Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. This שיעור will be in מסכת בבא קמא דף פ"ד. And we will start on דף פ"ג עמוד ב' four lines from the bottom of the עמוד. And here we're still in the middle of the סוגיא where the גמרא is trying to prove that when a person causes damage to somebody else, even if it's through making him lose a limb permanently, nevertheless, the only thing he does is he pays for it, but we do not say that we do to the person what he did to the other person. The גמרא says, תניא רבי דוסתאי בן יהודה אומר, we've learned that רבי דוסתאי בן יהודה says, the פסוק says עין תחת עין. You make him pay an eye for an eye, so what does it mean? ממון. That he has to pay the value of that eye. אתה אומר ממון, you say it means money, או אינו אלא עין ממש? But maybe it means real eye, that if he knocked out someone else's eye, you knock out his eye for that. אמרי, they will say to you, הרי שהיתה עינו של זה גדולה ועינו של זה קטנה, if the eye of one was big and the eye of the other one was small, היך אני קורא בו? How can I read here, how can I apply here עין תחת עין, an eye for an eye? An eye for an eye would mean that you should do to him exactly what he did to the other person. But if the eye he knocked out from the other person was a big one and his is a small one, so we nevertheless would not be doing to him what he did to that person. Or the opposite, that the other's one was small and his was big, so we're going to do to him more than what he did to the other person. So automatically we must say that when it says an eye for an eye, it doesn't mean actually to take out his eye, but it means that he pays the value of that person's eye. וכי תימא, and if you're going to say, כל כי האי שקיל מיניה ממונא, that if it's a case like this, then he does pay money, but if his eye is the same as the other person's eye, then we actually knock out his eye. If it is not the same as the other person's eye, that's when he pays money. But you can't say that either because התורה אמרה, the תורה says משפט אחד יהיה לכם, one judgment should be to you, meaning משפט השווה לכולכם, one judgment that should be equal to all. And like this it will come out that not always do we judge it the same way. If his eye is the same like the other one's eye, then you knock his eye, eye out. If it is not, then he pays money. So there are different ways to judge it. And since the תורה says there is one judgment, obviously you always have to do the same thing, and the only way we could always do the same thing is only if we make him pay money. But then he says, אמרי, I will tell you, מאי קושיא? What is the קשיא? דילמא, maybe, נהורא שקיל מיניה, light, which means sight, he took away from him, נהורא אמר רחמנא נישקול מיניה, so the תורה says take away the sight from him. Who says that we have to judge it by the size of the eye? Maybe it is the idea of making him blind. You caused him to become blind, you took away his sight, so they have to take away your sight. The whole קשיא was that what happens if the size of the eye is not the same, then how can we fulfill here the דין of עין תחת עין? But who says it means the size of the eye? Maybe it means you made him blind, you made him lose his eyesight, so they make you lose his eyesight. ואי לא תימא הכי, and if you're not going to say that, the גמרא wants to prove that you must say that way, because if you're not going to say that, קטן שהרג את הגדול, if a small person killed a big person, for instance a midget killed a giant, או גדול שהרג את הקטן, or if a big person killed a small person, היכי קטלינן ליה? How do we kill him? Since by רציחה, by murder, the דין is that we do do to him what he did to the other person. He killed that person, so we kill him too. Now what if the one that killed was small and the one that was killed was big, or the one that killed was big and the one that was killed was small? היכי קטלינן ליה? How do we kill him? התורה אמרה, the תורה said, משפט אחד יהיה לכם, that one judgment should be to you, meaning משפט השווה לכולכם, a judgment that should be equal to all. And if he is small and he killed a big person, how can we kill him? It is not going to be that we'll do to him what he did to that person. And we can't say that in this case we will טאקע do something else and not kill him, the תורה says one judgment is to all. So obviously there has to be the same punishment in all cases. So what do we do? אלא, therefore we must say that נשמה שקיל מיניה, he took away the נשמה from him, he took away his life, so therefore נשמה אמר רחמנא נישקול מיניה, so the תורה said take away his נשמה. We don't judge it by size or by weight, that just like he made a certain amount, a certain size, a certain weight of a body die, therefore we do the same thing to him. The פשט is he made a person lose his life, so we make him lose his life. So הכא נמי, so you could say here too concerning the eye for instance, נהורא שקיל מיניה, he took away his sight, נהורא אמר רחמנא נשקול מיניה. So the תורה says, take away his sight. But the whole קושיא you had what? That how come we cannot say that עין תחת עין means actually taking away his eye, because not always will you be doing to him the same thing he did to somebody else. If the size of the eye is different, but who says it depends on the size? We must say it doesn't depend on the size, it depends on the idea of blindness. You made him blind, so that makes you blind. So therefore we cannot learn out from this לימוד. תניא אידך, another ברייתא we learned, רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אומר, רבי שמעון בן יוחאי says the פסוק says עין תחת עין, an eye for an eye, that means ממון, that you pay money for it. אתה אומר ממון, you say it means money, או אינו אלא עין ממש? But maybe it actually means an eye? And then he says, הרי שהיה סומא, let's say if the person who did it was blind himself, וסימא, and he made someone else blind, או קיטע, he was a person that his hand was cut off, וקיטע, and he cut off someone else's hand, חיגר, he was a person that was limping, וחיגר, and he made someone else limp. So היכא אני מקיים בזה עין תחת עין? How could I do here, fulfill here this דין of an eye for an eye? We can't make him lose his eye because he already had no eye לכתחילה. So how do we punish him with this דין of עין תחת עין? And you can't say that in a case like this we will make him pay money, it's only if he has an eye that's when we'll make him blind, but if he has no eye so then we will make him pay money, but the תורה, והתורה אמרה, the תורה says משפט אחד יהיה לכם, one judgment should be to you, משפט השוה לכולכם, a judgment that should be equal to all of you. He says, אמרי, I will tell you, ומאי קושיא, what kind of a קושיא is this? דלמא, maybe היכא דאפשר אפשר, in the case where it's possible to punish him by taking out his eye then we do it, then we fulfill the punishment of עין תחת עין. היכא דלא אפשר לא אפשר, but in a case where we can't do it so we don't do it, ופטרינן ליה, and he's פטור. If we can't punish him so then we don't, so then he will be פטור. ואי לא תימא הכי, if you are not going to say that, in other words the גמרא is trying to prove that this סברא is an accepted סברא and we must say such a סברא, because טריפה שהרג את השלם, if a person who was sick and he was dying himself who killed a regular, normal, healthy person, מאי עבדינן ליה, what do we do to him? We can't kill him because he is, as רש״י says, considered an עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה. The rule is that when is testimony accepted? Only if it's a kind of testimony that is possible for other witnesses to come and to be מזים these witnesses. הזמה means that if two people testify and other two people come and say, "How can you testify that at this and this time in this and this place you saw this and this happen when at that time you were in a different place, you were with us some place else?" If this happens so then we believe the second group of witnesses, and the first witnesses are accepted to be liars, and the תורה says ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, that you have to do to them what they wanted to do to the other person. That if they testified that a certain person would have to pay money, now that they become זוממין they have to pay the money. If they testified that a certain person would have to get killed, so now that they become עדים זוממין you kill them. And the rule is that whenever witnesses come to testify anything, the only time they're כשר as witnesses is if it is a type of witnesses, a type of testimony that it is possible for them to become זוממין. If it is a type of testimony that for some reason you couldn't be מזים them, then לכתחילה we do not accept the testimony. So in the case of a טריפה, a person who was dying killed another person, so when two witnesses will come to בית דין to testify that he did it, and expecting that רוצח, that murderer, to get killed, we never will accept this testimony, because the testimony that's given is considered an עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה. You'll never be able to מזים them, because if other two witnesses will come and say that these first two witnesses are liars, עמנו הייתם, they were with us when they claim they saw that טריפה kill the person, then we still will not be able to fulfill ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, that we should do to these witnesses what they wanted to do to their brother. Because when they testified that this טריפה killed a person and they wanted him to be killed, so they want to kill a dead person, so to speak. So Since they wanted to kill a dead person, so it's not considered that they wanted to have a person killed, because that person would have died anyway. And therefore, we would not kill these witnesses even if they are found to be עדים זוממין. And since we never could fulfill in them the דין of ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, to do to them what they wanted to do to the brother, so לכתחילה it is not considered a כשרה testimony. So if two people come to בית דין to testify that a טריפה killed a person, we would not accept the testimony of these two witnesses. Now since we will not accept the testimony of these two witnesses, automatically, we will not kill that טריפה that they claim killed the other person. So here we have a case of a person who murdered another person, and nevertheless, we will not kill him. We will not punish him and do to him what he wanted to do to the other person. אי the תורה says that you should kill the murderer, אלא but we must say, היכא דאפשר אפשר. Where it's able, it's able. Where you're able to fulfill the punishment, then you do it. היכא דלא אפשר, לא אפשר. Where you can't do it, you can't do it. ופטרינן ליה, and we make him פטור, we free him, because we can't fulfill the punishment. And the same thing here too, maybe עין תחת עין means that if he knocked out someone else's eye, you knock out his eye. But what happens in a case where a blind person knocked out someone else's eye? But so then, if we can't fulfill the punishment of עין תחת עין, so we don't, and we let him free. So again, we have no proof that this עין תחת עין means that you pay money and doesn't mean that you actually knock out his eye. But it is interesting to note that concerning this ראיה the גמרא brings that if you can't fulfill the punishment you don't, from the case of the טריפה that killed a person, and the way רש״י explains that the reason why we can't fulfill the punishment is because we don't accept the testimony to begin with, because it's called an עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה, you can't be מזים them. So the רבי עקיבא איגר in the גליון הש״ס asks the question that לכאורה, according to this, לכתחילה there is no ראיה in the גמרא. Since you don't accept their testimony to begin with, so how do we know that this טריפה actually killed the person? The גמרא is trying to bring a ראיה that even in a case where we know for sure that he did it, but we can't fulfill the punishment, so we don't. But if the reason is because it is an עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה, because the witnesses will never be accepted, because they will not be able to be מוזם, so we don't accept their testimony לכתחילה. If we don't accept their testimony, that means that we have no proof that this טריפה ever killed a person. And that is the reason we don't kill him either. So where do we see a case that even though we know for sure he did the עבירה, and nevertheless we can't punish him, so we don't punish him? The case the גמרא brings is a case where we don't know לכתחילה he did it. So what is the ראיה to the case of the eye, that even if we know for sure he knocked out someone else's eye, but since we can't fulfill the punishment of עין תחת עין we don't do it, where do we see a case like that? And he remains with a צריך עיון, that he has no answer to the קשיא. Then the גמרא continues, דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא, in the ישיבה of רבי ישמעאל they learned, they explained that עין תחת עין means paying money, not to actually knock out his eye, for a different reason. As אמר קרא the פסוק says, this is a פסוק in פרשת אמור, in קפיטל כ״ד, פסוק כ׳. The פסוק says: שבר תחת שבר, a break for a break, עין תחת עין, an eye for an eye, שן תחת שן, a tooth for a tooth, כאשר יתן מום באדם, just like he gave a מום, a blemish in the person, כן ינתן בו, so should be given in him. ואין נתינה אלא ממון. Since the תורה uses the לשון, ינתן בו, should be given in him, now when you speak about giving, giving means money. So automatically that proves that what is the punishment? Money, and not that you do to him what he did. But the גמרא asks, if so, that you're מדייק from the word ינתן, giving means money, אלא מעתה if so, כאשר יתן מום באדם, הכא נמי דממון הוא? The first part of the פסוק where it says as he gave a מום, a blemish in the person, and there will you also say it means money? The תורה also uses the לשון יתן, giving, and nevertheless, there it doesn't mean money. It says clearly, you made a מום, made a blemish. So we see that even though the תורה uses the לשון giving, it doesn't necessarily mean money. Then the גמרא says, אמרי, I'll tell you. דבי רבי ישמעאל קרא יתירא דרשי. The דבי רבי ישמעאל, the ישיבה of רבי ישמעאל, didn't just mean that the word ינתן itself means money. The reason they said it means money is because they דרש'ן an extra פסוק. They felt that there is an extra פסוק, and the extra פסוק comes to teach us that it means money. Why is the פסוק extra? Because מי לא כתיב, doesn't it say: ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו. This is in the same פרשה, A פסוק earlier, in פסוק י״ט, it says if a person will give a מום, a blemish, in his friend, as he did, that's how it should be done to him. So then, כן ינתן בו למה לי? So then why does the תורה later have to say, that's how it should be given to him? Since the תורה already said that if he made a blemish in his friend, so whatever he did should be done to him. So if it actually means that you should do to him what he did to his friend, so then why does the תורה have to repeat it again later, and say, כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו, that it should be given to him? שמע מינה, that comes to teach us ממון, that it means money. Since it's an extra פסוק, and whenever we have an extra פסוק it comes to teach us a special דין, so here too this extra פסוק comes to teach us that you pay money. But then the גמרא asks, כאשר יתן מום באדם למה לי? But why does the תורה have to write the beginning, כאשר יתן מום באדם? The אמת is his whole piece is extra, since it says already ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו, a person makes a blemish in his friend, what he did should be done to him, so then all the words in the next פסוק, כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו, is extra, because it means the same thing. As he gave the מום in the person, so it should be given to him. So the last three words, כן ינתן בו, we said was to come to teach us that you pay money, but then the first few words, כאשר יתן מום באדם, are still extra. So why does the תורה write that? The גמרא answers, איידי דבעי למכתב כן ינתן בו, since the תורה wants to write the words כן ינתן בו, כתב נמי כאשר יתן מום באדם. So the תורה also writes as he gave a מום in the person, so then the תורה could finish off by writing כן ינתן בו, so it should be given to him. Then the גמרא continues, דבי רבי חייא תנא, the ישיבה of רבי חייא learned another ראיה that it means money. אמר קרא, the פסוק says, יד ביד. This is a פסוק in the פרשה of עדים זוממים, and this is in פרשת שופטים, קפיטל י״ט, פסוק כ״א. After the תורה goes through the דינים of עדים זוממים, that if you are מזים the first group of עדים, so you do to them what they want to do to the other person, the תורה continues, ולא תחוס עינך, you should not have pity, נפש בנפש, a soul for a soul, עין בעין, an eye for an eye, שן בשן, tooth for a tooth, יד ביד, a hand for a hand, רגל ברגל, a foot for a foot. So we say that the words יד ביד, hand for a hand, means דבר הניתן מיד ליד, something that is given from hand to hand, ומאי ניהו ממון, and what is that, money. So the תורה is telling us that the עדים זוממים would have to pay money. In other words, if the עדים זוממים testified concerning a person that he hurt somebody's hand, so then the עדים זוממים have to pay דבר הניתן מיד ליד, have to pay money which is given from hand to hand for that. Now, since by עדים זוממים the דין is that you do to them what they wanted to do to the other person that they testified about, so since we say the עדים זוממים would have to pay money, obviously what they were going to be מחייב the other person would also be money. And here we see that if people testify that a certain person chopped off someone's hand, that person is obligated to pay money. Because if the דין would be that that person's hand is chopped off, and since by עדים זוממים the דין is that you do to them what they wanted to do to the other person, we should have to chop off their hand too, because that's what they wanted should happen to the other person. Since we say that what you do to the עדים זוממים is that you make him pay דבר הניתן מיד ליד, you make him pay money, so obviously what they wanted to have done to the person they testified about was also to make him pay money. So we see clearly that if people testify that a person knocked off, chopped off someone's hand, all he has to do is pay money, but you do not chop off his hand. But the גמרא asks, אלא מעתה, if so, רגל ברגל נמי הכי הוא? The פסוק says also foot for a foot, could you say that there too? And there, definitely, we cannot say that, because there it doesn't have this meaning of ממון. So the same with יד ביד, who says that we have to דרשן it means that it is a דבר הניתן מיד ליד, and it doesn't mean actually hand for a hand, but it means that you pay something which is given from hand to hand? Maybe it טאקע means that you chop off his hand if he wanted to have that hand, person's hand chopped off, and you chop off his foot if he wanted to have that person's foot chopped off? So he says, אמרי, I would tell you, דבי רבי חייא קרא יתירא קדרש, the ישיבה of רבי חייא דרשנד an extra פסוק. The reason they said that יד ביד means that you pay דבר הניתן מיד ליד, that it means money, is because this פסוק is extra, because מכדי כתיב, doesn't the תורה say before that, ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, you should do to him what he wanted to have done to his brother? Now, אי סלקא דעתך ממש, if you think it טאקע means ממש, that if he testified that that person chopped off someone's hand, you would have to ממש chop off that person's hand, and therefore you would then in turn have to chop off the hand of the עדים זוממים, then יד ביד למה לי, why does the תורה have to say יד ביד, to chop off a hand for a hand? It's obvious! The תורה already said, you should do to him what he wanted to have done to his brother. שמע מינה, since there's an extra פסוק יד ביד, it teaches us, it means ממון, it means money. But then the גמרא asks, רגל ברגל למה לי? But why does the תורה say a foot for a foot? The answer is, איידי דכתיב יד ביד, since it already says a hand for a hand, כתב נמי רגל ברגל, the תורה also writes a foot for a foot. And the גמרא says,

אביי אמר, אביי says, אתיא מבי חזקיה, we can learn it out from the way it's learned in the ישיבה of חזקיה. דתנא דבי חזקיה, they learned in the ישיבה of חזקיה, the תורה says, עין תחת עין. It's the פסוק in משפטים, where it says an eye for an eye, נפש תחת נפש, a soul for a soul. The תורה broke it into two parts: an eye for an eye, and a soul for a soul. Which means that if he knocked out someone else's eye, let's assume it means knock out his eye. If he killed somebody, then you kill him. But we דרשינן, ולא נפש ועין תחת עין, but you don't give two punishments for one thing, that you do not kill him and knock out his eye for him knocking out someone else's eye. Because it's only an eye for an eye, but nothing more than that. Now, אי סלקא דעתך ממש, if you would think it actually means that you knock out his eye if he knocked out someone else's eye, זימנין דמשכחת לה, sometimes it'll come out, עין ונפש תחת עין, that not only will you knock out his eye for the eye, but along with knocking out his eye, you'll also kill him! Because דבהדי דעוור ליה, when you will blind him, נפקא ליה נשמתיה, his נשמה will expire! It's possible that when you blind him, this will kill him! So it comes out, sometimes, just for knocking out someone else's eye, you might kill him along with knocking out his eye. And the תורה says clearly that that you're not allowed to do. So, therefore, you must say that where it says עין תחת עין, it means that you pay money. But then the גמרא says, ומאי קושיא, what kind of קושיא is it? דילמא מימד אמדינן ליה, maybe we estimate him! Before we punish him to knock out his eye, we estimate and see, אי מצי מקבל, if he's able to accept it, in other words, if we're able to knock out his eye and it won't kill him, עבדינן, we do that! ואי לא מצי מקבל, if he can't accept it, because we see that if we'll do it, he's going to die, לא עבדינן, and we don't do it! ואי אמדינן דמצי מקבל, and let's say we estimated that he could accept it, ועבדינן ביה, and we did it, ונפחה רוחיה, and he did die, so אי מיית, לית לן בה, if he dies, let him die! Since we did על פי דין, we estimated and we saw that he's able to accept it, and that's why we did it, איי he died, that's no one's fault, and therefore, it's not our worry.

מי לא תנן, didn't we learn גבי מלקות, concerning מלקות, the דין is that when you give מלקות, you have to give him 39 lashes. Nevertheless, first, you estimate him to see if he's able to accept all 39. And if he's not able, so then you give him only as much as he's able to accept. But, of course, אומדו, if they estimated that he's able to accept all, or whatever they estimated he's able to accept, ומת תחת ידו, and he died under his hand, they gave him as much as they thought he could accept, but he nevertheless died, פטור, the one that did it, the שליח of the בית דין, is פטור, because he did על פי דין, איי he died, he died. The same thing, maybe here, too! We estimate him to see if we're able to knock out his eye and he shouldn't die. And if he does die, it's no one's fault, he's פטור. So maybe that's what the פסוק means! עין תחת עין, ממש, you knock out his eye if he knocked out someone else's eye, but you have to make sure he shouldn't die. And if he does die, it's no one's fault. So then, again, we have no ראיה from this that עין תחת עין doesn't mean that you actually knock out his eye. Then the גמרא continues,

רב זביד משמיה דרבא אמר, רב זביד said in the name of רבא, how do we know that עין תחת עין doesn't mean that you actually knock out his eye? Because אמר קרא, the פסוק says, פצע תחת פצע. This is a פסוק in פרשת משפטים, קפיטל כ״א, פסוק כ״ה, it says, פצע תחת פצע, that you make make him a wound instead of the wound. The פסוק starts off by saying, כויה תחת כויה, a burn for a burn, פצע תחת פצע, a wound for a wound. Then the תורה continues, חבורה תחת חבורה. Now the question is, since the תורה already said, כויה תחת כויה, that you make him pay a burn for a burn, why does the תורה also have to add פצע תחת פצע? So the גמרא later on will explain that ליתן צער במקום נזק, it comes to teach us that you have to pay for the pain even in the place where you paid for the נזק already. That even when you've paid already for the damage, meaning for the depreciation, nevertheless, you still have to pay, in addition to that, for the pain that you caused him. Now, אי סלקא דעתך ממש, if you're going to think that when it says עין תחת עין, that means that you actually have to knock out his eye, כי היכי דלהאי הוה ליה צערא, להאי נמי אית ליה צערא, that just like that person had pain when you knocked out his eye, so now when you're going to knock out his him pain. So why should he have to pay, in addition to that, for the צער that he caused that person? So therefore we must say that the נזק that you pay for is money, not that you knock out his eye. And therefore we say that, in addition to that, you also have to pay for the pain. But then the גמרא says, מאי קושיא, what kind of a קושיא is that? דילמא איכא איניש דמפנק, there could be a person who is more delicate. אית ליה צערא טפי, so he has more pain when you do it to him. ואיכא איניש דלא מפנק, and there's a person who's not so delicate, לית ליה צערא, and he doesn't have that much pain. So למאי נפקא מינה, so what does the תורה tell, tell concerning which דין? למיתב ליה ההוא דביני וביני, that he has to pay him the difference. For instance, if he knocked out someone's eye, and that person was a delicate person, and therefore his pain was much stronger, so then we knock out his eye, and if he is not such a delicate person, and his pain is less, so the difference in the pain, that's what the תורה says he has to give. But maybe still the תורה means that you knock out his eye. So therefore we're again without a ראיה that עין תחת עין means that you have to pay money. Then the גמרא says,

רב פפא משמיה דרבא אמר, רב פפא said in the name of רבא, אמר קרא, the תורה says ורפא ירפא, that he has to heal him, that comes to teach us לרפואה במקום נזק, that you have to pay the medical expenses in addition to the נזק that you have to pay. Now אי סלקא דעתך ממש, if you're going to think that the נזק that you pay is actually that you knock out his eye, so כי היכי דהאי בעי אסיא האי נמי בעי אסיא, just like the one, the first person, has medical expenses and needs a doctor, so too the second person whose eye is also going to be knocked out also will have medical expenses, and will also need a doctor. So then why should he have to pay for the first one's medical expenses when he will also have medical expenses? So then that will take care of the medical expenses that he caused that person. So the punishment, as far as medical expenses are, he also already has. So therefore you must say that when you pay for the נזק, it is not by knocking out his eye, but it is with money. And that's what the תורה says, that in addition to paying for the נזק, you also have to pay for the medical expenses. But then he says, מאי קושיא, what kind of a קושיא is that? דילמא maybe איכא דסליק בישריה חיי, could be there's a person that cure, he heals, his flesh heals faster, ואיכא דלא סליק בישריה חיי, and there's another person that his flesh does not heal so fast. So the מאי נפקא מינה, so what does the תורה tell us here? למיתב ליה ההוא דביני וביני, that he has to pay the difference. That if the person that he knocked out his eye doesn't heal that fast, and when you knock out his eye he'll heal faster, so there's a difference in the medical expenses between his and the other person's, so that difference he has to give. So therefore we're left that maybe עין תחת עין טאקע means that you knock out his eye.

רב אשי אמר, רב אשי says, אתיא, we learn it out, תחת תחת משור, it's a גזירה שוה with the word תחת from an ox. כתיב הכא, here it says עין תחת עין, an eye under an eye. וכתיב התם, and over there it says, concerning when an ox gores another ox, it says שלם ישלם שור תחת השור, you should pay an ox for an ox, and it also uses the term תחת. מה להלן ממון, just like over there by the ox you pay money for the damage, אף כאן ממון, so too here, when the תורה says עין תחת עין, it means that you pay money. But then the גמרא asks, מאי חזית דילפת תחת תחת משור, why do you feel that you should learn out this גזירה שוה with the word תחת from the way the word תחת says by שור, by an ox, by the payment that you have to give if an ox is damaged? נילף תחת תחת מאדם, why don't we use the same גזירה שוה תחת תחת and learn it out from the דין where it's killed by a person? דכתיב, the פסוק says, ונתתה נפש תחת נפש, you should give a life for a life, which means that if someone murdered somebody, you kill him. So let's say מה להלן ממש, just like in the case of the person that killed somebody... Why don't we say מה להלן ממש, just like over there in the case of murder the תורה uses the term תחת, and we say what is the פשט there? It actually means ממש that you take away his life because he took away someone else's life, אף כאן ממש, so here too it means ממש, in the case of עין תחת עין it also means that when you knocked out someone else's eye, they have to knock out your eye. The גמרא answers, אמרי לך, דנין ניזקין מניזקין, I would rather learn out a דין by damages from a דין by damages, ואין דנין ניזקין ממיתה, and not learn out a דין by damages from a דין of מיתה. If you're going to make the גזירה שוה תחת תחת from the words נפש תחת נפש, you'd be learning out the דין of a person damaged עין תחת עין from the words שור תחת השור, because then we would be learning out a דין of a person damaging another person from payment for a damage of a שור, so you would be learning out the דין of damage from the דין of damage. Then the גמרא says, אדרבה, on the contrary, דנין אדם מאדם ואין דנין אדם מבהמה, shouldn't we rather learn out the דין by a person from another דין by a person than learning out a דין by a person from the דין of a בהמה? What we're doing now is we're learning out a דין if a person damaged another person from the דין if a בהמה was damaged. Why shouldn't we rather learn out the דין by a person if a person damaged another person from the דין of a person killing another person, that at least we'd be learning out one דין by a person from another דין by a person? So, therefore, we cannot learn out from this גזירה שוה that עין תחת עין means ממון. אלא אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי said, מתחת אשר עינה יליף לה. This is a פסוק in פרשת כי תצא, קפיטל כ"ב, פסוק כ"ט, where it speaks about the דין of מאנס, someone forces a girl for an עבירה, so the תורה says, ונתן האיש השוכב עמה לאבי הנערה חמשים כסף, that the man that slept with this girl has to pay to the father 50 כסף, ולו תהיה לאשה, and to him she should stay as a wife, תחת אשר עינה, instead because he caused her the pain. So here the תורה also uses the word תחת, and here the תורה says clearly that you have to pay money. So יליף לה אדם מאדם ונזיקין מנזיקין. So we're learning out the דין of a person from the דין of a person, and the דין of נזיקין from the דין of נזיקין, that we learn out the words עין תחת עין from the words of תחת אשר עינה. And here we're learning out damage from damage because the פסוק by אונס is also damage, and it is also concerning a person. So this is the best גזירה שוה, it is a person from a person and damage from a damage. And here we see that the תורה says you pay money, so so too when it says עין תחת עין, it means that you pay money. Then the גמרא says,

תניא we learned, ר' אלעזר אומר, ר' אלעזר says, עין תחת עין, the תורה says you pay an eye for an eye, means עין ממש, it means that you actually have to pay with your eye, that you knock out your eye. So the גמרא asks, ממש? סלקא דעתך? How could you think it means ממש, that you actually knock out his eye? ר' אלעזר לית ליה ככל הני תנאי? ר' אלעזר doesn't hold like all these תנאים? We mentioned so many תנאים before that hold that it means that you pay money. The גמרא says, אמר רבה, or according to the מהרש"ל's גירסא it is רבא, לומר, what he means to say is, שאין שמין אותו כעבד, that you don't evaluate him like an עבד, like a slave. Because like this we said before, that how do you pay for the נזק, when you say you pay money, how do you evaluate how much money he has to pay? You see how much would he be worth with an eye to be sold as a slave, and how much would he be worth to be sold as a slave without an eye, and that difference you pay. And what ר' אלעזר says is that you do not evaluate him like an עבד. אמר ליה אביי, אביי said to him, אלא כי מאן? So like whom do you evaluate him? כבן חורין, like a free person, not like an עבד? בן חורין מי אית ליה דמי? Does a free person have a value? When we talk about a value of a human being, it is to be sold as a slave. But otherwise, what kind of value does a person have? אלא אמר רב אשי, so therefore רב אשי said, לומר, to teach us, שאין שמין אותו בניזק, that you don't evaluate by the eye, for instance, of the ניזק, of the one that was damaged, אלא במזיק, only of the מזיק, of the one that caused the damage. So when the תורה says עין תחת עין, and we say it means money, it means that you see how much is the eye of the מזיק worth, and that's how much he has to pay. And the תוספות explain that we find a similar thing, we find this in כופר, that if an ox kills a person and the ox is a שור מועד, then the תורה says that the owner of the ox has to pay כופר. Now, how much is the כופר? We find earlier in דף מ' a מחלוקת between ר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה and the חכמים, whether you pay דמי ניזק, the value of the person that was killed, or you pay דמי מזיק, the value of the owner of the ox that killed the person. So this גמרא here, ר' אלעזר, also holds that by כופר you pay דמי מזיק, and therefore he says, also when you cause damage to a person, you also, when you evaluate the value, it is not of the eye, for instance, of the ניזק, but it is of the מזיק. Then the גמרא continues,

ההוא חמרא, there was a donkey, דקטע ידא דינוקא, that cut off the hand of a child. אתו לקמיה דרב פפא בר שמואל, they came to רב פפא בר שמואל, אמר להו, he said to them, זילו שומו ליה ארבעה דברים. Go and estimate to him, evaluate the four things that he has to pay. Since we learned that if you cause damage to a person, you have to pay for all five things: נזק, צער, ריפוי, שבת, ובושת. That's what he said: go and evaluate how much the four things would add up to that he has to pay. And obviously, רב פפא בר שמואל didn't know it was done through a donkey. He thought that a person did it to him. So therefore he said you should evaluate how much he has to pay for the four things. אמר ליה רבא, so רבא said, והנן חמישה תנן, didn't we learn in the משנה that you have to pay for five things? אמר ליה, so he said to him, לבר מנזק קאמינא, what I meant is in addition to the נזק, to the damage, the other four things you also have to evaluate. אמר ליה אביי, so אביי said to him, והא חמור הוא, it was done through a donkey, וחמור אינו משלם אלא נזק, and when it is done through a donkey, through an animal, all you pay is damage. When a person hurts somebody else, that's when you have to pay the five things, but not if an animal that belongs to a person did it. There you only pay for נזק. אמר להו, so he said to them, זילו שומו ליה ניזקא, go ahead and evaluate the damage. So in that case only the damage should be evaluated. So he asked, והא כעבדא בעי למשיימיה, don't you have to evaluate him as if he would be sold as a slave, and see how much would he have been worth without the damage, and how much is he worth with the damage? אמר להו, so he said to them, זילו שמוהו כעבדא, yes, go ahead and evaluate him as a slave. אמר להו אבוה דינוקא, so the father of the child said to them, לא בעינא דזילא ביה מילתא, I don't want you to do it, I don't want you to embarrass him, because by evaluating how much is he worth as a slave, that is an embarrassment for the child, so I don't want you to do it. In other words, I'd rather you don't evaluate and don't get paid for it, because I don't want him to go through this embarrassment. אמרו ליה, so they said to him, והא קא מחייבת ליה לינוקא, but you are causing harm to the child, because the money that will be paid really belongs to the child. Now, you that are giving up the money, so you have no right to do that, because you're not giving up your own money, you're giving up the money of the child. How can you do that? אמר להו, so he said to them, דכי גדל, when the child will grow up, מפייסינא ליה מדידי, I will repay him from my own money, so then there will be no loss to the child, and at this point I don't want him to be evaluated as a slave, and I don't want the money. Then the גמרא continues, ההוא תורא, there was this ox, דעלסיה לידיה דינוקא, that chewed up the hand of a child. אתא לקמיה דרבא, he came to רבא. אמר להו, he said to them, זילו שמוהו כעבדא, go estimate, evaluate like a slave, and that amount of money he should pay. אמרו ליה, they said to him, והא מר הוא דאמר, aren't you the one that said, דכל השמין כעבד אין גובין אותו בבבל, that any time that the money that you have to pay is based on the evaluation of the worth of a slave, if it's that kind of payment, then in בבל, in outside of ארץ ישראל, you couldn't collect it. Because any time that you have to collect money which is not a set amount, he holds that outside of ארץ ישראל you can't collect it. And the גמרא soon will explain why, but this is his opinion. So therefore they asked him, in this case where you have to evaluate and see how much you have to pay based on the evaluation of the worth of an עבד, how can you say that they should go and do that and collect it, when you yourself said that in a case like that you can't collect it in בבל? אמר להו, so he said to them, I just want to tell you that what I meant was דאי תפס. I didn't mean that you could have him collect it, you could force him to pay that, but what I meant was that even in a case where you can't collect in בבל, if the ניזק would grab that amount of money, he's able to keep it. So that's what I meant: evaluate how much the damage was and then if the ניזק would grab that amount, then he would be able to keep it. And the גמרא says,

רבא לטעמיה, רבא goes according to his reasoning. Why did רבא say that any time you have to evaluate to find out how much you have to pay, you can't do it in בבל? רבא goes according to his own סברא. דאמר רבא, רבא said, דנזקי שור בשור, if there was damage done from one ox on another ox, or נזקי שור באדם, or damage done by an ox to a person, גובין אותו בבבל, you do collect it in בבל. נזקי אדם באדם, damage done by a person to a person, or נזקי אדם בשור, or damage done by a person to an ox, אין גובין אותו בבבל, we cannot collect it in בבל. The גמרא asks, מאי שנא נזקי אדם באדם ונזקי אדם בשור דלא, what is the reason? Why did you say that if a person caused damage to another person or if a person caused damage to an ox, you can't collect it in בבל? Because אלהים בעינן וליכא, we have to have אלהים and there isn't. אלהים refers to דיינים. Whenever the תורה says that you have to bring a person to אלהים, to the דיינים, to the דיין, it means a דיין מומחה. The word אלהים comes from the words of strength, of rulership, of control. That means It has to be a דיין, a שופט, a judge, an expert. So therefore, in בבל, where they did not have סמיכה, the official סמיכה that was given, that was only given to מומחים, and that turned the person into a special authority of being a דיין, so that did not happen in בבל. And therefore, since in בבל there was no סמיכה, there was no מומחים, so when it comes to a case where the תורה says in that case you have to have אלקים, you couldn't judge that in בבל. And all these things are mentioned in פרשת משפטים. The דין of a person causing damage to another person is in פרשת משפטים. That is in the פרשה where it says כי יריבון אנשים. The damage of a person done to an ox is also in פרשת משפטים. And in פרשת משפטים it says עד האלקים יבא דבר שניהם, you should bring their dispute to אלקים. And he holds that this word אלקים applies to all the דינים mentioned in the פרשה. And since אלקים means מומחין and סמוכין, and since in

בבל they didn't have מומחין, they didn't have סמוכין, so therefore you couldn't judge it in בבל. And that's what he's saying, the reason you claim that you cannot judge in בבל the דין of damage done by a person to a person or by a person to an ox is because there is no סמיכה in בבל. If so, נזקי שור בשור ושור באדם, נמי אלקים בעינן וליכא. The same would apply concerning the damage done by an ox to an ox or by an ox to a person, you should also not judge it in בבל, because that is also written in פרשת משפטים, and the word אלקים also applies to that. And since in בבל there are no מומחים, no סמיכה, so they shouldn't be able to judge that in בבל either. אלא מאי שנא שור בשור ושור באדם, but what is the reason? Why do you say that the damage of an ox to an ox and of an ox to a person we do judge in בבל? Is because דשליחותייהו קא עבדינן, we only are doing the שליחות, the mission of the real דיינים, the דיינים of ארץ ישראל that have סמיכה and are מומחים, they have the right to פסקן it, and they make us, so to speak, like their שלוחין, like their agents to פסקן it for them. So we're not פסק'נינג it on our authority, but on the authority of the דיינים of ארץ ישראל who have סמיכה. And that's why we're able to פסקן the דינים of a שור בשור and שור באדם.

מידי דהוה אהודאות והלוואות, just like concerning הודאות והלוואות, when it comes to פסקן a case of when a person claims that he has witnesses that someone admitted that he owes him money, or he has witnesses that someone borrowed money from him, so really you would need מומחים to פסקן that, too. And nevertheless, the גמרא says in סנהדרין that we don't need מומחים, because if we would have to wait for מומחים, then it would be very hard to get a loan, people would be afraid to lend money knowing that later it would be hard for them to get it back, and therefore the חכמים said you don't need מומחים, and even if you don't have מומחים and without סמיכה you could judge it because then we only do the שליחות, the mission of those דיינים that do have סמיכה. So if so, אדם באדם ואדם בשור נמי שליחותייהו קא עבדינן. So why can't we also judge the דינים of damages done by a person to a person or by a person to an ox, also because we will be doing the mission of the דיינים that do have סמיכה, מידי דהוה אהודאות והלוואות, just like we do it concerning הודאות והלוואות? So why do you make this difference? The גמרא answers,

אמרי, I will tell you, כי קא עבדינן שליחותייהו, when do we do their שליחות? במידי דקייץ, in things that we know clear, things that don't need evaluation, so then we're able to do their שליחות, and we פסקן the דינים even though we are not סמוכים. But במידי דלא קייץ, but in things that we do not have an exact amount, we have to evaluate, לא עבדינן שליחותייהו, so we don't do the שליחות and we cannot פסקן. And therefore we cannot פסקן concerning the damage done by a person to a person or by a person to an ox, because there we have to evaluate the damage. But the גמרא asks, אמרי, I will tell you, שור בשור ושור באדם נמי לא קייץ, that an ox in an ox, or if an ox does damage to a person, we also don't know the exact amount, we also have to evaluate, and nevertheless we do it. Why do we do it? אלא פוק חזי היכא מיזדבנא תורא בשוקא, because we go out and we see how much would an ox in the marketplace be sold for, and that's how we estimate the damage. אדם באדם ואדם בשור נמי פוק חזי היכא מיזדבנא עבדא בשוקא, so the same could apply when we judge the damage of a person to a person or a person to an ox, we also could evaluate that way. Let's go out to the street, see how much a slave would be sold, and how much he would be worth now, and that's how we evaluate, and we could say here, too, that we will do their שליחות. ועוד, and

more than that, תשלומי כפל, when it comes to paying double, a person steals, so the דין is that when he is caught, he has to pay the principal and another time as כפל, as a fine that he has to pay for the stealing, ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה, or when it comes to pay four or five times, the דין is if someone steals an ox or a sheep, and he sells it or he שחט's it, so then not only do you pay כפל So but for the ox he would have to pay five times as much, for the sheep he would have to pay four times as much. And these are things דקייצי. There's a set amount. You don't need evaluation, the value is there. Whatever it is, you pay double if it's כפל, or you pay four or five times as much. So נעביד שליחותייהו, why don't we do the שליחות there? And we know and when it comes to that, we don't פסקן in בבל. So we see right away it doesn't depend on this idea whether we need evaluation or not. The גמרא: אמרי, I will tell you, כי קא עבדינן שליחותייהו, when do we do the שליחות of the דיינים? בממונא, only when it's payment of money. Not a fine, but you pay actually for a damage or for a loss of money. But בקנסא, לא עבדינן שליחותייהו, but when it comes to pay a fine, we don't do the שליחות. And to pay double by a גנב, or to pay ארבעה וחמשה four or five times is a fine. And a fine we cannot פסקן in בבל, we don't do the שליחות there. And then the

גמרא asks, if so, אדם באדם, the damage that was done from one person to another, and the ב״ח adds the words ופגם, the case when it comes to פסקן the דין of פגם. The דין of פגם is by אונס ומפתה, if a person forces another woman to an עבירה, or he convinces her to do the עבירה, so then the דין is that you have to pay פגם. You have to pay for the depreciation of this person. You have to evaluate how much would this woman be worth if she would have been a בתולה to be sold as a שפחה, or how much is she worth now that she's not a בתולה, not a virgin, how much is she worth now to be sold as a שפחה. And that we also don't פסקן in בבל. Now the question is, we made a rule now that when don't we פסקן in בבל, when don't we do the שליחות of the דיינים? In the case of קנס, but in the case of ממון when it's not קנס, we do the שליחות. So how come by the case of a person damaging another person, or the case when you have to pay the פגם, the depreciation that you cause in the woman by אונס ומפתה, דממונא, which is also ממון, but it's not קנס, the depreciation that this woman had is actually like נזק, you caused her to become worth less, that's not a fine, that is an actual loss of money. נעביד שליחותייהו, let us do שליחות there. And why don't we פסקן this in בבל? And the גמרא answers, כי קא עבדינן שליחותייהו, when do we do the שליחות of the דיינים? במילתא דשכיחא, in things which are common. So there we say we have the authority through the other דיינים. They made us שלוחים to פסקן it for them. אדם באדם דלא שכיחא לא עבדינן שליחותייהו, but the damage of a person to another person is not a common thing, so there they didn't give us the authority, and therefore we cannot do the שליחות and we cannot פסקן. But then the גמרא asks, הרי בושת, when it comes to pay for בושת, for embarrassment, דשכיח, that is common, נעביד שליחותייהו, let us do the שליחות and let us פסקן that. And this is also not קנס, it is not a fine for בושת, for the embarrassment. There is no fixed amount of money you have to pay when you embarrass somebody. As we learned in the משנה, הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש, it depends on who the one that caused the embarrassment is, and who the one that got embarrassed is. So since it is not a fixed amount, it is not a קנס, it is ממון. So why don't we פסקן that in בבל? אמרי, so the גמרא

says, I will tell you, הכא נמי, you טאקע do פסקן it in בבל, דהא רב פפא אגבי ארבע מאה זוזי לבושת, that רב פפא made someone collect 400 זוז as payment for the embarrassment. But then the גמרא says, והא לא איסתייעא מילתא דרב פפא, but what רב פפא said is not really right, because שדרו לקמיה דרב חסדא לדרב נחמן, he just sent to רב נחמן, ושלח ליה and he sent to him, חסדא חסדא, he called him by his name, and he said to him, קנסא קא מגבית בבבל? You are collecting קנס in בבל? And this was referring to a case where he wanted to collect for embarrassment, and he said to him that you cannot collect. So we see that we cannot collect for embarrassment in בבל. Now if so, the קשיא comes back, why can't we collect for embarrassment in בבל, why don't we do the שליחות there? Since we said the כלל before that only something which is not common, that's when we do not do the שליחות, but something which is common we do, and since to pay for embarrassment is common, so why can't we collect that in בבל? אי, we said before that קנס we don't collect in בבל, and here he referred to this as קנס, but as תוספות says, he didn't mean really that this is קנס, because בושת, to pay for embarrassment is not קנס, he just called it with the title קנס because really there's no loss of money, there's no physical loss of money, therefore he calls it קנס, but really it is not קנס. And nevertheless he said that you should not collect it in בבל. So here we see that you're not allowed to collect for embarrassment in בבל, the question is why? Since we said before that anything that is common we do collect in בבל, so why can't we collect the embarrassment in בבל? The גמרא says, אלא we must say, כי עבדינן שליחותייהו, when do we do the שליחות of the other דיינים? במילתא דשכיחא ואית בה חסרון כיס, only in something which is common, and along with that, there is a loss of money. אבל מילתא דשכיחא ולית בה חסרון כיס, but something which is common, but there is no loss of money involved, or אי נמי מילתא דלא שכיחא ואית בה חסרון כיס, or something which is not common, even if there is a loss of money involved, לא עבדינן שליחותייהו, we do not do their שליחות. הילכך, therefore, אדם באדם, when it comes to pay for damages done by a person to a person, אף על גב דאית בה חסרון כיס, even though there is a loss of money, he actually damaged him, but nevertheless, כיוון דלא שכיחא, since it's not a common thing, לא עבדינן שליחותייהו, we do not do their שליחות, and we do not פסקן it in בבל. בושת, to pay for embarrassment, אף על גב דשכיחא, even though it is common, כיוון דלית בה חסרון כיס, since there is no loss of money there, לא עבדינן שליחותייהו, we do not do their שליחות, and we do not פסקן. Then the

גמרא asks, שור בשור גובין בבבל, and concerning the damage done by an ox to an ox, we do collect in בבל. That's what the גמרא said before, that a שור בשור we do collect in בבל. והא אמר רבא, didn't רבא say, שור שהזיק, if an ox damages, אין גובין אותו בבבל, we do not collect the money in בבל? And the גמרא says let's see what it means: דאזיק מאן? Whom did this ox damage? אילימא דאזיק אדם, if we say it damaged a person, מאי איריא שור דאזיק אדם? So why would he mention if an ox damaged a person? אפילו אדם דאזיק אדם נמי אין גובין אותו בבבל! Even if a person damaged a person, you don't collect it in בבל, certainly if an ox damaged a person, because a person to damage a person is more common than an ox to damage a person. So if in something which is more common we don't judge it in בבל, so certainly something which is less common! So then when he said that if a שור damaged, you don't collect it in בבל, he definitely didn't mean if a שור damaged a person, because then he would have said a person to damage a person you don't judge it in בבל, and then we'd still understand ourselves that certainly if an ox damaged a person you don't. So therefore we must say, אלא what does he mean? פשיטא, it's definitely דאזיק שור, that we're talking here about an ox that damaged an ox. וקתני, and we learned, אין גובין אותו בבבל, that you do not collect it in בבל. So it contradicts what we learned before, that the damage of a שור בשור we do collect in בבל. And the גמרא answers, אמרי, I will tell you: התם בתם, there we're speaking about a תם, והכא, here we're talking about a מועד. A תם is the first few times that an animal gores, and there we say the דין is you pay only חצי נזק, you pay only half of the damage. And we פסקן that פלגא נזקא קנסא, that when you pay only for half of the damage, it is considered a קנס. באמת you shouldn't have to pay at all. The תורה just fined the person to pay חצי נזק, half of the damage. But when he does it a few times and he becomes a מועד, then you pay complete damage, and then it's not considered a קנס, then it's considered ממון. And that's what he's saying here. That when רבא said that you do not collect money for the damages of an ox in בבל, that is the case of a תם, because it's קנס. But what we said before that you do collect in בבל the damages of an ox, that's in the case of a מועד. But then the גמרא asks, והא אמר רבא אין מועד בבבל, but didn't רבא say that there is no such thing as a מועד in בבל? Since you can't collect for it being a תם, it could never become a מועד, because the way an ox becomes a מועד is that you come to בית דין a few times and they testify that the ox gored once, and a second time, and a third time, so then it's a מועד. But if there is no reason to come to בית דין the first time because you don't collect the first time, and the second, and the third, because it's only a תם, so it'll never turn into a מועד! So how can you say that when he said that you do collect for it in בבל it's the case of a מועד, when there is no such thing as a מועד in בבל? And the גמרא says, אמרי, I will tell you: דאייעוד התם ואתו להכא, that he became a מועד there in ארץ ישראל. The first few times it gored in ארץ ישראל, and it became a מועד, and now it came to בבל and gored in בבל, and that's what he says, that now you would collect even in בבל for this time that it gored while it was a מועד. But then the גמרא asks, ומילתא דלא שכיחא היא, isn't this a thing which is not common? ומילתא דלא שכיחא הא אמרי דלא עבדינן שליחותייהו, and we said before that concerning a damage which is not common, we do not do their שליחות, and we do not פסקן it in בבל. So in that case, since it's not common for an ox to gore in ארץ ישראל and become a מועד there and then come here to gore, so in a case like that we shouldn't collect it in בבל because it is לא שכיח, and we do not do the שליחות in the case of מילתא דלא שכיחא! And the גמרא answers, דאתו רבנן דהתם להכא. Not that the ox was in ארץ ישראל and there it was brought to בית דין a few times and became a מועד and then they brought the ox here, the חכמים from ארץ ישראל happened to be in בבל, and an ox in בבל gored a few times, and while the חכמים from ארץ ישראל were here, who have סמיכה, it turned into a מועד, because since they do have סמיכה, they could פסקן even the דינים of a תם, so they brought it to them, and then it became a מועד. So that is something that is more here. But the גמרא asks:

סוף סוף, but after all, מילתא דלא שכיחא היא, even this is a thing which is not common, that it should be that the חכמים from ארץ ישראל should happen to be here, and that's when it happened to gore, and it turned into a מועד, etc. And ואת אמרת, and you said, מילתא דלא שכיחא לא עבדינן שליחותייהו, and a thing which is not common, we do not do the שליחות. So we're back to the question, when did רבא say that the damages of an ox to an ox we do judge in בבל? אלא the גמרא says: כי קאמר רבא, when did רבא say that? בשן ורגל. Only if the damage was done through שן ורגל, through tooth or through foot. Because among the types of damages that could be done through a שור, through an ox, is or קרן, which means it's done through the horn, but it doesn't mean only through the horn. But it means anything which כוונתו להזיק, that the ox has intentions to be מזיק. That is one thing, and concerning that category, the דין is that it first is a תם, and you only pay חצי נזק, and later it becomes a מועד and you pay נזק שלם. Or it could be done through שן ורגל, through eating, and the category of eating means יש הנאה להיזקו, if it has pleasure, has benefit from its damage. Or through רגל, which means through walking, through stepping, and the category of רגל is anything which היזקא מצוי, anything which the damage is common, because it just walks and automatically it will damage. So anything that is in that category is included in the category of רגל. So these are מועדין מתחילתן. They are a מועד from the beginning. There's no such thing as first paying חצי נזק, and after a few times you pay נזק שלם, by the case of שן ורגל. There you pay נזק שלם from the beginning, and it's considered a מועד from the beginning. And that's what רבא meant, that if an ox damages through שן ורגל, for instance, if during its walking it stepped on another ox, that's רגל. Or it rubbed itself on another ox for its own pleasure, that is שן. So there we say that this could be judged in בבל. But if the ox damaged through קרן, in a form of כוונתו להזיק, it intended to be מזיק, so there we could never judge it in בבל, not if it's a תם, and not if it's a מועד. Not if it's a תם, because it's קנס, חצי נזק is קנס, and not if it's a מועד, because it never could become a מועד. And even if it became a מועד in ארץ ישראל and came down here, still we wouldn't be able to judge it, because it is a מילתא דלא שכיחא, and as we said before, by anything which is not common, we have no authority to do the שליחות of the other דיינים and פסקן it in בבל.