand of one who hit him when she reached out with her hand and grabbed him at his private parts.” Grabbing a person’s private parts is given as an example of an action intended to embarrass. It is clear in the paragraph that “wife of x” stands for “x” himself. The court marshall meting out punishment is protected from a damage suit by the person suffering the punishment as long as he strictly follows the court’s instructions. He is not protected for actions taken on his own initiative. It was stated: “She reached out with her hand,” but not the court marshal’s wife. Another Tanna stated, “she reached out with her hand,” including the court marshal’s wife. He who said, “she reached out with her hand,” but not the court marshal’s wife, if he whipped with permission. He who said, “she reached out with her hand,” including the court marshal’s wife, if he whipped without permission. It was stated: Not the wife of two men³⁶.

footnotes:
³⁵ This paragraph is alluded to in the Babli, 28a, and Sifry
³⁶ Since a woman cannot have two husbands, one derives from the expression “the wife of one of them” that two people trading mutual insults have no case in court.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:4:1)

**משנה:** זֶה חוֹמֶר בָּאָדָם מִבַּשּׁוֹר שֶׁהָאָדָם מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַנֶּזֶק וּמְשַׁלֵּם דְמֵי וְלָדוֹת וְשׁוֹר אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא נֶזֶק וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם דְמֵי וְלָדוֹת. הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְלֹא עָשָׂה בָהֶם חַבּוּרָה הַחוֹבֵל בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים חַיָיב בְּכוּלָּן. הַחוֹבֵל בְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי חַיָיב בְּכוּלָּן חוּץ מִן הַשֶּׁבֶת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ. הַחוֹבֵל בְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי שֶׁלַּאֲחֵרִים חַיָיב בְּכוּלָּן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אֵין לַעֲבָדִים בּוֹשֶׁת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** This is more severe regarding a human than an ox since a human pays damages³⁷ and pays for unborn children³⁸. 21:22 prescribes that an attack on a woman which leads to a miscarriage but does not endanger the woman’s life entitles the woman’s husband to go to court and exact payment for the loss of prospective children., but the ox pays only damages and does not pay for unborn children.
A person who hits his father or mother without causing a concussion³⁹. 21:15 declares hitting father or mother to be a capital crime. Hitting one of the parents without causing visible damage is a sin but not a crime. Therefore there is no obstacle to pressing monetary claims. Cf. Mishnah 7. or who causes injury on the Day of Atonement⁴⁰ is liable for everything. He who injures a Hebrew slave⁴¹ 1:2, Note 150. The argument is purely theoretical. is liable for everything except for lost earnings if he is his own. He who injures another person’s Canaanite slave⁴²; cf. *Qiddušin* 1:3, Note 328. A person severely injuring his own slave has to set him free (*Ex*. 21:26–27). is liable for everything. Rebbi Jehudah says, slaves have no claim for embarrassment.

footnotes:
³⁷ And the other four categories of payments mentioned in Mishnah 1. These are enumerated by the Mishnah in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss.
³⁸ Ex
³⁹ Ex
⁴⁰ Desecrating the Day of Atonement is a deadly sin but not a prosecutable crime; it is outside the purview of the human court. Injuring somebody on the Sabbath is a capital crime. Cf. Mishnah 7.
⁴¹ Hebrew slavery was an institution permanently abolished, never resurrected in the Second Commonwealt; cf. Qiddušin
⁴² Any Gentile slave becoming potentially Jewish by circumcision and immersion in a miqweh


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:4:2)

**הלכה:** זֶה חוֹמֶר בָּאָדָם מִבַּשּׁוֹר כול׳. הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ כול׳. תַּנֵּי. וְהָעֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ מֵעִידִין אָנוּ עַל פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁסִּימָּא שְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו כְּאַחַת. שֶׁהִפִּיל שְׁתֵּי שִׁינָּיו כְּאַחַת. אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ כְּלוּם. זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ יוֹצֵא לַחֵירוּת בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ דְמֵי שְׁנִיָיה. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שָׁמִין לַעֲבָדִים בּוֹשֶׁת. רִבִּי לָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ כּוּלָּן קִידֵּשׁ. וְחָזַר וְתַנָּא. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ יוֹצִיא לוֹ מֵהֶן פַּרְנָסָתוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. הַשְּׁאָר הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְהָכָא אַתָּ מַר. כּוּלּוֹ קוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. מְצוּוִּים יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפַרְנֵס בְּנֵי חוֹרִין יוֹתֵר מֵעֲבָדִים. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַקּוֹטֵעַ יְדֵי עֶבֶד חֲבֵירוֹ רַבּוֹ נוֹטֵל נִזְקוֹ צַעֲרוֹ רִיפּוּי שִׁבְתּוֹ בּוֹשְׁתּוֹ. וַהֲלָה יִתְפַּרְנֵס מִן הַצְּדָקָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. מְצוּוִּין יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפַרְנֵס עֲבָדִים קִיטָּעִין יוֹתֵר מִן הַשְּׁלֵימִין. וְהָא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲכִיל קוֹפַּד וִיהִיב לְעַבְדֵּיהּ. שָׁתֵי חֲמָר וִיהִיב לְעַבְדֵּיהּ. וְקָרֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ הֲלֹא בְּבֶטֶן עוֹשֵׂינִי עֹשֵׂהוּ. אָמְרֵי. תַּמָּן בְּמִידַּת הַדִּין. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּמִידַּת רַחֲמִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “This is more severe regarding a human than an ox,” etc. “A person who hits his father or mother,” etc. It was stated⁴³ 9.: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded both of his eyes simultanously, or that he knocked out two of his teeth simultaneously, he does not have to pay anything. One after the other, he gains his freedom by the first and he pays him damages for the second⁴⁴ 21:26–27 states that a slave gains his freedom if his master blinds him or knocks out one of his teeth. If the master injures the slave repeatedly, the slave gains his freedom by the first injury and, therefore, can claim full payment for the second as a free Jew (Babli *Giṭṭin* 42b). But if a double injury was inflicted in one blow, the slave was not free and has no claim beyond his automatic freedom.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that one estimates embarrassment for slaves⁴⁵ 42b) in holding that the slave is automatically free only for eye and tooth which are mentioned in the verse, but for other injuries for which the court will force the slave’s freedom a bill of manumission would be required. Then R. Abbahu’s statement becomes relevant for the case of a slave in his period between servitude and freedom.. ⁴⁶ 5:5, Notes 120–130. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a person dedicates his earnings, he dedicates everything⁴⁷ 3:8 does not support this statement.. If he dedicates the earnings of his slave, he⁴⁸ 3:8, Babli *Giṭṭin* 12a. can take from there his upkeep and the remainder is dedicated. Here you say, the remainder is dedicated, but there you say, everything is holy. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support free people than slaves⁴⁹. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say: If somebody cuts off the hands of somebody else’s slave, his master collects damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment, and that one should be supported by welfare⁵⁰ 12b.. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support amputated slaves than unimpaired ones. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan also give to his slave when he ate meat? Give also to his slave when he drank wine? And recited for himself the verse⁵¹ 31:15.: “Did not His maker make me in the womb”? They said, there a rule of law, here a rule of mercy.

footnotes:
⁴³ A similar statement is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin
⁴⁴ Ex.
⁴⁵ Since there is no exception made for shame in the previous statement.The statement is difficult to understand since at the moment of the second injury the slave already is a free Jew rather than a slave. As R. Eliahu Fulda points out, it also is superfluous since R. Joḥanan always follows the anonymous Mishnah as practice. Since the Yerushalmi is so elliptic, it may not be excluded that it follows the Babli (Giṭṭin
⁴⁶ A text similar to the remainder of this paragraph is in Ketubot
⁴⁷ Everything he earns automatically is Temple property; he cannot take anything to feed himself but has to beg his sustenance from others. Tosephta ‘Arakhin
⁴⁸ The slave can support himself from his own earnings; only the excess becomes Temple property; Tosephta ‘Arakhin
⁴⁹ Slaves would not be able to feed themselves from alms.
⁵⁰ Babli Giṭṭin
⁵¹ Job


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:5:1)

**משנה:** חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן פְּגִיעָתָן רָעָה הַחוֹבֵל בָּהֶן חַיָיב וְהֵם שֶׁחָבְלוּ בַּאֲחֵרִים פְּטוּרִין. הָעֶבֶד וְהָאִשָּׁה פְּגִיעָתָן רָעָה הַחוֹבֵל בָּהֶן חַיָיב וְהֵם שֶׁחָבְלוּ בַּאֲחֵרִים פְּטוּרִין אֲבָל מְשַׁלְּמִין לְאַחַר זְמַן. נִתְגָּרְשָׁה הָאִשָּׁה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרֵר הָעֶבֶד חַיָיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם. הַמַּכֶּה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְעָשָׂה בָהֶם חַבּוּרָה וְהַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ בַּשַׁבָּת פָּטוּר מִכּוּלָּן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִידּוֹן בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. וְהַחוֹבֵל בְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי שֶׁלּוֹ פָּטוּר מִכּוּלָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** It is bad to meet a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person⁵²: Anybody who injures them is liable but they who cause injury are not liable. It is bad to meet a woman⁵³ or a slave⁵⁴ 4:7.: Anybody who injures them is liable but they who cause injury are not liable, but they might have to pay later. If the woman was divorced or the slave manumitted, they have to pay.
A person who hits his father or mother causing a concussion³⁹. 21:15 declares hitting father or mother to be a capital crime. Hitting one of the parents without causing visible damage is a sin but not a crime. Therefore there is no obstacle to pressing monetary claims. Cf. Mishnah 7. or who causes injury to a fellow man on the Sabbath⁴⁰ is not liable for anything since he is tried for his life⁶⁰ 7:1, Note 16.. One who injures his own Canaanite slave is not liable for anything.

footnotes:
⁵² These are not prosecutable and cannot be sued. Even if they were healed or grew up they cannot be sued for what they did when they were not responsible.
⁵³ A married woman, any of whose private property is administered by her husband who has the usufruct and therefore can block any payment which would diminish his income. A married woman whose husband had waved his right of administration and usufruct before marriage is counted as a male for the rules of this Mishnah.
⁵⁴ Any whose property is his master’s. This rule was contested by the Sadducees, Mishnah Yadayim
³⁹ Ex
⁴⁰ Desecrating the Day of Atonement is a deadly sin but not a prosecutable crime; it is outside the purview of the human court. Injuring somebody on the Sabbath is a capital crime. Cf. Mishnah 7.
⁶⁰ Even if he cannot be tried because of lack of eyewitnesses or other reasons; cf. Terumot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:5:2)

**הלכה:** חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן פְּגִיעָתָן רָעָה כול׳. תַּנֵּי. וְהָעֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ מֵעִידִים אָנוּ עַל פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁסִּימָּא עֵין עַבְדּוֹ וְהִפִּיל שִׁינּוֹ שֶׁכֵּן הָרַב אוֹמֵר. וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין. מְשַׁלְּמִין לָעֶבֶד. וְכוּלֵּיהּ מִן אָהֵן עוֹבְדָא מֵימַר כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי נַסָּה. וִינּוּן דַּמְרוֹן כֵּן. מֵעִידִין אָנוּ עַל פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס תַּחַת יָדוֹ שָׁלֵם וְיָצָא חָבוּל בִּשְׁתַּיִם. יוֹצֵא לַחֵירוּת בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ דְמֵי שְׁנִיָיה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “It is bad to meet a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person,” etc. It was stated⁵⁵ 1:4.: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded the eye of his slave and broke his tooth, for that is what the master said, and they are found to be perjured, they pay to the slave⁵⁶. How can they say this about the case⁵⁷? Rebbi Nasa said, those might say the following: We testify about X that [the slave] came to his hand unimpaired and left with two injuries⁵⁸. Then he gains his freedom with the first and he has to pay him for the second⁵⁹.

footnotes:
⁵⁵ Tosephta Makkot
⁵⁶ The master in fact blinded the slave and broke his tooth. Since the payment for the loss of an eye is much larger than that for the loss of a tooth, it is to the advantage of the master to free his slave for the eye and to pay only for the tooth. If the witnesses are found to be perjured, they have to pay the difference of the payments for eye and tooth to the slave, irrespective of what happened in reality.
⁵⁷ How can such a case really occur? The same question can be asked about the case treated in the preceding Halakhah since even if it looked as if both eyes were blinded simultaneously, it might have been that one was injured a fraction of a second before the other.
⁵⁸ This is unproblematic testimony.
⁵⁹ Since the burden of proof is on the claimant, the slave becomes free on the injury to the eye and receives payment for the injury to the tooth unless he can prove by witnesses that his tooth was knocked out first.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:6:1)

**משנה:** הַתּוֹקֵעַ לַחֲבֵירוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ סֶלַע. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי מְנָה. סְתָרוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז לְאַחַר יָדוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז. צָרַם בְּאָזְנוֹ תָּלַשׁ בְּשַׂעֲרוֹ רָקַק וְהִגִּיעַ בּוֹ הָרוֹק הֶעֱבִיר טַלִּיתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ פָּרַע רֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז וְהַכֹּל לְפִי כְבוֹדוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֲפִילוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִילּוּ הֵן בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מִנִּכְסֵיהֶן שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁפָּרַע רֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה וּבָאת לִפְנֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וְחִיְיבוֹ לִיתֵּן לָהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי תֵּן לִי זְמָן וְנָתַן לוֹ. שִׁימְּרָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת עַל פֶּתַח חֲצֵירָהּ וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת הַפַּךְ בְּפָנֶיהָ וּבוֹ כְאִיסָּר שֶׁמֶן גִּילַּת אֶת רֹאשָׁהּ וְהָיְתָה מְטַפַּחַת וּמַנַּחַת עַל רֹאשָׁהּ וְהֶעֱמִיד לָהּ עֵדִים וּבָא לִפְנֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אָמַר לוֹ לָזֶה אֲנִי נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז. אָמַר לוֹ לֹא אָמַרְתָּ כְּלוּם שֶׁהַחוֹבֵל בְּעַצְמוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי פָּטוּר וַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁחָבְלוּ בוֹ חַיָיבִים. הַקּוֹצֵץ אֶת נְטִיעוֹתָיו עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי פָּטוּר וַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁקִצְּצוּ אֶת נְטִיעוֹתָיו חַיָיבִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He who hits another⁶¹: He blows his horn into the victim’s ear. Rashi quotes the *Arukh* and adds his teacher’s explanation: He hit him on his ear. Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary: He hit him with his fist. In his Code (חובל ומזיק 9:3): He hit him with his flat hand. pays him a tetradrachma⁶² used in Accadic as the unit of volume (1/300 of a *gur*, כּוֹר).; Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, a *mina*⁶³. If he slapped him, he pays 200 *zuz*⁶⁴ from זוז “to split”, the half-šeqel piece, identified with the Roman *denarius.* The possession of 200 *zuz* disqualifies its holder from receiving public assistance (Mishnah *Peah* 8:8); it is a considerable sum., with the back of his hand he gives him 400 *zuz.* If he hurt him on his earlobe, tore out some of his hair, spat on him and the spit touched him, removed his stole, uncovered a woman’s hair⁶⁵, he pays 400 zuz; everything corresponding to his honor⁶⁶.
Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel are treated as aristocrats who lost their property⁶⁷, for they are descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In a case where somebody uncovered a woman’s hair, she came before Rebbi Aqiba who obligated him to pay her 400 *zuz*. He said to him, Rabbi, give me some time, which he did. He watched her at the entrance of her courtyard and broke a flask before her which contained an *as* worth of oil⁶⁸. She uncovered her hair, splashed her hand with the oil and worked it onto her head. He had her observed by witnesses and came before Rebbi Aqiba, telling him, to such a one⁶⁹ I have to give 400 *zuz*? He told him, you did not say anything since a person who injures himself, while he is not allowed to do that⁷⁰ 9:5, *Deut.* 4:15., is not liable, but others who injure him are liable; a person who cuts down his fruit trees, while he is not allowed to do that⁷¹ 20:19; *Ševi‘it* 4:10, Notes 109–110., is not liable, but others who cut down his fruit trees are.

footnotes:
⁶¹ The meaning of this sentence is not clear. ‘Arukh
⁶² The word סלע used in both Talmudim for tetradrachma is not the Hebrew “rock” but the Sumerian silà
⁶³ 100 denarii.
⁶⁴ Accadic zūzum,
⁶⁵ A married woman will indicate her status by having her hair covered in public. In the Babli and some Mishnah mss. it is stated explicitly “uncovered a woman’s hair in public”.
⁶⁶ The sums stated in the Mishnah are maxima, applicable to the highest levels of society; the court may lower them in appropriate cases.
⁶⁷ He disagrees with the last statement of the preceding Mishnah; the sums mentioned are mandatory in all cases.
⁶⁸ A very small amount.
⁶⁹ Who uncovers herself for a very small gain.
⁷⁰ Gen.
⁷¹ Deut.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:6:2)

**הלכה:** הַתּוֹקֵעַ לַחֲבֵירוֹ נוֹתֵן לוֹ סֶלַע. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֲפִילוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כול׳. תַּנֵּי רַב קַרְנִי. לַבְּעִיטָה אַחַת. לָרְכוּבָה שָׁלֹשׁ. לַסקלונקית חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. חַד אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. הַמְבַיֵישׁ אֶת הַזָּקֵן נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְמֵי בוֹשְׁתּוֹ מֻשְׁלַם. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אִיקְפַּד לְרִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר חֲנִינָה. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וּקְנָסֵיהּ לִטְרָא דִדְהַב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma.” “Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel,” etc. Rav Qarni stated: For a kick, one. For an elbow, three. For *sqlvnqyt* fifteen⁷² fragment סקלוקינת. J. N. Epstein (ללקסיקון התלמודי 2/1 תרביץ p. 123–127) proposes Accadic *sunkirtu* (*su-un-kir-tum*) “camel’s hump” as origin. {Cf. Latin *sculpturigo* “scratching”, *sculptorium* “back scratcher” (E. G.).}. Somebody said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who puts an Elder to shame has fully to pay for his shame. A person insulted Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina⁷³ 4:8, Note 202.. The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him a pound of gold.

footnotes:
⁷² In the parallel in Babli, 27b, the quote appears in Rav Ḥisda’s name. There, pushing with the elbow cost 3 tetradrachmas, a kick with the foot 5, and סנוקרת 13. The unexplained סנוקרת (which also is the reading of E here) according to R. Ḥananel (i. e., Gaonic tradition) means a hook with the fist under the chin; according to Rashi hitting somebody with a donkey saddle. The Genizah text reads יסקינוקינית, the Metivot
⁷³ The case is mentioned in Ketubot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:6:3)

רָקַק וְהִגִּיעַ בּוֹ הָרוֹק. עַד הֵיכַן הִגִּיעַ בּוֹ הָרוֹק. עַד גּוּפוֹ עַד כֵּלָיו. אֶלָּא רָקַק וְלֹא הִגִּיעַ בּוֹ הָרוֹק מָהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא אָמְרָה. הַמְבַיֵישׁ אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בִּדְבָרִים פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If one spat on him and the spit touched him.” How far does the spit have to reach? On his body, on his garments?⁷⁴ that spitting on somebody’s garments is not punishable. But what is the rule if he spat and the spittle did not reach him? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that somebody who insults another person verbally is not liable⁷⁵.

footnotes:
⁷⁴ The question is not answered. One may conclude that there is no difference. The Babli, 91a, comes to the opposite conclusion, viz.,
⁷⁵ Since certainly spitting is not punishable if the spit falls to the ground before it reaches the intended victim, verbal spit which never touches cannot be punishable (in contrast to contemporary Roman or Egyptian laws.)


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:6:4)

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֲרָגַתָּה שׁוֹרִי קָצָצְתָּה נְטִיעוֹתַיי. וַהֲלָהּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. חַיָיב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֵן תַּנִּיתָהּ אִילֵּין לְמַקְרִילוֹת לִמְקַבִּילוֹת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲנָא הוּא דְטָעִית וְאִינּוּן דַּמְרִין כֵּן. מֵעִידִין אָנוּ אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהָרַג שׁוֹר פְּלוֹנִי. וַהֲלָהּ אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. חַיָיב. [אָמַר. הָא אֲמִירָה.]

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “You killed my ox, you cut down my fruit trees,” and the other says, I do not know, he is liable. He said to him, certainly you state that to the rabble⁷⁶. He answered, it is my fault, they said the following: “We testify against X that he killed ox Y” and the other says, I do not know, he is liable. [He said, that was stated.]⁷⁷

footnotes:
⁷⁶ As J. Levy notes, the unexplained words מקרילות (Genizah מקבילות ,(מקליקות are onomatopoetic and intended as an insult. The Babli in such a situation uses חִילֵּק וּבִילֵּק “split and desolation” to designate the totally unworthy. R. Abbahu’s statement is not worth to be heard since nobody can be responsible for an undocumented claim about which he notes his own ignorance.
⁷⁷ Not in the Leiden ms., added from the E and Genizah texts. R. Joḥanan notes that the statement in its present form is obviously true, hence unnecessary.The Genizah text has a better version in R. Abbahu’s statement: “We testify against X that he killed Y’s ox or cut down his fruit trees.”


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:7:1)

**משנה:** אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֵינוֹ נִמְחָל לוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּבַקֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְעַתָּה הָשֵׁב אֵשֶׁת הָאִישׁ כִּי נָבִיא הוּא. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הַמּוֹחֵל אַכְזָרִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אַבְרָהָם אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים וגו׳.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Even though he did pay, he will not be forgiven⁷⁸ unless he asks for forgiveness, as it is said: “Now return the man’s wife since he is a prophet⁷⁹ 20:7. The reference as usual is to the part of the verse which is not quoted: “Let him pray for you that you will live.” This implies that Abraham first had to forgive Avimelekh before the latter obtained Heavenly mercy..” From where that the person asked to forgive shall not be cruel? It is said⁸⁰ 20:17.: “Abraham prayed to the Omnipotent, etc.”

footnotes:
⁷⁸ The person who injures another cannot obtain mercy in Heaven unless he first has asked forgiveness on earth.
⁷⁹ Gen.
⁸⁰ Gen.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:7:2)

**הלכה:** אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ כול׳. [וְכֵן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא בְּרֵיעֵי אִיּוֹב וְעַתָּה קְחוּ לָכֶם שִׁבְעָה פָרִים וְשִׁבְעָה אֵלִים וגו׳ וַיֵּלְכוּ אֱלִיפַז הַתֵּימָנִי וּבִלְדַּד הַשּׁוּחִי וְצוֹפַר הַנַּעֲמָתִי וַיַּעֲשׂוּ וגו׳ וּבְסוֹף הָעִנְיָין מַהוּא אוֹמֵר וַיי שָׁב אֶת שְׁבוּת אִיּוֹב אֵימָתִיי בְּהִתְפַּלְּלוֹ בְּעַד רֵעֵהוּ וגו׳ וַיּוֹסֵף יי אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לְאִיּוֹב לְמִשְׁנֶה.]

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Even though he did pay,” etc. ⁸¹[And so you find with Job’s friends. ⁸² 42:8–10. Tosephta 9:29.“Now yourselves take seven bulls and seven rams, etc.” “Eliphas the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Ṣophar the Naamite went and did, etc.” What does it say at the end? “The Eternal changed Job’s fortunes.” When? “When he was praying for his neighbor, etc.” “The Eternal doubled everything that Job had had.”]

footnotes:
⁸¹ Paragraph missing in the Leiden ms., added from the Genizah text. E’s text is somewhat longer.
⁸² Job


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:7:3)

תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר וְנָתַן לְךָ רַחֲמִים וגו׳. סֵימָן זֶה יְהֵא בְיָדָךְ. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאַתְּ רַחֲמָן הַמָּקוֹם מְרַחֵם עָלֶיךָ. אֵינְךָ מְרַחֵם אֵין הַמָּקוֹם מְרַחֵם לָךְ. רַב אָמַר. אָדָם שֶׁסָּרַח לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּבִיקֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא קִיבְּלוֹ יַעֲשֶׂה שׁוּרַת בְּנֵי אָדָם וִיפַיְיסֶנּוּ. דִּכְתִיב יָשׁוֹר עַל אֲנָשִׁים וגו׳. וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵן מַה כָתוּב תַּמָּן. פָּדָה מִשְּׁאוֹל נַפְשׁוֹ מֵעֲבוֹר בַּשַּׁחַת וגו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. הָדָא דְתֵימַר שֶׁלֹּא הוֹצִיא לוֹ שֵׁם רַע. אֲבָל הוֹצִיא לוֹ שֵׁם רַע אֵין לוֹ מְחִילָה עוֹלָמִית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated⁸³151b.: Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rabban Gamliel. Since it says that⁸⁴ 13:18. “He will give you mercy etc.”, let the following be a sign in your hand: Whenever that you show mercy, the Omnipresent will have mercy on you. If you do not show mercy, the Omnipresent will not have mercy on you. ⁸⁵ 8:9 (45c), Babli 87b. Rav said: If a person misbehaved towards another and asked for pardon but the other did not respond, let him assemble a row of people and ask for pardon, as it is written⁸⁶ 33:27.: “Form a row of men, etc.⁸⁷” If he does so, what is written there? ⁸⁸ 33:28.“He redeemed his soul from the pit, not to go to destruction etc.” Rebbi Yose said, that is if he did not defame, but the defamer is never pardoned.

footnotes:
⁸³ Tosephta 9:30; Babli Šabbat
⁸⁴ Deut.
⁸⁵ Yoma
⁸⁶ Job
⁸⁷ “Let him say, I sinned, I did evil without caring.”
⁸⁸ Job


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:8:1)

**משנה:** הָאוֹמֵר סַמֵּא אֵת עֵינִי קְטַע אֶת יָדִי שַׁבֵּר אֶת רַגְלִי חַיָיב עַל מְנָת לִפְטוֹר חַיָיב. קְרַע אֶת כְּסוּתִי שַׁבֵּר אֶת כַּדִּי חַיָיב. עַל מְנָת לִפְטוֹר פָּטוּר. עֲשֵׂה כֵן לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עַל מְנָת לִפְטוֹר חַיָיב בֵּין בְּגוּפוֹ בֵּין בְּמָמוֹנוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one says: Blind my eye, cut off my hand, break my leg, he is liable⁸⁹. On condition not to be liable⁹⁰, he is liable. Tear my garment, break my pitcher, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is not liable⁹¹. Do that to another person, on condition not to be liable, he is liable whether about his person or his money⁸⁹.

footnotes:
⁸⁹ It is forbidden to injure another person (except for medical treatment). Since “there is no agency for committing crimes”, a person committing a crime on the instigation of another is not absolved from liability.
⁹⁰ Even if the instigator/victim agrees beforehand that no liability would be involved.
⁹¹ Since this is purely a money matter.
⁸⁹ It is forbidden to injure another person (except for medical treatment). Since “there is no agency for committing crimes”, a person committing a crime on the instigation of another is not absolved from liability.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 8:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Kamma/r/8:8:2)

**הלכה:** הָאוֹמֵר סַמֵּא אֵת עֵינִי קְטַע אֶת יָדִי כול׳. הָאוֹמֵר. סַמֵּא עֵינִי שֶׁמַּזִּיקַתְנִי. קְטַע יָדִי שֶׁמַּזִּיקַתְנִי. חַיָיב. עַל מְנָת לִפְטוֹר. חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. בָּהֵן שֶׁהוּא כְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא. אֲבָל בָּהֵן שֶׁהוּא כְהֵין פָּטוּר. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר מִשּׁוּם פְּגַם מִשְׁפָּחָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בָּהֵין שֶׁהוּא כְהֵין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲבַל בָּהֵן שֶׁהוּא כְלָאו חַיָיב. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמְרָה שֶׁשָּׁמִין לַקְּרוֹבִין בּוֹשֶׁת. תַּנֵּי. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאַנְּסוֹהוּ גוֹיִם וְנָטְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ בְּפָנָיו פָּטוּר. נָטַל וְנָתַן לָהֶם חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ מָמוֹן סְתָם. אֲבָל מָמוֹן פְּלוֹנִי אֲפִילוּ נָטַל וְנָתַן בְּיַד פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If one say: Blind my eye, cut off my hand,” etc. “If he says, blind my eye because it damages me, cut off my hand because it damages me, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is liable.”⁹² Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which really means “no”. But for a “yes” which does mean “yes” he is not liable⁹³. The statement of Rebbi Eleazar is about the family’s loss of standing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which means “yes”. But for a “yes” which means “no”, he is liable⁹⁴. The statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish imples that one estimates the relatives’ loss of standing⁹⁵. It was stated⁹⁶: “If Gentiles forced a Jew and took from him another person’s money in his presence, he is not liable. If he handed it over, he is liable.” Rebbi Yose said, that means if they simply demanded “money”⁹⁷. But “X’s money”, he is not liable even if he handed it over⁹⁸ 8:10, Note 248..

footnotes:
⁹² Tosephta 9:32: “If one says: blind my eye because it damages me, cut off my hand because it damages me, he is not liable.” This may be a Babylonian version.
⁹³ If a person asks to be mutilated, it is obvious that this person cannot sue for damages. Then the question arises, what does the Mishnah mean by holding the person who does the mutilation liable? The relatives can sue because they have to bear the shame of having a mutilated member in their family. If the person doing the mutilation can show that the immunity granted him by the victim was honest, they cannot sue.
⁹⁴ Even for the willful destruction of property.
⁹⁵ He gives the relatives the right to sue in any case. In the Babli, 93a, R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position is attributed to his teacher R. Hoshaia, R. Eleazar’s position to his teacher R. Joḥanan. Since R. Simeon ben Laqish is a higher authority than R. Eleazar but R. Joḥanan is higher than R. Hoshaia, implicitly the two Talmudim decide in opposite ways.
⁹⁶ Tosephta 9:33; quoted in Babli 117a.
⁹⁷ One may use another person’s money to save his own life but he has to pay for it.
⁹⁸ Cf. Terumot