Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת בבא קמא דף פ"ו, but we will start on דף פ"ה עמוד ב', four lines from the bottom of the עמוד. The גמרא says, בעי רבא, רבא asked, and he asked a question: What would be the דין, שבת הפוחתתו בדמים מאי הוא, if you caused someone an injury, an injury that made him lose time from work, and that's all, but that same loss of time also makes him lose his value, but only in a temporary way? And the גמרא explains, היכי דמי, how is that possible? כגון, for instance, שהכהו על ידו, he hit him on his hand, וצמתה ידו, and his hand got injured, but וסופה לחזור, at the end it will be, it will come back, it'll be healed. מאי, what is the דין? And the problem here is that even though eventually it'll be healed, but at this moment, if he would be sold as a slave, they wouldn't be able to get for him the same amount of money as they would get for him if this wouldn't have happened to him. So even though this is only a temporary thing, there is only a loss of time here till it's going to heal, but nevertheless, because of that, at this moment, he will not be able to be sold for the same amount of money. So there is a certain depreciation at this point. And as תוספות explains, it's in a case where people will not be able to tell whether it is temporary or permanent. If it is a case where people could tell that this is only temporary, then there is no depreciation whatsoever, and therefore, even if he would be sold as a slave now, he would get the full value. And therefore, there would be no שאלה in the גמרא, definitely there is no נזק that should be paid for him. But the question is in a case where you cannot tell whether it's temporary or permanent, and therefore, if a person is going to buy him as a slave, would definitely not pay the full value at this point, thinking maybe it's going to be permanent. But the truth is, it's only temporary. So the question is, do you pay for נזק also, do you pay for the depreciation, because at this point he is depreciated, or since in truth there is no real depreciation, it is only שבת, only the loss of time, so therefore you would not pay for נזק? And he explains, כיון דסופה לחזור לא יהיב ליה ולא מידי, since eventually it's going to go back to the way it was, it's going to be healed, so therefore he gives him nothing for נזק, או דילמא, or maybe השתא מיהא אפחסה, now at least he did cause him depreciation, and therefore he should pay him for נזק? And the

גמרא says, תא שמע, come hear, I'll resolve the question, because we learned in the משנה later on on דף פ"ז עמוד א', המכה אביו ואמו ולא עשה בהן חבורה, if someone hits his father or his mother, but he didn't make in them a חבורה, the דין is that if someone hit his father or his mother is חייב מיתה, is put to death, but that דין only applies if he made a חבורה, which means he caused it to bleed. But if he hit his father or his mother and it didn't bleed, then he is פטור from מיתה. So if he hit his father and his mother and he did not make a חבורה, or והחובל בחבירו ביום הכפורים, if someone makes a חבלה, an injury in his friend on יום הכפורים, חייב בכולן, he is חייב to pay for all five things. If he would hit his father or his mother and cause a חבורה, then he would be פטור from all payment. Since he would be put to death, the דין is that whenever you do something that causes two דינים, it is a cause for you to be put to death and also a cause for you to pay money, so we say קם ליה בדרבה מיניה, and you are פטור from paying, and you only get the death penalty. But in a case where he did not make a חבורה, so therefore he would not be put to death, so therefore he is חייב to pay for all five things. And the same is with somebody who makes a חבורה in somebody else on יום הכפורים, but still, since there is no מיתה for this act, so then he is חייב to pay for all five things, which means נזק, צער, ריפוי, שבת, and בושת. The גמרא explains,

האי לא עשה חבורה היכי דמי, when we say that he hit him, but didn't make a חבורה, how is that possible? לאו, don't you think the פשט is כגון שהכהו על ידו, he hit him on his hand, וסופה לחזור, and eventually it's going to heal? Because if it's a מכה that will not heal eventually, then obviously it does come with blood. It's impossible to hit somebody and it should be a מכה that should not heal, and it should be without blood, without a חבורה. So how can there be a case that he didn't make a חבורה in his father and his mother? Obviously, it's a case where it is going to heal. וקתני, and nevertheless we learned, חייב בכולן, that he has to pay all five things for it. So here we see clearly that in a case where you caused somebody be a מכה, but eventually it's going to cure, so it's only a temporary injury, but not a permanent injury. Nevertheless you are חייב for נזק, you have to pay for the depreciation, because here it says you pay for all five, which one of them is נזק. גמרא says: אמרי, I will tell you, הכא במאי עסקינן, here we could be talking in a case כגון שחרשו, a case where he made him deaf, ולא עשה בו חבורה, and he didn't make any חבורה in him. In other words, he hurt him, meaning he made him deaf, and for making deaf, as we know before, you have to pay for everything, and nevertheless he would not be חייב מיתה, because there is no חבורה, it didn't bleed. But then the גמרא says you can't say that, because

והאמר רבא, didn't רבא say: החורש את אביו נהרג, if someone makes his father deaf, he would get killed for that. איי, we said you only get killed if you make a חבורה, but in this case he says there was definitely a חבורה, לפי שאי אפשר לחרישה בלא חבורה, because it's impossible to make someone deaf without causing a חבורה, without causing it to bleed, because טיפת דם נפלה לו באזנו, we must say that a drop of blood at least fell into the ear, even though we can't see the blood come out, but if you made him deaf, definitely it bled inside. So we can't say that when the משנה says that when you hurt your father or your mother without making a חבורה, that it means that he made him deaf, because that is called a חבורה. אלא הכא במאי עסקינן, therefore we must say, כגון שגלחו, for instance, he shaved him, he cut off his hair against his will. So then you have to pay for all five, and it's not a חבורה. But then the גמרא says, if גלחו, if the problem is that you shaved his hair without his will, מהדר הדר, won't that grow back? והיינו בעיין, and that is what was our question. So again we have the answer to the question. If the פשט in the משנה is that you cut him against his will, and there the משנה says you have to pay for all five, including נזק, so that is automatically the answer to our question, because here it's a case where you did something to him that will come back, and we say you have to pay for all five, so that shows that if you cause him an injury that's only temporary and eventually it'll come back, it'll be healed, you will have to pay for נזק. But then the גמרא says, אמרי, I will tell you, הכא במאי עסקינן, perhaps it's talking in a case כגון שסכו נשא, he smeared him with this drug called נשא, and that causes you to lose the hair, דלא הדר, you lose your hair and the hair doesn't grow back again. So for that you have to pay for all five, and in this case we have no ראיה that in a case where you cause him a temporary injury that you do have to pay for נזק, because this is not a temporary thing, this is a permanent thing. And the גמרא explains why you have to pay for all five, which is צער, ריפוי, שבת, ובושת, plus נזק. So why you have to pay for נזק, the גמרא doesn't have to explain, because since he has no hair, he lost some of his value, therefore you have to pay for that. But why do you have to pay for the rest? So the גמרא explains: צער, why do you have to pay for pain? Because it could be a case דאית ליה כתופנה ברישיה, he has sores on his head, וספחה מהני כתופנה, and because of these sores he has pain. So when you put that, this נשא on the head, that caused him to have pain. ריפוי, why would you have to pay for his medical expenses? Because דבעי אסויי, you have to cure that, you have to go through a medical treatment in order to cure that. שבת, what could be the case that you would have to pay for lost time? דהוה מרקד בכובי, could be a person that his job was to dance in the stores, in the wine places, דבעי מחוי גוניא ארישא, that his, one of his things he's supposed to do is shake his head in certain ways, ולא מחוי מהני כתופנה, now he can't do it because of these sores that he has, so he lost time of his work. בושת, why should you have to pay for embarrassment? Because אין לך בושת גדולה מזו, there's no greater embarrassment than making someone lose his hair. So therefore, the משנה is a case where it doesn't come back, so we have no ראיה what would be the דין in a case where you cause someone an injury that will come back, meaning it'll be cured, it's only a temporary injury, whether you have to pay for נזק or not. And the גמרא says, ומילתא דבעיא ליה לרבה, and this thing which was a question to רבה, פשיטא ליה לאביי להאי גיסא ולרבא להאי גיסא. So to אביי and רבא it was simple, they had no question. But to אביי, he learned to one direction, he had one opinion, and רבא had another opinion. But both didn't have any ספק. In both's minds it was not a doubt. They both פסקנד the דין, but אביי פסקנד it to one side, and רבא to another side. דאיתמר, because we learned: הכהו על ידו וצמתה, if he hit him on his hand and he injured it, וסופה לחזור, but the end will be it's going to come back, it'll be cured, אביי אמר נותן לו שבת גדולה ושבת קטנה. אביי says you have to give him the big שבת and the small שבת. Now the big שבת, that is another term for נזק, for depreciation. The small שבת means for the loss of time that he had till it was cured. And רבא, רבא says אינו נותן לו אלא דמי שבתו שבכל יום ויום. You only give him the money for the loss of time of each day, but you do not give him what he calls שבת הגדולה, which is the depreciation, the נזק. So we see clearly that אביי held in this case that you do pay for נזק, and רבא held in this case that you don't pay for נזק. Then the גמרא says, איתמר, we learned, הקוטע יד עבד עברי של חבירו, if someone knocks off the hand of an עבד עברי of his friend, and here we're not talking in the case where it's going to be healed. He chopped off his hand, and that's the way it's going to stay, it's a permanent thing. But he did it to an עבד עברי of his friend. Now an עבד עברי is a איד that hired himself out to another איד, so he works there for a certain amount of years, and he is similar to a worker. He's not considered really an עבד, but he is nevertheless obligated to work constantly for his master. So now that someone cut off his hand, so two things happened here: there is a נזק that was done to him, now his value, the value of the person as a whole, is lessened, and also he cannot work. So there the דין is: אביי אמר, אביי says, נותן לו שבת הגדולה לעבד, ושבת הקטנה לרב. The שבת הגדולה, which is the depreciation, the נזק, he gives to the עבד, because the עבד, since he doesn't belong to his master, he is a person for himself, he just has to work for his master a certain amount of time. So the depreciation goes to him. He is the one that lost the value of himself. So that goes to the עבד. But the שבת הקטנה, the fact that he's not able to work during this time, so that goes to his master. Since he is obligated to work for his master, so his master is the one that loses. So therefore you have to give that to his master. רבא אמר, but רבא says, הכל נותן לעבד, everything is given to the slave, to the עבד himself. But, since there was a loss in the time of work for the master, so then ילקח בהן קרקע, with the money you buy a field, והרב אוכל פירות, and the master will eat the fruit. Since the master did have a loss, so with the money that is given to the עבד, you have to see that the master should get some profit from it. Just like the master would have gotten profit from the עבד, he would have worked for him, so now that you pay for the עבד, for the injury, so that money is supposed to bring certain profit also to the master. So what you so what you do is you buy a field with that money, and the פירות, the fruit, the benefit, goes to the master. And the גמרא explains, פשיטא, that is simple that the case was פחתו בעצמו ואצל רבו לא פיחתו, if the case was that the damage that was done only made him lose his value, but it had nothing to do with the master, it didn't stop him from working, so there was no loss to the master at all. היכי דמי? For instance, דפסקה לריש אודניה, he cut him in top of his ear, או דריש נחיריה, or on his nostril. So a case like that, he lost value, but it had no effect on his work to his master. So that is simple, הכל לעצמו, that you pay everything for him. There is no money given to the master on account of this injury. But if פיחתו אצל רבו, but if the damage was that it also caused a loss to his master, not only a loss to him, but it also caused a loss to his master, because he did something to him that doesn't allow him to work, so then איסתפקא לאביי ורבא. That's where there is a מחלוקת between אביי ורבא, whether you pay as the גמרא said before according to אביי, the נזק goes to the עבד and the שבת הקטנה, the loss of time goes to his master, or the way רבא says, that everything goes to the עבד, but you use the money to buy a field, and the פירות go to the master. But one might ask, according to אביי who said that you give the שבת to the master, the נזק goes to the עבד, but the שבת goes to the master, so לכאורה there is still a loss to the master, because if he wouldn't have been injured, then he could have done a work which is more expensive. As the גמרא said earlier, he could have carried buckets of water. He could have send him on missions, and that is a much better job. While when you pay him for שבת, as we learned earlier, you pay him as if he would have been a שומר קישואין. You pay him a salary of a person who watches cucumber fields. Or if he couldn't even do that, you pay him as a שומר הפתח, as a person who would guard the door. So it comes out that the master loses money. So תוספות says, nevertheless you can't help it, because we consider it as the דין where it says that if the עבד became sick, then he doesn't owe anything. We say נסתחפה שדהו, too bad, it's tough luck. So therefore here too, all we say is we pay him as much as we would pay normally for שבת, either is a loss to the master, we can't help that, that is his tough luck. Also, in the opinion of רבא where we said before that everything goes to the עבד, but you use the money to buy a field, and the פירות goes to the master, so תוספות says that that is not the right גירסא. The right גירסא should be that according to רבא you נותן הכל לרב. that everything is given to the master. And תוספות explains why, because if you're going to say everything is given to the עבד, why should the שבת קטנה be given to the עבד? שבת קטנה, which is the money for loss of time, that definitely should go to the master. Why should that go to the עבד, since the עבד was obligated to work for the master? So therefore תוספות says, the גירסא is supposed to be that according to רבא, everything goes to the master, and what it means is like this, that the money given for the שבת קטנה for the loss of time, that goes to the master completely. The money that is given for the שבת גדולה, for the נזק, so for that is he will hold that you buy a field, and the פירות from that also go to the master. Ah, you could ask, why should the פירות of the נזק go to the master after we give him the money for the שבת? So he got his money back for the loss of time that the עבד should have worked for him, so why should the פירות of the money for the נזק also go to the master? So תוספות says, because even if you pay him for the שבת, he still has a loss, because if not for the נזק, if not for this injury, he could have done a more expensive job. As we said before, he could have carried buckets, or he could have sent him on missions. So even if you pay him for the שבת, he still has a loss because of the injury. So therefore, when he gets paid for the injury, meaning he gets paid for the נזק, part of that also has to go for the master, רבא holds. And therefore רבא says that you take that money, and you buy a field with that money, and the פירות go to the master. Also, the last thing what we learn in the גמרא, that this is simple, that if there was a loss only for him, but the loss had no effect on his work to the master, for instance, if he cut his ear, etc., so then definitely everything is given to the עבד. Where is the מחלוקת between אביי ורבא in a case where פחת אצל רבו, where there was a loss to his master. So as we said before, רש״י learns it means that there was also a loss to his master. There was a loss to him, but also to his master. And that's where there's a מחלוקת between אביי ורבא. But the גמרא did not mean פחת אצל רבו that if there was only a loss concerning his master, that's where there is a מחלוקת between אביי ורבא. So תוספות says, that באמת the right גירסא and the right פשט is the way we have it, that there was a loss also to his master, that's where there's a מחלוקת between אביי ורבא. But nevertheless, we could also learn the פשט that the גמרא means that it was only a loss to his master, and that's also a place where there's a מחלוקת between אביי ורבא. But לכאורה, why should there be a מחלוקת between אביי ורבא? The whole מחלוקת between אביי ורבא was if there's a loss to both, he loses the depreciation, then there is a loss of time, so that's where there's a מחלוקת, what is done with the money? But why should there be a מחלוקת between אביי ורבא if there was only a loss to his master? Definitely, everyone should hold that all the money should go to the master. So תוספות says we could say בדוחק that this is also a מחלוקת between אביי ורבא. And the reason for that is that, for instance, the case is that he hit him on his hand, and he injured his hand, but eventually it's going to come back before his time will be up that he will be free to go out of the possession of his master. So אביי holds that the שבת קטנה goes to the master, the loss of time definitely goes to the master, but the שבת גדולה, which is the נזק, goes to the עבד, even though the עבד loses nothing, because by the time he will go out and be his own free man, he will be healed already. So the whole loss is only during the time that he works for his master. So then why should he get anything of that? Nevertheless, אביי will hold that since this is payment for נזק, for the נזק of hurting, injuring his hand, and אביי holds that payment for נזק goes to the עבד, even though it is during the time when he belongs so to speak to his master. But רבא holds that everything is given to the רב. And in this case, רבא would hold, not like he said before, the way תוספות learned, that the loss of time goes to the master completely, but for the נזק you take the money, and you buy a field, and the פירות are given to the master, but in this case, since he will be cured by the time he leaves, so the money, even for the נזק, goes completely for the master. So it comes out that when the גמרא says there's a מחלוקת between אביי ורבא in this case, it could also mean in a case where פחת אצל רבו only, the loss was only to his master, and still there's a מחלוקת between אביי ורבא, that according to אביי, you would still give the נזק to the עבד, and according to רבא, the נזק will go completely to the master. Then the גמרא says, we learn in the משנה, בושת, הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש, that when you pay for embarrassment, it all depends on the one that embarrassed, and on the one that's being embarrassed. So that it depends: if the one that's embarrassed is a lower person, then there is more embarrassment; if the one that was embarrassed is a more חשוב person, then there is more money for embarrassment; if it wasn't that way, then you pay less for embarrassment. In other words, not everyone is

equal when it comes to pay for embarrassment. But the גמרא says, מאן דמתניתין? Who is this משנה? Who is the תנא of this משנה? לא רבי מאיר ולא רבי יהודה, it can't be, not רבי מאיר, and not רבי יהודה, אלא רבי שמעון היא, we must say that it is רב שמעון. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, when it comes to pay for embarrassment, so it says וכולן רואין אותן, concerning all people, we look at them כאילו הן בני חורין שירדו מנכסיהם, as if they are free men, not עבדים, but free men, that went down from their possessions, meaning that they were once rich and became poor, שהן בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב, they're all children of אברהם, יצחק, ויעקב. In other words, they're all equal. When it comes to pay for embarrassment, we don't make a difference between one and the other. We look at them all, we judge them all as if they are people that were once rich and became poor, and nevertheless they are all the children of אברהם, יצחק, ויעקב, and there is one price for all people. And as תוספות explains that even if the person is rich, but nevertheless there are different levels in how a rich person would be embarrassed. You could have a rich person that is not embarrassed more than a free man, a regular איד, who was once rich and became poor. On the other hand, you have poor people who are embarrassed that way too. So you can't know exactly what kind of level this person is in, and therefore there is one דין concerning all. Since we do not know exactly, concerning this individual person, what kind of feeling he has in the embarrassment, so therefore we can't make any differences in the דינים, and therefore רב מאיר says that everyone is judged equally. דברי

רב מאיר, that's the opinion of רב מאיר, that you always pay for embarrassment the same no matter who he is. But רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, הגדול לפי גדלו, the great person based on his greatness, והקטן, the small one, לפי קטנו, according to his smallness. In other words, each person is judged individually. רב שמעון אומר, רב שמעון says, עשירים, when it comes to rich people, רואין אותן, we look at them כאילו הן בני חורין שירדו מנכסיהם, as if they are regular אידן, free men that were once rich and became poor. That is true, we don't judge them as if they are rich, but nevertheless we judge them as if they were people who were rich and became poor. עניים, if they were poor, כפחותין שבהן, if a poor man was embarrassed, we judge him as the lowest level, the most poor person amongst the poor. So it comes out that he also holds that there are differences between one person and another. That if they are rich people, then we judge him in the level as he said, if they are poor, we judge him even in a lower level. So these are the three opinions on how you judge the payment of בושת. So the גמרא says, השתא, now, מאן, who is the תנא of our משנה? אי רב מאיר, if you're going to say it's רב מאיר, that can't be, because מתניתין קתני, in the משנה it says הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש, that it depends on the level of the one that embarrassed him and the one that was embarrassed, but רב מאיר כולהו בחדא דרגא דיינינן להו, according to רב מאיר they're all equal. So this תנא of the משנה cannot be רב מאיר. אי רבי יהודה, if you're going to say it's רבי יהודה, who says clearly that there is a difference between a great person and a small person, so he would definitely fit in the משנה, but for a different reason we cannot say רבי יהודה is the תנא of our משנה. Because מתניתין קתני, further on,

in the next משנה we learned, המבייש את הסומא חייב, that if you embarrass a blind person, you're still חייב, ואילו רבי יהודה אומר, but רבי יהודה we know says סומא אין לו בושת, that a blind person has no בושת, that you do not pay for embarrassing a blind person. So because of that part of the משנה, we cannot say the תנא of our משנה is רבי יהודה. אלא לאו רב שמעון היא, so therefore we must say it's רב שמעון. Because רב שמעון also makes a difference between different people. He says rich people have one level and poor people have another level. So in our משנה it also says that הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש, that there are different levels, so it fits the opinion of רב שמעון. Then the גמרא says no, אפילו תימא רבי יהודה, באמת you could say it goes according to רבי יהודה. איי we said it doesn't fit according to רבי יהודה, because in our משנה later on it says that if you embarrass a blind person you are חייב, and רבי יהודה says that if you embarrass a blind person you are פטור, says כי אמר רבי יהודה סומא אין לו בושת, when did רבי יהודה say that there is no payment of embarrassment for a blind person? למישקל מיניה, to take from him, that's what he meant. If a blind person embarrasses somebody else, then he says there is no דין of בושת, the blind person is not obligated to pay. אבל למיתב ליה יהבינן ליה, but he also holds to give him you do give, that if someone embarrassed a blind person, then you do have to pay. So then it does fit our משנה, because in our משנה it said that if you embarrass a blind person you have to pay, so we're talking about the blind person being the one that was embarrassed. So there, רבי יהודה also agrees that you do have to pay, so ממילא he fits to our משנה. But the גמרא says it can't be, ומדקתני סיפא, since in that משנה later on we learned, המבייש את הישן חייב, that if you embarrass a person while he's asleep, you are חייב, but then it says וישן שבייש פטור, but if a sleeping person, while he was asleep, embarrassed somebody else, he is פטור, ולא קתני, but the משנה did not say that סומא שבייש פטור, that if a blind person caused someone else embarrassment he is פטור. Because we see in the next משנה, which is right here on דף פו עמוד ב, it says like this: it mentions a few cases of עד דמתכוין ליה, a person is not חייב the death penalty for killing somebody else unless he actually intends for him, that's the opinion of רב שמעון. דכתיב, as it says, וארב לו וקם עליו, you will ambush him and you will get to him, get on top of him, it means עד שיתכוין לו, that it's only you're חייב if you actually intended for him. So בושת נמי עד דמתכוין ליה, so too you are חייב for embarrassment only if you intended to do it for him. דכתיב, because here we also have a פסוק where it says, ושלחה ידה והחזיקה במבושיו. Where do we know the דין of בושת בכלל? It says in the תורה that if two people argued, and the wife of one wanted to help her husband, so she came over to the other fellow, and ושלחה ידה, she stretched out her hand, והחזיקה במבושיו, and she grabbed onto his places of embarrassment. So there it says clearly that it's his places of embarrassment, his places. So the only time you are חייב if you did it by intention of doing it to him,

עד שיתכוון לו, till you intend to do it to him. And therefore, since we find that רבי שמעון holds the דין by מיתה, yeah, if you intend to do it to one and you do it to someone else you are פטור, so by the דין of בושת, he should also hold the same. So therefore, we cannot say that רבי שמעון is the one that said this ברייתא, because in the ברייתא it says that if you intended to do it to an עבד, and you did it to a בן חורין, you have to pay to him the amount of money you would have paid to the עבד, but according to רבי שמעון, you would be פטור completely, because you intended to do it to one person and you did it to somebody else. The גמרא says, לעולם באמת we could say רבי יהודה, this is רבי יהודה. אי, the question was that רבי יהודה holds אין לעבדים בושת, that there is no דין of paying בושת to an עבד at all, and in this ברייתא it says clearly that if you intended to do it to an עבד and you did it to a בן חורין, you do have to pay, but the amount you would have paid to the עבד, so how could you say it goes according to רבי יהודה? But וכי קאמר רבי יהודה אין לעבדים בושת, what did רבי יהודה mean when he said that there is no בושת to an עבד? למיתב ליה, that means to give to him. If you actually did it to an עבד, then you don't have to pay for that, אבל למשם שיימינן ליה, but to estimate it based on the עבד we do, because here the case was that you didn't actually do it to the עבד, you actually did it to a בן חורין, we're just using the עבד to estimate of how much embarrassment there is to see how much you have to pay to the בן חורין. So there he would admit that you do estimate it based on the עבד, and therefore the ברייתא could go even according to רבי יהודה. Then the גמרא says, ואיבעית אימא, if you want I could tell you, אפילו תימא רבי מאיר, that באמת the ברייתא could even be רבי מאיר. אי, we said that רבי מאיר holds that all people get the same amount of בושת, and in this ברייתא it says clearly different. It says if you intended to be מבייש a קטן, and instead you're מבייש a גדול, you have to pay to the גדול the amount you would have paid to the קטן, and that shows that there is a difference between a קטן and a גדול. And as we said before, a קטן means a poor man, and a גדול means a rich man, so we see there is a difference between paying for a poor or for a rich. So he says, no, מי סברת, do you think גדול means גדול בנכסים? When it says a גדול, means a person who is great in possessions, is a rich man, קטן means קטן בנכסים? לא, no, גדול גדול ממש and קטן קטן ממש. When it says גדול it means an adult, and קטן means a קטן, and there he admits that there is a difference between a קטן and a גדול. There is no difference between the levels of types of people, but definitely there is a difference between a קטן and a גדול, and therefore, if you intended to do it to a קטן, to a child, and instead you did it to a גדול, to an adult, you pay to the adult the amount of money you would have had to pay to the קטן. But then the גמרא asks, וקטן בר בושת הוא, is בכלל a קטן in the category of embarrassment? Since he is a child, he doesn't understand to get embarrassed, so there should be no payment at all for a קטן, for בושת. The גמרא says, אין, yes, כי דאמר רב פפא, like רב פפא said concerning something else, דמיכלם ליה ומיכלם, that there's a possibility that if you remind the child of the embarrassment he will get embarrassed, הכא נמי, so here too there could be a case דמיכלם ליה ומיכלם, that if they remind him of the embarrassment he gets embarrassed. So there is בושת to a קטן, and this is what the ברייתא meant, that if you intended to embarrass a child where there is embarrassment, and instead you embarrassed an adult, you have to pay to the adult the amount you would have had to pay to the child. And now we learn the משנה. The משנה says, המבייש את הערום, if you embarrass a naked person, or המבייש את הסומא, if you embarrass a blind person, המבייש את הישן, or you embarrass a person while he's asleep, חייב, you are obligated to pay for the בושת. But וישן שבייש פטור, on the other hand, if while a person was asleep, he embarrassed somebody else, then he is פטור. Then the משנה continues, נפל מן הגג, if someone fell off the roof, והזיק, and he damaged somebody, ובייש, and he embarrassed somebody, חייב על הנזק ופטור על הבושת, for the damage he is חייב, but he is פטור for the embarrassment, עד שיהא מתכוין, unless he will intend, because as we know till now that if you do not intend to embarrass somebody, then you are פטור for paying for בושת. Then the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן

learned, ביישו ערום חייב, if you embarrass somebody while he was naked, you are חייב to pay, ואינו דומה ביישו ערום לביישו לבוש, but still it's not the same if you embarrass somebody while he's undressed if you embarrass somebody when he's dressed. In other words, you pay less for embarrassing somebody while he's undressed, because the embarrassment is not that great, and you pay more if you embarrass somebody while he's dressed. ביישו בבית המרחץ, if you embarrass somebody while he was in the public bathhouse, חייב, you are obligated to pay for the בושת, but still, ואינו דומה ביישו בבית המרחץ לביישו בשוק, it's not the same if you embarrass somebody while he's in this public bathhouse לגבי if you embarrass him in the street, in the marketplace. It is a greater embarrassment if you do it in the street, and therefore you would have to pay more if you embarrassed him in the street לגבי if you embarrassed him in the בית המרחץ. Then the גמרא says, אמר מר, we just learned before, ביישו ערום חייב, if you embarrass somebody while he was undressed, you are חייב. So the גמרא asks, ערום בר בושת הוא? Is a person who is naked, is he in the category of being embarrassed? Since he doesn't mind to walk around naked in front of people, so obviously he has no embarrassment, so therefore why should you be חייב if you embarrass him? This is the way רש"י explains the פשט in this קושיא. And תוספות says that he doesn't understand, that how can we say, since he's walking around naked, that means that you can't embarrass him in any way? For instance, if you would spit him in the face, or someone would give him a slap, he definitely would get embarrassed. So what's the גמרא's קושיא, that since he is naked, you can't embarrass him? So therefore תוספות says the פשט is, that when it says in the ברייתא that if you embarrass somebody while he's naked, you're חייב, it means the embarrassment of uncovering him. And also the second part of the ברייתא, where it says if you embarrass somebody in the bathhouse, it also means if you embarrass him by uncovering him, undressing him. And that's the גמרא's קושיא: How can you say that if you embarrass somebody who is naked, you're חייב? ערום בר בושת הוא? If he is already naked, how can you embarrass him by making him naked? אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said, מאי ערום? What do we mean that you embarrass somebody who is naked? It means דאתא זיקא כרכינהו למניה, a wind came and picked up his clothes and uncovered him a little bit. ואתא הוא דלינהו טפי, so he came and picked it up even more, וביישו, and he embarrassed him. And for that, you are חייב. And תוספות explains that the reason why the גמרא has to say that a wind came and uncovered him, what would be if he himself uncovered himself in the street a little bit, and his friend came and uncovered him more? So, that's what the ברייתא means, that he is חייב for uncovering the naked person, because he uncovered him more than he did himself? So תוספות says, then, maybe he would be פטור. Because since he doesn't care himself to uncover himself, then maybe the person who uncovered him more wouldn't be חייב, because he uncovered a person who doesn't care to be uncovered, as we see that he uncovered himself a little bit before. Or another פשט תוספות says, that maybe the דין would be the same, that טאקע you would be חייב if he uncovered himself a little bit and you uncovered him more. But the גמרא picks an example which is common. And that is a common thing, a person should walk on the street and a wind should pick up his garment, and someone else would come and pick it up even more. But in דין, if he would have uncovered himself a little bit, and a person would come and uncovered him more, maybe he also would be חייב for בושת. Then the גמרא continues, we learned in the ברייתא, ביישו בבית המרחץ, if you embarrass him in the public bathhouse, חייב, you are חייב. The same question: בית המרחץ בר בושת הוא? Is a בית המרחץ a place where you could embarrass people? And רש"י says, since people are standing there naked, so then there is no בושת, there is no embarrassment there. And the way תוספות learns, it means, since the פשט in the ברייתא is that you embarrass him by uncovering him, so the גמרא's קושיא is, since in the מרחץ people are naked anyway, how is it possible for a person to embarrass another person by uncovering him in a place where he is naked anyway? אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said, שביישו על גב הנהר. It doesn't mean in the bathhouse, it means on the river, where people don't get undressed, where people just put their feet, etc., to cool off, etc. And that's where he embarrassed him. He uncovered him there, and that's a place where people do not stand uncovered, and that's why you are חייב. Nevertheless, the ברייתא says that if you would have done it in the street, you would be חייב more בושת, because the embarrassment is greater. Then the גמרא

continues, בעי רב אבא בר ממל, רב אבא בר ממל asked in a בעיא, asked a question: ביישו ישן ומת, מהו? If you embarrass somebody while he was asleep, and he died before waking up, מהו, what is the דין? Are you חייב to pay for בושת or not? And the גמרא explains the question. מאי קא מיבעיא ליה? What is his question? אמר רב זביד, so רב זביד said, הכא קא מיבעיא ליה, this was the reason of his question: Is the reason why you normally have to pay for בושת, משום כיסופא הוא, it is because of the embarrassment, because the feeling of the person himself that he is embarrassed? והא מית ליה, in this case he died, ולית ליה כיסופא, he had no embarrassment, since he didn't wake up after he was embarrassed, he died, so he never had the feeling of embarrassment, so you would be פטור from paying? או דילמא, or maybe, the reason you normally pay for embarrassment is משום זילותא הוא, it is because of the disgrace that was done to him in the eyes of other people? So in this case, והא אית ליה, you disgraced him here too. Since other people saw it, so it was done, so you have to pay for it. Obviously you would have to pay to his יורשים, but still, you are obligated to pay, because the reason why you normally pay for בושת applies here too. The גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I'll try to answer the question. We learned, that רבי מאיר אומר, רבי מאיר says, חרש וקטן יש להם בושת. A חרש is a deaf-mute, a קטן is a child, so there is בושת. If you embarrass them, you have to pay. שוטה אין לו בושת, but a שוטה who is a complete not-normal person, so by him there is no דין of בושת. גמרא says like this, אי אמרת בשלמא משום זילותא, if you are going to say that the reason you normally have to pay for בושת is because of the disgrace that you caused to him in the eyes of others, היינו דקתני קטן, that's why it says that a קטן also has בושת, even though we assume a קטן himself doesn't feel the insult, but nevertheless it is a disgrace in the eyes of others if you embarrass him, therefore you have to pay בושת. אלא אי אמרת משום כיסופא, but if you are going to say it's because of the feeling of insult that the person himself has,

קטן בר בושת הוא? Is a קטן in the category of feeling insulted, feeling embarrassed? So since we do see that a קטן is in the category of בושת, that proves that normally בושת is paid not for his feeling, but for what is done to him in the eyes of others. גמרא says, but אלא מאי, what are you going to say, משום זילותא, that the reason is because of the disgrace in the eyes of others, אפילו שוטה נמי, so then why is by שוטה the דין different? If you insult a שוטה, if you embarrass a שוטה, you also should have to pay, because even though he didn't feel it, but in the eyes of others he was disgraced. גמרא says, אמר, I will tell you, שוטה אין לך בושת גדולה מזו. The fact that he is a שוטה is the greatest בושת. This is the greatest disgrace itself. And whatever you do to him, you do not cause any more disgrace to him in the eyes of others. And therefore, by a שוטה you don't have to pay, but concerning a קטן you do have to pay. But מכל מקום נפשוט מינה משום זילותא הוא. But still the גמרא says, we could prove from here that the reason you pay for בושת is because of the disgrace in the eyes of others, because דאי משום כיסופא, because if it would be because of the feeling of embarrassment he has, קטן בר כיסופא הוא? Is a child in the category of feeling this embarrassment? So we see clearly here that the reason you pay for בושת is because of the disgrace in the eyes of others. So this would answer our question, that in the case where he was sleeping and he died, you still would have to pay, because he was disgraced in the eyes of others. גמרא says no, could be the reason is because of the embarrassment a person feels. אה, you ask the קשיא, a קטן doesn't feel embarrassment, כי דאמר רב פפא, it could be like רב פפא said, דמיכלמו ליה ומיכלם. That it could be a case that if you remind the קטן later on of his embarrassment, he

will get embarrassed. So there is a concept of embarrassment concerning a קטן. So הכא נמי, here too we could say that the reason it says that רבי מאיר holds that a קטן יש להם בושת is because of דמיכלמו ליה ומיכלם. It's a case of a קטן that if you remind him, he will become embarrassed, and therefore you do have to pay. So we have no answer to the question what is the reason why you pay for בושת, because here we cannot prove anything, because by קטן maybe it is because of the disgrace in others, maybe it is because of his feeling. Therefore, we still do not know the דין in the case where you embarrass somebody while he was asleep and he died without waking up first. רב פפא אמר, but רב פפא said, הכא קמיבעיא ליה, this was the question. The reason for his question was not as we said before, but a little bit different. The question was as follows: משום כיסופא דידיה הוא ומאיס ליה, is the reason why you normally pay for בושת is because of the feeling that he has, the embarrassment he feels, and therefore, in the case where he died, where he doesn't feel embarrassment, you do not pay, אי דילמא, or maybe משום בושת משפחה, it is because the embarrassment that the family feels for him, and therefore you have to pay. And in this case, even though he died, but the family nevertheless had the feeling of בושת, and that's why you still would have to pay. And that's why we said, תא שמע, come here, I'll prove you, I'll answer your question. We

learned חרש וקטן יש להם בושת, שוטה אין לו בושת. That רבי מאיר said that a חרש and a קטן do have בושת, you do pay for embarrassing them. But by a שוטה you do not pay for embarrassing. So אי אמרת בשלמא משום בושת משפחה, if you're going to say the reason you normally pay for בושת is because the embarrassment of the family, היינו דקתני קטן. Therefore, it says that if you embarrass a קטן, you also have to pay, because even though he doesn't feel embarrassment, but his family feels embarrassed. אלא אי אמרת משום כיסופא דידיה, if you're going to say that the reason is because of the feeling of embarrassment he has, קטן בר בושת הוא? Is a קטן in the category of feeling embarrassed? And therefore, since we say that a קטן is in the category of בושת, obviously it is because of the embarrassment of the family. גמרא says, אלא מאי, what are you going to tell me, משום בושת דבני משפחה, that that proves that you pay because of the embarrassment of the family, אפילו שוטה נמי, so then why if you embarrass a שוטה are you פטור? You should be חייב there too, since the family is nevertheless embarrassed, even though he is a שוטה? And the גמרא answers, שוטה אין לך בושת גדולה מזו. And if he is a שוטה, then there is no greater embarrassment for the family than the fact that he's a שוטה. And whatever you do to him will not cause more embarrassment to the family. Then the גמרא says, מכל מקום נפשוט מינה, but at least in the meantime we are able to prove from here דמשום בושת משפחה, that the reason you normally pay for בושת is because of the embarrassment of the family. דאי משום כיסופא, because if it would be because of the embarrassment that the person himself feels, קטן בר כיסופא הוא? Is a קטן in the category of feeling embarrassment? אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said, אין, yes, דמיכלמו דמכלמו ליה מיכלם, that if you remind him, he will later on feel the embarrassment. ותניא, and we טאקע learned that way. We have a ראיה from the ברייתא, we have a proof from the ברייתא to the opinion, to the סברא of רב פפא. Because we learned in the ברייתא: רבי אומר, Rebbe says, חרש יש לו בושת, that if he is a חרש, a deaf-mute, there is a דין of בושת, you do have to pay for embarrassing him. שוטה אין לו בושת, if you embarrass a שוטה, you do not have to pay for embarrassment. קטן, פעמים יש לו פעמים אין לו, a קטן, sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. Now, when is it that there is and when is it that there isn't? So we must say: הא דמכלמו ליה מיכלם, the case where we say that there is a דין of בושת is if it's a קטן that if you remind him later on, he would get embarrassed. And הא, the case where it says that he has no דין of בושת, is דמכלמו ליה ולא מיכלם, if it's a קטן that even if you remind him later on that he was embarrassed, he still won't get embarrassed. So then you do not pay for בושת. But here we see that there is a possibility for a קטן to feel בושת as רב פפא said. Then the גמרא continues, we

learned in the משנה: המבייש את הסומא, if you embarrass a blind person, you are חייב. The גמרא says: מתניתין דלא כי רבי יהודה, we must say the משנה does not go according to the opinion of רבי יהודה. דתניא, because we learned in the ברייתא, רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, סומא אין לו בושת, that a blind person doesn't have בושת. And as we learned before, this refers only to the case if a blind person embarrasses somebody else. So that's where רבי יהודה says that he is פטור. But רבי יהודה does admit that if someone embarrasses a blind person, you are חייב, because as we'll see later on, the reason why he holds that by a סומא there is no בושת is because he learns it out from the word עיניך, and that only applies if the one that did the embarrassment, he was blind, but if the blind person was embarrassed, concerning that case, the פסוק doesn't apply. So therefore, there is no reason why רבי יהודה should hold that if someone embarrasses a blind person, he should be פטור. So therefore, we must say that what does רבי יהודה mean when he says a blind person has no בושת, meaning that if he embarrasses somebody else, he is פטור. But according to that, why do we say that the משנה does not fit according to רבי יהודה? In the משנה, it just mentions that if you embarrass a blind person, you are חייב. But we just said that רבי יהודה also admits that if you embarrass a blind person, you are חייב. He just holds that if a blind person embarrasses somebody else, he is פטור. Where do we see in the משנה that the משנה doesn't go according to רבי יהודה? So רש״י says, as we said in the גמרא before, that from the משנה, it is clear that the משנה holds that if a blind person embarrasses somebody else, he is also חייב. Because in the משנה, we have a few cases: if you embarrass a naked person, if you embarrass a blind person, if you embarrass a sleeping person, you are חייב. And then, only concerning the sleeping person, the משנה says, but if a sleeping person embarrasses somebody else, he is פטור. If the דין would be that if a blind person embarrasses somebody else, he is also פטור, so the משנה should have said that, just like the משנה says if a sleeping person embarrasses somebody else is פטור. Since the משנה doesn't write that, obviously the משנה holds that even if a blind person embarrasses somebody else, he is also חייב. And that's why the גמרא says that the משנה does not go according to רבי יהודה, because רבי יהודה holds if a blind person embarrasses somebody else, he is פטור, and from the משנה we see that if a blind person embarrasses somebody else, he is חייב. And the גמרא continues: וכן היה רבי יהודה פוטר מחייבי גליות, so did רבי יהודה פטור a blind person from going to גלות. The דין is, if someone kills somebody else בשוגג, unintentionally, he has to go to ערי מקלט. But רבי יהודה holds that if a blind person killed somebody else בשוגג, he is פטור from going to ערי מקלט. And

also, מחייבי מלקות, if he did an עבירה where the punishment is מלקות, thirty-nine lashes, he is פטור from מלקות. ומחייבי מיתת בית דין, and he is also פטור if he did something that בית דין would normally kill him, but if he is blind, then he is פטור from death penalty. And the גמרא says: מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה? What is the reason of רבי יהודה? So concerning the first thing that he is פטור from בושת, it is because גמר, he learns out, עיניך עיניך מעדים זוממין. He makes a גזירה שוה from the word עיניך from the דין of עדים זוממין. By עדים זוממין it says, לא תחוס עינך עליו, and by בושת it says, וקצתה את כפה לא תחוס עינך. So we compare the two cases. Now, מה התם, just like there, in the case of עדים זוממין, סומא לא, there is no such thing as a דין of עדים זוממין concerning a blind person, because a blind person cannot be an עד to begin with. עדים זוממין is a case where two people testify a certain thing, and then other two people come and say, 'How can you claim you saw that, when at that time you claim you saw it, you were with us?' And then the דין is that you do to them what they wanted to do to the other person. But the only time there could be a דין of עדים זוממין if they are not blind, because if the first people were blind, then they couldn't come to testify לכתחילה. So just like concerning עדים זוממין, it only applies if they were not blind, but if they were blind, there is no such דין, אף הכא, so here too, concerning the דין of paying for בושת, סומא לא, a סומא doesn't pay. So that's how he knows that a blind person is פטור from בושת. וחייבי גליות, how does he know that he's פטור from גלות? דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא, the פסוק says concerning a person who killed someone else בשוגג, it says בלא ראות that he killed him not seeing, פרט לסומא, דברי רבי יהודה. That comes to exclude a blind person, that he could have seen him and he didn't, that's when you're חייב גלות. But if he couldn't see לכתחילה, so then he is פטור from גלות. That's the ראיה that רבי יהודה has that a סומא is פטור from going to גלות. רבי מאיר אומר, but רבי מאיר says, לרבות את הסומא. Just the opposite, בלא ראות without seeing comes to include a blind person. And even if he can't see, nevertheless, if he killed somebody בשוגג, he is חייב גלות. So then the גמרא asks מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה? What is the reason for רבי יהודה? Why does he hold that when it says בלא ראות, it doesn't come to include a blind person, but on the contrary, to exclude a blind person? אמר לך, he will tell you, the פסוק says ואשר יבא את רעהו ביער לחטב עצים, if you will come with your friend to the woods to chop wood, and then unintentionally you will kill him, you have to go to גלות. So, from this פסוק itself, it would come out ואפילו סומא, that even a blind person. The פסוק doesn't make any differences, it just says if you come with your friend to the woods to chop wood, and then something happens and you kill him, you are חייב גלות. So, this includes all people, including a blind person. So then when כתב רחמנא בלא ראות, when the תורה later writes without seeing, so obviously the תורה comes to tell us a new דין. So, it comes למיעוטא, to exclude. Since from the previous פסוק we would have thought that a סומא is חייב, so now the בלא ראות obviously comes to change that דין since it's an extra word and comes to include a blind person. But רבי מאיר, what is רבי מאיר's answer to this? So, he says like this: כתב רחמנא בלא ראות למיעוטא. That is true that the word בלא ראות as it is comes to exclude, it would seem to exclude a blind person. But the כתב רחמנא בבלי דעת, the תורה also adds another word, that he did it without knowledge, בלא דעת. That is also למיעוטא. That is also a פסוק that comes to exclude. So, הוה מיעוט אחר מיעוט, so it's one exclusion right after another exclusion. One פסוק that comes to exclude a דין, and then right away another פסוק that also comes to exclude a דין. And we

have a rule, ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות, that whenever you have two מיעוטים, two פסוקים that come to exclude one after another, then automatically it means to include. It's similar to the concept of two negatives make a positive. So, therefore, he says that even though the פסוק itself would come to exclude, but since we have two מיעוטים, it automatically comes to include. And therefore, he learns that it comes to include a blind person, that a blind person is חייב גלות. But then the גמרא asks, ורבי יהודה, what does רבי יהודה do with the פסוק בבלי דעת? Isn't it a פסוק to exclude? So, isn't it a מיעוט אחר מיעוט? So, he should hold also that it comes to include. Why does he say that we exclude a blind person? So, he says ההוא בבלי דעת פרט למתכוין לדבר אחר. These words, בבלי דעת, come to tell us to exclude if he intended to do it. So that we can't use this word בבלי דעת as a continuation to the מיעוט of בלא ראות, so we don't consider it a מיעוט אחר מיעוט, and therefore he holds that this comes to exclude the case of a סומא. Then the גמרא continues, חייבי מיתות בית דין, how does he know that a blind person is פטור from מיתות בית דין? So he says אתיא רוצח רוצח מחייבי גליות. He learns on the גזירה שוה the word רוצח that says by מיתות בית דין from the word רוצח where it says by חייבי גלות. And concerning גלות we said before, he is פטור, so there he is also פטור from חייבי מיתה. And this is the פסוק: by חייבי מיתה it says לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח, and by גלות it says לנוס שמה רוצח. So, we make the גזירה שוה, that just like by גלות we learned now that a סומא is פטור, so too by חייבי מיתה a סומא is פטור. חייבי מלקיות, how does he know that a סומא is פטור from מלקות? אתיא רשע רשע מחייבי מיתות בית דין. He learns on the גזירה שוה from מיתות בית דין. Just like by מיתות בית דין it says the word רשע, אשר הוא רשע למות, and by מלקות it says והיה אם בין הכות הרשע. So, we learn out one from the other, and we say that just like a סומא is פטור from חייבי מיתות בית דין, so too is a סומא פטור from מלקות. But

תוספות asks a קשיא, that how can we learn out that a סומא is פטור from בושת because we make a גזירה שוה to עדים? And just like by עדים there is no such thing as עדים that are blind, so too there is no דין בושת by a blind person. But if so, why only concerning a blind person do we make a גזירה שוה? Why can't we learn out that anybody who cannot be an עדות is automatically פטור from בושת? For instance, an עבד is פסול to be an עדות, so there should be no בושת by an עבד. A גזלן is פסול to be an עדות. If a person is a robber, he's פסול to be an עדות. So, then we should learn out a גזירה שוה that there should be no דין בושת concerning a גזלן. Ah, you might say, We have a ראיה that it's not so by an אשה. A woman is פסול to be an עדות, and nevertheless, she is definitely חייב בבושת, because the whole דין of בושת the תורה tells it by an אשה. If the woman grabbed him by במבושיו, she is חייב to pay, so the whole דין of בושת is mentioned by an אשה, so she is definitely חייב בבושת. So obviously, we cannot learn out that whoever is פסול עדות is פסול בבושת, and therefore, a גזלן and an עבד are חייב בבושת. But if so, why don't we say the same thing concerning a סומא? That let's prove from the fact that a woman is חייב בבושת, that has nothing to do with עדות, so a blind person too should be חייב בבושת even though he is not able to be an עדות. תוספות says that since we learn it out from the גזירה שוה עיניך, which is the eyes, so that shows us that the גזירה שוה is only concerning the eyes. Even though the word עיניך that says by עדים doesn't refer to the witnesses themselves, but nevertheless there is a word עיניך that says by עדות which is used of the גזירה שוה, so that teaches us that the גזירה שוה is only concerning the דין of sight. So therefore, the only one that we could use the גזירה שוה for is for a person who cannot see, and we say that just like by עדות, a person who cannot see cannot be an עדות, so too by בושת, a person who cannot see is not חייב to pay בושת.