א"ל לא אמרת כלום החובל בעצמו אף על פי שאינו רשאי פטור אחרים שחבלו בו חייבים והקוצץ נטיעותיו אף על פי שאינו רשאי פטור אחרים חייבין:
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.
הָאוֹמֵר סַמֵּא אֶת עֵינִי, קְטַע אֶת יָדִי, שְׁבֹר אֶת רַגְלִי, חַיָּב. עַל מְנָת לִפְטֹר, חַיָּב.
One who says, "Put out my eye," "Cut off my hand," "Break my leg," he [who did the act] is liable. [One who says, "Put out my eye] on the condition that you will be exempt," he is obligated to pay.
בראשונה היו מקבלין עדות החדש מכל אדם וכו': תנו רבנן מה קלקול קלקלו הבייתוסין פעם אחת בקשו בייתוסין להטעות את חכמים שכרו שני בני אדם בד' מאות זוז אחד משלנו ואחד משלהם שלהם העיד עדותו ויצא שלנו אמרו לו אמור כיצד ראית את הלבנה אמר להם עולה הייתי במעלה אדומים וראיתיו שהוא רבוץ בין ב' סלעים ראשו דומה לעגל אזניו דומין לגדי קרניו דומות לצבי וזנבו מונחת לו בין ירכותיו והצצתי בו ונרתעתי ונפלתי לאחורי ואם אין אתם מאמינים לי הרי מאתים זוז צרורין לי בסדיני אמרו לו מי הזקיקך לכך אמר להם שמעתי שבקשו בייתוסים להטעות את חכמים אמרתי אלך אני ואודיע להם שמא יבואו בני אדם שאינם מהוגנין ויטעו את חכמים אמרו לו מאתים זוז נתונין לך במתנה והשוכרך ימתח על העמוד באותה שעה התקינו שלא יהו מקבלין אלא מן המכירין:
The mishna taught: Initially, they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month from any person, and this continued until the Boethusians began to corrupt the process. The Sages taught a baraita that describes the decisive incident: What was the manner of the corruption in which the Boethusians engaged? Once, the Boethusians tried to mislead the Sages with regard to the day of the new moon. They hired two people for four hundred dinars to testify falsely that they had seen the new moon on the thirtieth day of the month. One of them was from our own, i.e., a member of the Pharisees and the Sages of Israel, and the other was one of theirs. When they went in to testify, their witness submitted his testimony that he had seen the new moon, and then he left. When our witness came to testify, they said to him, in the customary manner: Say how you saw the moon. He said to them: I was ascending in Ma’ale Adumim and I saw that the new moon was crouched between two rocks. Its head was like that of a calf, its ears were like those of a kid, its horns were like those of a deer, and its tail was lying between its thighs. And I looked at it and was frightened and I fell backward. And if you do not believe me that this is what I saw, there are two hundred dinars wrapped in my cloak that were paid to me to deliver this testimony. Realizing that the testimony of the first witness was also false, the Sages said to him: Who persuaded you to act in this manner? He said to them: I heard that the Boethusians were seeking to mislead the Sages, and I said to myself: I will go and hire myself out to give false testimony, and I will inform the Sages of the truth, lest unworthy people come and mislead the Sages. The Sages said to him: The two hundred dinars that you received from the Boethusians are given to you as a gift. Although you did not carry out your mission, the court is authorized to declare the money ownerless and award it to you. And the one who hired you shall be stretched out on the post for flogging. At that time the Sages instituted that they would accept testimony about the new moon only from those men who were familiar to the Great Sanhedrin as qualified witnesses.
דאיבעיא להו בן מהו שיקיז דם לאביו רב מתנא אמר (ויקרא יט, יח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך רב דימי בר חיננא אמר מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לרפואה פטור אף מכה אדם לרפואה פטור
The Gemara explains: As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to whether a son may let blood for his father? Is he liable for wounding his father? Rav Mattana says that it is written: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18); just as one would want others to heal him when the need arises, one must heal others when the need arises. It is prohibited for one to do to others only those actions that he would not want done to him. Therefore, it is permitted for one to heal his father even if the procedure entails wounding him. Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana says: This is derived from the juxtaposition between one who strikes a person and one who strikes an animal. Just as one who strikes an animal for medical purposes is exempt from paying restitution, so too, one who strikes a person for medical purposes is exempt from liability.
חובל בחבירו נמי א"כ בטלת (דברים כה, ג) לא יוסיף פן יוסיף עדים זוממין נמי א"כ בטלת (דברים כה, ב) והיה אם בן הכות הרשע אלא עדים זוממין אפשר לקיומה בבן גרושה ובן חלוצה חובל בחבירו נמי איכא לקיומה כגון שהכהו הכאה שאין בה שוה פרוטה
(a verse implies that it is possible for someone to get lashes for hurting someone without paying for the damage) With regard to one who injures another as well, the verse can be fulfilled in a case where he struck him with a blow that does not cause damage of the value of a prutah
תניא ר"א אומר עין תחת עין ממש ממש סלקא דעתך רבי אליעזר לית ליה ככל הני תנאי אמר רבה לומר שאין שמין אותו כעבד א"ל אביי אלא כמאן כבן חורין בן חורין מי אית ליה דמי אלא אמר רב אשי לומר שאין שמין אותו בניזק אלא במזיק:
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse that states: “An eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24), is referring to an actual eye. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that the verse is referring to an actual eye? Doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer understand the verse like all these tanna’im, who explained that this verse is referring to monetary payment? Rabba said in response: Rabbi Eliezer means to say that the court does not appraise the injured party as a slave to assess the compensation for the injury. Abaye said to Rabba: Rather, like whom does the court appraise the injured party? If you say that the court appraises him like a freeman, does a freeman have monetary value? Rather, Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Eliezer means to say that the court does not appraise the injured party as if he were going to be sold as a slave, but rather, they appraise the one who caused him damage. The court appraises how much the latter’s value would be reduced were he to sustain the same injury he caused to the injured party, and he pays this amount as indemnity
והא שמעינן ליה לרבי מאיר דאמר כל המתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאו בטל הא בדרבנן תנאו קיים קסבר ר' מאיר כתובה דאורייתא:
But we have heard that Rabbi Meir said that anyone who stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void. This implies that if someone makes a stipulation on a rabbinic law his stipulation does stand, and therefore there is still a question as to why the stipulation about the marriage contract is void, as a marriage contract is a rabbinic ordinance. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Meir holds that a marriage contract is a requirement of Torah law. Consequently, if one made a stipulation to reduce the amount of the marriage contract, this is a stipulation counter to that which is written in the Torah, and it is void.