(א) החובל בחבירו חיב עליו משום חמשה דברים, בנזק, בצער, ברפוי, בשבת, ובבושת.
- בנזק כיצד? סמא את עינו, קטע את ידו, שבר את רגלו, רואין אותו כאלו הוא עבד נמכר בשוק ושמין כמה היה יפה וכמה הוא יפה.
- צער, כואו בשפוד או במסמר, ואפילו על צפרנו.מקום שאינו עושה חבורה, אומדין כמה אדם כיוצא בזה רוצה לטול להיות מצטער כך.
- רפוי, הכהו חיב לרפאותו; עלו בו צמחים, אם מחמת המכה חיב, שלא מחמת המכה, פטור. חיתה ונסתרה, חיתה ונסתרה, חיב לרפאתו, חיתה כל צרכה אינו חיב לרפאותו.
- שבת, רואין אותו כאלו הוא שומר קשואין, שכבר נתן לו דמי ידו ודמי רגלו.
- בשת, הכל לפי המביש והמתביש. המביש את הערום , המביש את הסומא, והמביש את הישן , חיב, וישן שביש, פטור. נפל מן הגג, והזיק וביש, חיב על הנזק ופטור על הבשת.שנאמר (דברים כה) ושלחה ידה והחזיקה במבשיו אינו חיב על בושת עד שיהא מתכון.
(1) One who injures his fellow is liable concerning him for five categories [of payment]: damages, pain , healthcare, unemployment, and shame.
- For damages, how [is this calculated?] One who puts out his eye, cuts off his hand, breaks his leg—we see him as if he were a slave sold in the marketplace, and we evaluate how much he was worth [before the injury] and how much he is worth now.
- For pain? When he burned him with a spit or a nail—even on his fingernail—anything where there is no [permanent] wound, we evaluate how much a person would want to pay to be spared this [pain].
- For healing? When he strikes him, he is liable for his healthcare costs. If swellings arose on him, if they were because of the strike, then he is liable; but if it was not because of the strike, he is exempt. If the swelling healed and then reopened and then healed and reopened, he is liable for his healthcare.
- For unemployment? We see him as if he were a guard of cucumbers, since he already gave him the value [for the loss] of his hand or his leg.
- For shame/embarrassment? All depends on the one who shames and the one who is shamed. One who shames a naked person, a blind person or a sleeping person is liable. If a sleeping person embarrasses, he is exempt. One who falls from the roof and caused damage and shamed, he is liable for damages and exempt for shame, as it is written, "[when two men fight and the wife of one comes out to save her husband,] and she puts out her hand and seizes his genitals (lit. damages his shame) [you shall cut off her hand]" (Deuteronomy 25:11-12). No one is liable for shame unless one intended to cause it.
- How does this text compare to the biblical texts from last week? Is it contradictory? Complimentary?
- What do you think of these 5 categories? Are there important categories that are missing? Do you think some of them should not have been included?
- What do you think of this criteria? How would you evaluate the value for these various damages?
(2) [The law] is more strict regarding a person [causing injury] than regarding an ox [causing injury]: a person pays damages, pain, healing, unemployment and shame, and pays the value of fetuses, while [owner of] an ox pays only damages, and is exempt from the value of fetuses.
- Why do you think the owner of an ox (or other animal) isn't responsible for pain, healing, unemployment or shame?
- Do you think this is fair?
- Why is striking a parent, even if it doesn't cause a wound, equivalent to wounding someone on Yom Kippur?
- What makes these scenarios special?
- Based on Mishnah 1, what do you think is the basis for Rabbi Yehudah's position?
- Why might this be a minority opinion?
(4) The striking of a dead person, a person of mental incompetence or a minor is serious. One who injures them is liable, but if they injure others they are exempt. The striking of a slave or a woman is serious. One who injures them is liable, and when they injure others they are exempt. However, they [might] pay after some time—[if the] woman becomes divorced or the slave is freed, then they are liable to pay.
- Why do you think the Mishnah has to tell us that striking a disabled person, a minor, a woman or a slave is "serious"?
- Why are these people exempt from damages that they cause? Do you think that is fair?
- What does the last line, about freedom or divorce, tell you about why the Mishnah doesn't hold people in these categories responsible?
(5) One who strikes his father or his mother and wounds them, and one who injures his fellow on shabbat, is exempt from all [five] because he will be judged for his life [i.e. he faces capital punishment]. One who injures his own gentile slave, he is exempt from all [five].
- These two exemptions seem to come from opposite perspectives. What do you think is the logic for each category?
- Given that, do you think exemption from damages is a good thing or not?
(6) One who punches his fellow, he gives him a sela (25 zuz). Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Yose HaGlili said: "a maneh (100 zuz)". One who slaps his fellow, he gives him 200 zuz; with the back of the hand, he gives him 400 zuz. If he split his ear, plucked his hair, spit [at him] and his spit touched him, stripped his cloak from him or uncovered the head of a woman in the shuk, he gives him 400 zuz. This is the principle: it is all according to the person's honor. Rabbi Akiva says: "Even the poor of Israel, we see them as if they are free people who have lost their property, because they are children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
There was an incident of someone uncovering the head of a woman in the marketplace. She came before Rabbi Akiva, and he required him to give her 400 zuz. He said to him, "Rabbi, give me time." So he gave him time. [The man] watched her stand at the entrance of her courtyard, broke a pitcher in front of her, and in it was issar [8 prutot] of oil. She uncovered her head and scooped [the oil], and rubbed her hands on her head. He placed witnesses against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva. He said to him, "Rabbi, to her I gave 400 zuz?!" [because she had uncovered her head in public] He replied, "You haven't said anything. One who injures himself, even though he is not permitted, he is exempt. Others who wound him are liable. And one who cuts his own shoots, even though he is not permitted, he is exempt. Others who cut his shoots are liable.
- This Mishnah seems to be details about determining the payment for embarrassment. What do you think is the operating principle in determining these values? Why do the different forms of attack merit different amounts?
- What is the point of the story in the second paragraph?
(7) Even when he gives him [the payment], he will not be forgiven until he seeks it [pardon] from him, as it says, "Therefore, restore [Abraham's] wife[—he is a prophet and will intercede for you]" (Genesis 20:7). And where do we know that cruel people will not be forgiven? As it says, "Abraham prayed to God and God healed Avimelech" (Genesis 20:17).
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 liable. "Tear my clothes," "Break my vessel", he is liable. [If it was said] on the condition that you will be exempt, he is exempt. "Do this to so-and-so on the condition that you will be exempt," he is liable whether it is his body or his property.
- What is the relationship between paying for damages and forgiveness. Why is it not automatic? Do you think that is fair?
- What is the point of the second paragraph? Why does the Mishnah need to say that you are still libel even if someone asks you to injury them? What does this say about your own bodily autonomy?