Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכתא בבא קמא דף צ״א. We will start twelve lines from the top of the עמוד. The גמרא says, איבעיא להו, there was a question, an איבעיא asked in the ישיבה, יש אומד לנזקין או אין אומד לנזקין? Is there a דין of estimation concerning paying for injury or not? If a person injures somebody else and is brought to בית דין, does בית דין have to inspect the object with which he caused the injury to see whether it is an object fit to cause the injury or not? And the גמרא explains the question. מי אמרינן, do we say, לקטלא הוא דאמדינן, concerning death, that's where we estimate, as the פסוק says, באבן יד אשר ימות בה הכהו, that when is a person חייב מיתה, only if he hit him with a stone that is fit to kill. So you have to estimate the stone and see בהא נפקא נשמה, בהא לא נפקא נשמה, that with this instrument the נשמה could go out, he could kill him, and with this instrument the נשמה couldn't go out, he couldn't kill him. אבל נזקין, but when it comes to damages, כל דהו, then anything, you don't have to estimate as long as he hurt him, even if it was with an instrument that normally couldn't hurt him, nevertheless he is חייב, או דלמא, or maybe לא שנא, there is no difference, and also concerning נזקין, you have to inspect the instrument to see whether it is fit to cause the damage or not? And the גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I will resolve the problem.

Because we learned, מה בור שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים, the תורה says that if a person opens or digs a pit, and a שור או חמור, an ox or a donkey fall in and die, so the one that made the pit is obligated to pay. Now a regular pit has ten טפחים. And if a pit is ten טפחים deep, that is deep enough that if an animal would fall in, it would get killed. So that's what we learn out, that just like by a בור, when are you חייב if the animal that fell in got killed, is only if it had in it the שיעור, the size of being able to kill the animal, אף כל שיש בו כדי להמית עשרה טפחים, so too anything else that is in the category of pit, that we say you are חייב if it killed an animal, it is only if it has ten טפחים, then you're חייב. היו פחות מעשרה טפחים, if it was less than ten טפחים, ונפל לתוכו שור או חמור ומת, and an ox or a donkey fell in and died, פטור, so the one that made the בור, the pit is פטור, because it wasn't really big enough for it to kill the animal. But if הוזק בו, but if the animal that fell in was injured, חייב, he is חייב, even if it was less than ten. So the גמרא says, מאי לאו, don't you think, ממטה למעלה קחשיב, that he's counting from down up. He says like this: ten is enough to kill him; less than ten, then it's enough to be מזיק, and it makes no difference how much it is less than ten. As long as there is a pit of some size, you are already חייב. והכי קאמר, this is what he means: מטפח ועד עשרה, מיתה ליכא נזקין איכא, that from deep a טפח up to ten טפחים, מיתה it will not cause, it can't cause the animal to die, but נזקין it could cause. Ten could even cause מיתה, less than ten could cause נזקין, and it makes no difference how much less than ten. אלמא, so we see, לנזקין כל דהו, that when it comes to נזקין, it makes no difference how much. As long as it caused the damage, you are חייב.

שמע מינה, from here we see אין אומדין לנזקין, that we do not estimate for נזקין. We do not look to see whether it normally could cause this damage, because if we're going to learn the פשט, that when it says there that less than ten you are חייב only for נזק, and we're going to learn it means ממטה למעלה, from down up, meaning all the way you are חייב for נזקין, so it seems to show that you don't have to estimate to see whether it was fit to cause this damage or not. So the גמרא says, לא, no, ממעלה למטה קחשיב, he's counting from up down. Which means, והכי קאמר, this is what he's saying, עשרה מיתה איכא, ten טפחים could cause מיתה, could cause death. פחות מעשרה פורתא, if it's less than עשרה a little bit, נזקין איכא, it could cause damage, מיתה ליכא, it can't cause any death. ולעולם אימא לך, but still I could tell you, יש אומדין לנזקין, that you do have to estimate for the injury, וכל מידי ומידי, and everything, any type of injury, כהיכא דמיתזקא בעינן, and you need something that could cause that damage. All he is saying is that less than ten could cause damage, a little bit less than ten, מיתה cannot cause anymore, but damage it could cause. Now how big does it have to be in order to be חייב for the damage, it depends. You always have to inspect to see whether the damage that it actually caused could have normally been caused by that amount. And possible that it was deep enough to cause that damage, but it could be that it was not that deep and it caused the damage, and you would be פטור. So we have no ראיה that you do not inspect for damages, maybe you do inspect. So we're back to the question, do you inspect and estimate the object that the damage was done with in order to be מחייב him damage or not? Now the גמרא says, תא שמע, come hear. We

learned, הכה על עינו, a person hit his עבד כנעני, his goyishe slave, on his eye, וסימאו, and he blinded him, על אזנו, or on his ear, וחרשו, and he made him deaf, עבד יוצא בהן לחירות, the slave would go out free through these injuries, because the דין is that if he knocks out his eye, or he knocks out his tooth, or he knocks off any of the twenty-four ראשי אברים שאינן חוזרין, any of the twenty-four tips of the limbs that will not grow back, the עבד goes out free. And therefore, in this case, if he did it to his עבד, the עבד would go out free. But if he did it כנגד עינו, against his eye, meaning he hit on the wall, which is right against his eye, ואינו רואה, and that caused him not to see, כנגד אזנו, against, across his ear, ואינו שומע, and that made him not hear, but he didn't hit him directly over the eye or over the ear, אין עבד יוצא בהן לחירות, so the slave would not go out free with this injury. And מאי טעמא, what is the reason? לאו, don't you think, משום דבעינן אומדנא, because you have to estimate, you have to see whether the injury that he did was done in such a way that normally it would have caused the injury. ושמע מינה, and that proves, יש אומדן בנזיקין, that you do have to estimate and inspect concerning damages. Since we say here that if he did it across the ear or across the eye, he doesn't go out free, obviously because we feel that doing that normally should not have blinded him, normally should not have made him deaf, and therefore it is not considered an injury that he did. So we see clearly that when do we consider that he did the injury? Only if he did it in such a way that is fit to cause the injury. So that proves that when it comes to injury we do inspect and estimate to see whether it was fit to do it or not. But the גמרא says, לא, no. Maybe באמת we don't estimate when it comes to injury. But here the difference is משום דאמרינן, we say, הוא ניהו דאבעית נפשיה. He scared himself. What the person did was something else. He himself got scared, and that's why he became blind or deaf. So it's not the person that caused the injury, but he himself caused the injury to himself. So it comes out that normally, if a person injures somebody else directly, maybe you don't have to estimate, and we right away consider it that he is the cause, and therefore he would be responsible. But in a case where he did it to himself, someone did something outside of him, and he got scared himself, so then we cannot make the other person responsible, but we say that he is not the one that injured him. כדתניא, as we learned, המבעית את חבירו, if someone scares his friend, פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים. So concerning the דינים of בית דין של מטה, of the בית דין down here, he is פטור. בית דין cannot make him pay anything. But he is חייב בדיני שמים. Concerning השם, concerning the בית דין of the heaven, he is חייב, meaning he did something wrong towards השם. He didn't do something that he should be obligated to pay his friend, but concerning השם he did something wrong. כיצד, for instance, תקע באזנו, he hurt him in his ear, or he blew into his ear, וחרשו, and he made him deaf, פטור, he is פטור. אחזו ותקע באזנו, if he held onto the ear, and he blew into the ear, וחרשו, and he made him deaf, חייב, he is חייב. So what do we see? That the reason why he is פטור if he blew outside of the ear and he made him deaf, because he didn't touch him, so he didn't actually injure him. It was he that got scared himself because of the noise that was made outside. And therefore we say that he is פטור בדיני אדם. So from here we see that there is such a concept as saying that the person who was injured did the injury to himself because he got scared himself. So therefore there too, concerning the עבד, if he hit across in front of his ear or in front of his eye, and he made him blind or deaf, he doesn't go out free because we say that he scared himself. Then the גמרא continues, תא שמע, come and hear, I'll try to answer. Because so far we didn't come up with an answer to our question. So it's going to try to answer it, we learned:

חמישה דברים, the five things that we know you have to pay if you injure another person, which are: נזק, צער, ריפוי, שבת, and בושת. אומדין אותו, you have to estimate, ונותנין לו מיד, and you pay him right away. You don't wait till the time passes, for instance, that he wasn't able to work, and then you pay him for the time that passed. But right away, as soon as he injured him, בית דין will estimate all the five things, how much he has to give him, and you pay him right away. ריפוי ושבת, when they estimate how much you have to pay for medical expenses, or how much you have to pay for loss of time that he can't work, עד שיתרפא, you have to estimate now how much time it will take, and how much expenses as it will take, till he will be cured. You טאקע pay it right away, as we just said, ונותן לו מיד, you have to give it right away, but the בית דין estimates how much money this will involve. So they estimate right away how much is expected that the medical expenses should be, and how much is expected that he will have days losing work. אמדוה והיה מתנוונה והולך, let's say they estimated it for a certain amount of time, but he deteriorated and went on, and it lasted longer than the בית דין expected, אין נותנין לו אלא כמו שאמדו, you only give him as much as בית דין estimated, you don't pay him more.

אמדוה והברי, let's say they estimated that it would take a certain amount of time, and he cured faster, נותנין לו כל מה שאמדו, they nevertheless give him all the amount that they estimated. And they don't say since he was cured faster, so he has less medical expenses, or he loses less days of work, so he should pay him less. You pay him all the amount, the whole amount that the בית דין estimated לכתחילה that it would take. שמע מינה, so don't we see here that יש אומד לנזקין? That you estimate concerning נזקין? It says clearly here that the בית דין has to estimate to see what kind of damage was done and how much it would take to cure him, etc., so we see that when it comes to pay for damages, בית דין does have to estimate and inspect to see how much it is. So the גמרא says, what kind of ראיה is it? למימד גברא, to estimate the person, כמה ליקצר מהא מכה, how long he will be sick from this מכה, from this wound, כמה לא ליקצר, how long he won't be sick, לא קא מיבעיא לן, that wasn't even in question, דודאי אמדינן, that definitely we estimate. Definitely בית דין estimates how long we assume this person will be sick, how long it will take him to cure himself. כי קא מיבעיא לן, what was our question? למימד חפצא, whether we estimate the object that was used to cause the injury, אי עביד האי נזקא או לא, to estimate whether this could have caused the injury or not, whether we do that. מאי, what is the דין? Do we estimate or don't? For that we still didn't find an answer. So the גמרא says תא שמע, come here, I'll find you an answer. The גמרא brought earlier, it says שמעון התימני אומר, שמעון התימני says: מה

אגרוף מיוחד שמסור לעדה ולעדים. He דרשנ'ס the פסוק that it says הכה איש את רעהו באבן ובאגרוף, the תורה says that if a person will hit his friend with a stone or with his fist, and he will become sick, ונפל למשכב, will have to go to bed, so the person that caused the injury has to pay for his שבת and for his ריפוי. So the question is, why does the תורה mention באבן ובאגרוף? Give these two examples of a stone and a fist? So שמעון התימני says the תורה wants to teach us a דין, that we should compare the דין of אבן to אגרוף. And if it happened through a stone, has to be the same case as if it happened through the fist. What does that mean? מה אגרוף מיוחד שמסור לעדה ולעדים, just like the fist is particular thing that is given over to the עדה, meaning to the בית דין, and to the עדים. Meaning that not only the עדים see the fist to know that this was something that could have caused the injury, but also the בית דין sees it, because when this person is called to בית דין, בית דין is able to see his fist and able to judge whether his fist is strong enough that could have caused that injury. So אף כל, so anything else too, for instance a stone, has to be מיוחד שמסור לעדה ולעדים, has to be in such a way that it should be given over to the בית דין and to the עדים. Meaning that not only do the עדים have to see that his object, the instrument that he used to hurt the person was able to do it, but also the בית דין has to see that object, and בית דין has to judge to see whether it was able to cause the injury or not. So שמע מינה, from here we see that יש אומד לנזקין, that there is an estimation for נזקין, שמע מינה, that that proves it. So the הלכה is that בית דין would have to inspect to see whether the instrument he used to injure the other person, whether it is a kind of instrument that had the power, the ability, to cause this injury. Then the גמרא continues, אמר מר, we learned before, one of the things that mentioned in the גמרא before was that אמדוה והברי, if בית דין estimated him that it would take him a certain amount of time to heal himself, and therefore they said he has to pay a certain amount for medical expenses and for loss of time, but he cured himself faster, still נותנין לו כל מה שאמדו, you still have to pay him the same amount that they estimated. You don't deduct it from the amount of money he has to give. So the גמרא says מסייע ליה לרבא, this is a ראיה, a proof to something that רבא said. דאמר רבא, because רבא said: האי מאן דאמדוה לכולי יומא, if בית דין estimated the person that he would be sick a whole day, ואיטפח לפלגא דיומא, and he got cured in middle of the day, וקא עביד עבידתיה, and he went back to his normal work in middle of the day, still יהבינן ליה דכולי יומא, you still give him the money for for the full day, because משמיא הוא דרחמי ליה, because from heaven they had pity on him. In other words, a miracle happened and he was cured earlier. But that doesn't mean that the person that did it shouldn't have to pay for the normal medical expenses or for the normal loss of time. So we see that רבא's דין fits to that ברייתא that we brought before. Then the גמרא quotes from our משנה, it said: רק, a person spit, והגיע בו הרוק, and the spit reached him, or והעביר וכולו, or if a person took off someone's garment, or if a person uncovered the hair of a woman in the street, you have to pay 400 זוז. This is for בושת, for the embarrassment you caused to that person, you have to pay in these cases 400 זוז. אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said: לא שנו אלא בו, the דין was not said only him. When it said in the משנה if a person spit, and the spit reached him, you have to pay 400 זוז, that's only if it reached him, the person himself. אבל בבגדיו לא, but if it reached the clothes of the person, you wouldn't have to pay that. But then the גמרא asks why not? וניהוי כי בייש בדברים, why should this be worse than if you embarrassed him with words, if someone insulted somebody else? So then the גמרא feels at this point you have to pay, so why if you spit and it reached his clothes, you shouldn't have to pay? It shouldn't be worse than if you insulted him with words. אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבי יוסי בר אבין, so מערבא, in ארץ ישראל, they said in the name of רבי יוסי בר אבין: זאת אומרת, this טאקע proves, דבייש בדברים פטור מכלום, that if you insulted him with words, you are טאקע פטור from anything. Since it says that if you spit and it reached his clothes you are פטור, so from here we see that definitely if you only insulted him with words, you definitely are פטור, you don't have to pay for בושת. Then the גמרא says, like we learned in the משנה: הכל לפי כבודו וכולו, after the משנה gave a few sums of money that you have to pay for certain types of embarrassment, the משנה said: זה הכלל, this is the rule, הכל לפי כבודו, everything depends on the כבוד, the honor of the person, that if the person is more מכובדיק, a person with greater honor, you have to pay more, if he is less honor, you have to pay less. And then the משנה said that רבי עקיבא said that all are equal, that even the poorest of the אידן, we judge him as if he was once rich and became poor, and that's how much you would pay for his embarrassment, because after all he says all אידן are children of אברהם, יצחק, and יעקב. So the opinion of רבי עקיבא is not like the תנא קמא who holds that it depends on what type of person he is, but everyone is equal. The גמרא asks:

איבעיא להו, there was a question asked, תנא קמא לקולא קאמר או לחומרא קאמר? When the תנא says that the כלל is that it depends on the כבוד of the person, does he mean to be מקיל or to be מחמיר? When he mentioned those sums of money earlier in the משנה, and then he says the rule, everything depends on the כבוד, does that mean that it could be more than the amount of money he mentioned, or less? In other words, the amount of money that he mentioned, is that the minimum? That would be the least. And then he adds that everything depends on the כבוד of the person, that if the person is more מכובד you would have to give more than the amount of money he mentioned, or the amount of money he mentioned was the maximum, and what he says was that everything depends on the כבוד, if the person is not so מכובדיק, then you would give less than the amount of money that he mentioned? And the גמרא explains: לקולא קאמר, does he mean לקולא? Does he come to be more lenient? Meaning: דאיכא עני דלא בעי למישקל כולי האי, that there could be a poor man that wouldn't take that amount mentioned before, because the amount he mentioned was the maximum. או דילמא לחומרא קאמר, or maybe he means לחומרא, to be stricter, דאיכא עשיר דבעי למיתב ליה טפי, that there could be a rich man that you would have to give less, the amount of money he mentioned was for a poor man, but then if the person has more כבוד, he is richer, you would have to give him more. The גמרא says: תא שמע, come here, I'll answer your question. מדקאמר רבי עקיבא, since רבי עקיבא said, who argues on this תנא קמא, he says: אפילו עניים שבישראל, even the poorest of the אידן, רואין אותם, we look at them, כאילו הם בני חורין, as if they are regular free people, שירדו מנכסיהם, that used to be rich and they became poor, because שהם בני אברהם, יצחק, ויעקב, because they're all, after all, children of אברהם, יצחק, ויעקב. So he argues on the תנא קמא, and he holds that it doesn't depend on the כבוד of the person, they're all equal. And nevertheless, it says later in the משנה that there was a מעשה that one person uncovered the head of a poor woman, and עקיבא himself told him to give 400 זוז. שמע מינה, so this shows, דתנא קמא לקולא קאמר. שמע מינה, that the תנא קמא means לקולא, that 400 is the maximum. And when he said depends on the כבוד, means that sometimes it could be less. Because if the תנא קמא would mean that 400 is the minimum, and sometimes you have to give more, so when רבי עקיבא argues and he says everyone gets the most, everyone is equal, everyone gets like a rich man, so it would come out that everyone should get more than 400. If the תנא קמא would mean that

four 400 is for the poorest, and a rich man would get more, according to the תנא קמא, and רבי עקיבא says, "Everyone gets like a rich man," that means according to רבי עקיבא everyone should get more. So how come later did רבי עקיבא say that he has to give 400 when he uncovered the hair of that poor woman? So obviously, when he said that you give 400, that was the maximum. And that's why רבי עקיבא, who holds everyone gets the maximum, so he told that person to give 400. So it comes out that when the תנא קמא said that sometimes it's not 400, it depends on the כבוד, obviously he meant that sometimes you could give less. If the person is not rich, then you would give less than 400. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, מעשה באחד שפרע ראש אשה וכולו, there's a story of this one man that uncovered the head of a woman, and he came to רבי עקיבא. And רבי עקיבא said he has to give 400 זוז, so he asked רבי עקיבא that he needs time, so רבי עקיבא gave him time. So the גמרא asks, ומי יהבינן זמן? And is the דין that we give time? והאמר רבי חנינא, didn't רבי חנינא say, אין נותנין זמן לחבלות, that we do not give time when it comes to injury? If someone injures somebody else, he must pay right away, and we don't give him time till he's able to pay. So the גמרא answers, כי לא יהבינן זמן לחבלות, when is the דין that we do not give time for an injury? דחסריה ממונא, if he made him lose money. You injured him that he lost something, he became worthless, so that money you have to pay right away. אבל

לבושת, but when it comes to pay for embarrassment, דלא חסריה ממונא, that you didn't make him lose any money, so for that יהבינן, we do give time. And therefore, since in the case of the משנה it was a case only of embarrassment, therefore רבי עקיבא gave him time. Then the משנה continued, שמרו עומדת על פתח חצירו, this man, after he was given time by רבי עקיבא, waited until he saw that she was standing by the door of her yard. So what he did was, he broke a jar that had a little bit of oil in it in front of her. So she took off her head covering and collected the oil. And he had witnesses that saw her do this, so he brought the witnesses to בית דין, and he said to the בית דין, "Look, this woman you want me to pay her 400 זוז for uncovering her hair, that she herself uncovered her hair to get oil that was not worth more than an איסר. So how could I pay for her בושת 400 זוז?" So רבי עקיבא said to him, "Too bad. You tried, but you didn't succeed, because the דין is that even though a person is not allowed to hurt himself, but if he did, he is פטור. On the other hand, if someone else hurt him, he is חייב." So therefore, in this case too, she טאקע is able to damage herself, to embarrass herself, but if you did it to her, you have to pay. But the

גמרא asks, והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא that אמר לו רבי עקיבא, רבי עקיבא said to him, צללת במים אדירים, you dived into strong waters, והעלית חרס בידך, but nevertheless you brought up pottery in your hands, which means that it didn't do you any good, because אדם רשאי לחבל בעצמו, a person is allowed to hurt himself. So what kind of ראיה do you bring that you saw her uncover her hair, so therefore you want to be פטור? You should know, he said to him, a person is allowed to hurt himself. So if she wants to hurt herself, she wants to embarrass herself, she could do it. But that doesn't give you the right to do it, and if you did do it, you have to pay the amount that the חכמים said you have to pay. But in the meantime, we have a question: in our משנה he said that even though a person is not allowed to hurt himself, nevertheless he is פטור, and here he says a person is allowed to hurt himself! אמר רבא, so רבא said, לא קשיא, it's no קשיא. כאן בחבלה, כאן בבושת. One place we're talking about actually hurting yourself, and one place is embarrassing yourself. Where it says that a person is allowed to hurt himself, it doesn't mean hurt himself, it means to embarrass himself. Where it says that a person is not allowed to hurt himself, that's actually talking about an injury, that that he is not allowed to do. But to embarrass himself, a person is allowed. But the גמרא asks, how can we say that? והא מתניתין בבושת הוא, our משנה is talking about embarrassment, because what happened here was that she uncovered her hair, so all that happened was that she embarrassed herself. וקתני, nevertheless we learned, החובל בעצמו, that he said to him concerning that case that if a person is חובל in himself, damages himself, אף על פי שאינו רשאי, even though he's not allowed, פטור, he's still פטור. So we see that concerning the case of our משנה, he used the term that you're not allowed to do it, that even though you're not allowed to do it, if you do it you're פטור. So how can you say that in the case of embarrassment you're לכתחילה even allowed to do it to yourself? So the גמרא says, הכי קאמר ליה, this is what he meant to him. When he said to him concerning the woman who embarrassed herself that the דין is החובל בעצמו אף על פי שאינו רשאי is פטור, he meant to say that לא מיבעיא בושת, that is clear, certain concerning embarrassment, דאדם רשאי לבייש את עצמו, a person is לכתחילה allowed to embarrass himself. So there certainly you cannot prove that you should be פטור for embarrassing the person because the person embarrassed himself anyway. When a person embarrasses himself, he's allowed to do it. אלא אפילו חבלה, he says even more, even it would be concerning an injury, דאין אדם רשאי לחבול בעצמו, the person is not allowed to injure himself, so still אחרים שחבלו בו חייבין, that if others injured him they are חייב. Even in the case where the person we see injured himself, even though he wasn't allowed, and still he did it, nevertheless if an other person did it to him he is חייב, and you can't say, "Look, he's doing it to himself, even though he's not allowed to do it." So here too, we don't care, and we still say you are חייב. And that's what he meant. He didn't mean to use the term החובל בעצמו אף על פי שאינו רשאי פטור, that if someone injures himself even though he's not allowed he's פטור, concerning the case that happened, concerning the embarrassment. He wanted to show him how far this דין goes, that you can't prove from the fact that the person does it to himself that you're allowed to do it to him and you should be פטור if you do it. And how did he prove it to him? By saying that even in a case of injury, where he is not allowed to do it to himself, still if he did it, he is פטור, if someone else did it to him, he's still חייב. And we don't say, "Look, he did it to himself. He did something he wasn't allowed. So certainly I should not be חייב if I did it to him." Still the דין is that he is חייב. Then the גמרא continues, ואין אדם רשאי לחבול בעצמו? Is it true that a person is not allowed to injure himself? והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא? And this

ברייתא is concerning the דין of שבועה. It says in the תורה that if a person makes a שבועה, and the שבועה could be להרע או להיטיב, for something good or for something bad. For instance, a person can make a שבועה that he's going to not eat a certain thing, that is להרע, or a person can make a שבועה that, "I will eat a certain thing," this is להיטיב. And in both cases, if he makes such a שבועה and he doesn't keep his שבועה, so then the דין is that he is considered a person who is עובר on the שבועה, and whatever the punishment will be as the תורה says. Now the דין is that if he said the same thing, but concerning somebody else, for instance he said, "I will do bad to somebody else," so then the דין is that if he didn't keep his שבועה, he's still not עובר. How do we know that? Because the only time the שבועה is valid, only if the שבועה was concerning a דבר הרשות, concerning doing something that is not a מצוה, but on the other hand is not an עבירה. It is something that if you want, you could do. For instance, if the שבועה was he shouldn't eat a certain thing, it is bad not to do something, but nevertheless there is no עבירה involved if he doesn't do it. But if he makes a שבועה that he should do something bad to somebody else, that involves an עבירה, because you're not allowed to hurt somebody. So there the שבועה לכתחילה is not חל, is not valid, so therefore, if he makes the שבועה to do it, and he doesn't do it, he's not considered that he's עובר on the שבועה. And the ברייתא says as follows: יכול, I would think, נשבע להרע בעצמו ולא הרע יהא פטור, if he made a שבועה to do something bad to himself and he didn't do that bad thing to himself, he should also be פטור? תלמוד לומר, no, the תורה says, להרע או להיטיב, and if you make a שבועה or for bad or for the good, and the תורה compares the two: מה הטבה רשות, just like when it says to do good is a רשות, it's something that if you want you're allowed to do it, אף הרעה רשות. Also, if you make a שבועה to do something bad, it is a kind of bad that you're allowed to do if you want. אביא, so that comes to add, נשבע להרע בעצמו ולא הרע, if he made a שבועה to hurt himself and he didn't hurt himself, so that's when he is חייב for not keeping the שבועה. But it comes to exclude that he made a שבועה to do something bad to somebody else and he didn't do it, that he is פטור, since it is not considered רשות. The שבועה was not on something that he was allowed to do, it was on something that he wasn't allowed to do, because you're not allowed to hurt somebody else. So if you make a שבועה to hurt somebody else, and you didn't keep your שבועה, you're not עובר. But if you make a שבועה to hurt yourself and you didn't keep it, you are עובר on the שבועה, because it was a דבר הרשות. So in the meantime we see here that a person to hurt himself is not considered an עבירה, it's called a רשות, that if you want you could do it. So how can we say that a person is not allowed to injure himself, when here it seems that a person is allowed to hurt himself? אמר שמואל, so שמואל said, what do we mean here that hurting himself which is not considered an עבירה? באישב בתענית, that I will sit in a תענית, I will fast. Now that is a kind of hurting himself, but it's a רשות. It's something you're allowed to do if you want, there is no עבירה involved in a person fasting. דכוותה גבי הרעת אחרים, לאושיבם בתענית? But the גמרא asks, so it comes out that we're saying that if you do it to yourself, and if you make the same שבועה, but not concerning yourself, concerning somebody else, then the שבועה is not valid, because it's an עבירה. But we just said that what is the שבועה concerning himself? That he will fast. So when we say if you make the same שבועה concerning others, the שבועה is not חל, meaning, if you make a שבועה that you should that others should fast. Now how can that be? אחרים מי מצי למיסר בתעניתא? Others, how can he make them fast? So we must say that when it says that if you make a שבועה to hurt yourself, that's רשות, while if you make a שבועה to hurt others, it is an עבירה, it doesn't refer to fasting. It refers to injuring. And nevertheless it says that if you do it to yourself, you're allowed, it's not an עבירה, and if you do it to others, it is. But we would see that if you do it to yourself, it's allowed. The גמרא says, no, באמת it could be talking about fasting. אי, how could you make others fast? אין, yes, דמהדק להו באדרונא, that if you lock them up in a room, that you make a שבועה that you will lock someone up in a room and not allow them to eat, so that is considered an עבירה. And then the שבועה is not חל, is not valid, and if you don't keep your שבועה, you're not considered עובר on a שבועה. But if you say the same thing on yourself, you swear that you should fast, and you don't keep it, you are considered עובר on the שבועה, because it is a רשות, it's not an עבירה, because a person is allowed to fast. But we do not see still what would be the דין concerning a person injuring himself, whether it's an עבירה or not. But then the גמרא asks, והתניא, but didn't we learn in a ברייתא, it says clearly, איזו היא הרעת אחרים? What is the example of someone making a שבועה to do bad to others? If he says אכה פלוני, I'll hit that person, ואפצע את מוחו, I'll split his brain. So here we see clearly that the example given for hurting others is actually injuring him. So obviously when it says that if you make the same שבועה concerning yourself, it also means injuring yourself. And nevertheless, it said it's called רשות, that it's not an עבירה. To yourself, you're allowed to do it. So we see clearly that a person is allowed to injure himself. אלא, therefore the גמרא says, תנאי היא. This must be a מחלוקת between תנאים. דאיכא למאן דאמר, there is an opinion amongst תנאים that אין אדם רשאי לחבל בעצמו, that a person is not allowed to injure himself, as we see in our משנה, it says clearly that a person is not allowed to injure himself. ואיכא למאן דאמר, there is an opinion that אדם רשאי לחבל בעצמו, that a person is allowed to injure himself. And תוספות explains that according to this תירוץ, that there is a מחלוקת תנאים, so in their earlier קושיא the גמרא had, the סתירה between our משנה and the ברייתא, that in our משנה it says that רבי עקיבא said that a person is not allowed to injure himself, and in the ברייתא it says that he said a person is allowed to injure himself, and the תירוץ we gave before that one is talking about injury and one is talking about embarrassment, we don't have to come onto that תירוץ anymore. Now we're able to say that it's a מחלוקת תנאים, so there is also a מחלוקת amongst תנאים within the opinion of רבי עקיבא. The תנא of our משנה holds that the opinion of רבי עקיבא was that a person is not allowed to injure himself, and the תנא of the ברייתא holds that the opinion of רבי עקיבא is that a person is allowed to injure himself. And because of that, the גמרא soon will ask who is the תנא that holds that a person is not allowed to injure himself? Why does the גמרא ask that? Because since we said that there's a מחלוקת תנאים within the opinion of רבי עקיבא, so the גמרא's שאלה is, who is the תנא that holds within רבי עקיבא's opinion that a person is not allowed to injure himself? But before we go further, תוספות asks another קושיא. We said that if a person injures himself even though he's not allowed to do it, nevertheless he is פטור. So תוספות asks, what does that mean? What kind of connection does this have to being פטור or to be חייב? The whole concept of being פטור or חייב is only if there is another person that there is a question whether you owe him the money or not, whether you are responsible to pay him or not. But since you injured yourself, what do we mean that you are פטור? What kind of concept of being פטור or חייב applies here? Now we might say that it means that you are פטור from מלקות. But תוספות says that that is not so, because in the משנה we find two examples concerning the same thing. One, one example is the case of injury, that even though a person who injures himself is פטור, nevertheless, if someone else injures him, he's חייב. And another example, that even though if someone cuts off his plants he is פטור, if someone else cuts off his plants, he is חייב. Now concerning the case of cutting off the plants, we cannot say that when it says if he cuts off his own plants he is פטור it means he's פטור from מלקות, because it is not so. The דין is that he is חייב מלקות. If a person cuts off plants that grow fruit, he would be חייב מלקות, because the פסוק says, ואותו לא תשחית. So therefore, we must say that over there, what does it mean פטור? Not פטור from מלקות, but פטור from payment. And therefore, in the first case where it says that if you injure yourself you are פטור, it also means פטור from payment. And the question is, what kind of פטור or חיוב applies here to say that he is פטור? How can there even be a הוה אמינא that he should be חייב? Who should he be חייב to? So therefore, תוספות says we must say בדוחק that what does it mean? Not actually to tell us the דין that he is פטור, that is clear. But what it means to say is that even though if somebody injures himself he is פטור, meaning there's no concept of חיוב. In other words, this shows that this person doesn't care about an injury. As we see, he injured himself. So there might be a סברא to say that if somebody else injured him, should also not have to pay. So the חידוש is that nevertheless he has to pay. So we don't actually mean that the משנה is telling us a דין that you're פטור, the משנה just means that even in a case where he is פטור, meaning a case where he doesn't care, he does it and doesn't care, nevertheless, if somebody else does it to him, he is חייב. And then תוספות says that when it says in the משנה concerning cutting off the plants, that if someone else cuts off your plants, he is חייב, and this means that he is חייב to pay, because like we just explained, that when it says that if you do it to yourself you are פטור, it doesn't mean פטור from מלקות, it means פטור from paying. So when it says if others do this to you, he is חייב, it means חייב to pay. So it comes out that the משנה holds that if someone cuts off your plant, he is חייב to pay. So תוספות says this must go only according to רבי מאיר. Because otherwise, we have a דין אין לוקה ומשלם. If a person does something that he gets מלקות for that act, and the same act makes him responsible to pay, the דין is that he doesn't pay. He just gets the מלקות, and he doesn't pay. So here too, since he did the עבירה of cutting off someone else's plant, where there is a לאו of לא תשחית, so he gets מלקות, so how could he be חייב to pay? How could the משנה say he is חייב to pay? So therefore we must say this goes according to רבי מאיר, that he holds אדם לוקה ומשלם. That a person could get both: he could get מלקות, and at the same time, he has to pay if what he did also involves a damage to somebody else that obligates him to pay. Another תירוץ תוספות says is, it could be that it's speaking in a case where he wasn't warned. Because in order to get מלקות, you have to have two witnesses, and the two witnesses have to warn you at the time when you do the עבירה in order to be חייב מלקות. But if you weren't warned, so then you are not חייב מלקות. So that could be the case of the משנה: that if others cut off your plant in a way that they wouldn't get מלקות, for instance, that they weren't warned, so then they have to pay for cutting off your plant, even though if you would have done it to yourself you would have been פטור, but if others do it to you, then they are חייב. Then we'll continue with the גמרא. We just said that there's a

מחלוקת between תנאים whether a person is allowed to injure himself or not. So the גמרא asks, מאן תנא דשמעת ליה דאמר אין אדם רשאי לחבל בעצמו, who is this תנא that you heard that holds that a person is not allowed to injure himself? אילימא if you're going to say, האי תנא הוא דתניא, that it's this תנא that we learn in a ברייתא? The ברייתא quotes the פסוק. It says, ואך את דמכם לנפשתיכם אדרוש - but your blood to your own נפש, I will investigate, I will search. So what does that mean? רבי אלעזר אומר, so רבי אלעזר says, מיד נפשתיכם אדרוש את דמכם, that from yourself, I will search your blood. That means that if a person commits suicide, kills himself, השם says, "I will from you search your blood." That the אייבערשטער holds the person responsible for killing himself. That means that a person is not allowed to kill himself. So it would seem to be that this is a תנא that holds that a person is not allowed to injure himself. But the גמרא says it's no ראיה, ודלמא maybe קטלא שאני, killing is different, that you're not allowed to kill yourself, but as far as injuring yourself, maybe you're allowed. אלא האי תנא הוא, so we must say it's another תנא, it's this תנא, דתניא we learn in a ברייתא, מקרעין על המת, you're allowed to tear clothes in honor of a person that died, ולא מדרכי האמורי, and it's not considered from the customs of אמורי, even though they used to do it, and we know that you're not allowed to imitate the customs of אמורי, it's

an עבירה, but this is not considered that you're imitating the customs of the אמורי, and you're allowed to do it. אמר רבי אלעזר, so רבי אלעזר said, שמעתי I heard, שהמקרע על המת יותר מדאי, if a person tears for the honor of a dead person more than you are supposed to, לוקה משום בל תשחית, he would get מלקות because he's עובר on the עבירה of בל תשחית. The דין is that you're not allowed to destroy any usable objects, so if he tears more than he is supposed to, then he's עובר on the עבירה of בל תשחית. וכל שכן גופו, so it comes out, certainly if you damage your body. If you're not allowed to damage your clothes, tear your clothes, certainly you're not allowed to injure yourself. So this would be the תנא that holds that a person is not allowed to injure himself. Since we see he holds that you're not allowed to tear your clothes for no reason, so certainly he would hold that you're not allowed to injure your body. But the גמרא says, no, no, ודלמא maybe בגדים שאני, maybe clothes is different, clothes is worse, דפסידא דלא הדר הוא, because it's a loss that will not come back. If you injure yourself, that could heal, but if you tear clothes, it can't heal by itself. So therefore, maybe to tear clothes is worse than to injure yourself. כי הא דרבי יוחנן, like רבי יוחנן, קרי למאני מכבדותא, he used to call clothes things that give him honor. But if you tear it, it doesn't give you that honor anymore, and therefore you're not allowed to tear the clothes. Also, ורב חסדא כי הוה מסמזג ביני היזמי והיגי, רב חסדא, when he used to have to go through thorns, מדלי להו למאניה. He would pick up his clothes and he would walk with his bare feet. Even though he could cut himself, אמר, he would say, זה מעלה ארוכה, the feet even if it'll get cut, but it'll get healed, וזה אינה מעלה ארוכה, but the clothes won't get healed. If they'll tear, then they won't get healed, so to speak, and there will be a loss that will stay forever. So we see that the damage done to clothes is worse than an injury done to a person. So from the fact that רבי אלעזר holds that if you tear clothes you're עובר on בל תשחית, you're not allowed to do it, doesn't prove that he holds that if you injure yourself you also עובר on an עבירה. So we're back to the question: who is the תנא that holds that you're not allowed to injure

yourself? אלא האי תנא הוא, therefore we must say it's this תנא. דתניא, we learn in a ברייתא, אמר רבי אלעזר הקפר ברבי, רבי אלעזר הקפר ברבי said, מה תלמוד לומר, what does the פסוק mean when it says by a נזיר, וכפר עליו מאשר חטא על הנפש, that השם will forgive him for the sin that he did for the נפש, for the soul. וכי באיזה נפש חטא זה? What kind of נפש did he sin with? What kind of עבירה did a נזיר do? A נזיר, it would seem on the contrary, that a נזיר is a person who elevates himself to a higher level, not to drink wine, not to become טמא למתים, etc. אלא שציער עצמו מן היין, the reason he's considered a sinner because he suffered by holding himself back from drinking wine. והלא דברים קל וחומר, then it's a קל וחומר. ומה זה שלא ציער עצמו אלא מן היין נקרא חוטא, if this person who only held himself back, he made his body suffer only from not drinking wine, he is called a sinner, המצער עצמו מכל דבר, so somebody makes himself suffer from everything, for instance if he fasts, על אחת כמה וכמה, he's certainly called a sinner. So here we see that if a person hurts himself he's called a sinner. So this is the תנא that holds that a person is not allowed to injure himself. Then

the גמרא continues, we learned the משנה, הקוצץ נטיעותיו וכולי, someone cuts off his own plants, he is פטור. Nevertheless, if somebody else cuts off his plants, he is חייב to pay for it. So the גמרא says, תני רבה בר בר חנה קמיה דרב, רבה בר בר חנה learned in front of רב, if one says to another, שורי הרגת, you killed my ox, נטיעותי קצצת, you cut off my plants, and he answers him, אתה אמרת לי להורגו, you told me to kill him, or אתה אמרת לי לקוצצו, you told me to cut off the plants, פטור, he's פטור from paying. We believe the person when he says that you told me to do it. אמר ליה, so he said to him, אם כן, if so, לא שבקת חיי לכל בריה, you don't leave life to any human being, because anytime someone damages something of somebody else he will always say you told me to do it. If the דין is that you believe him, so he could always say that. כול כמיניה, do we really believe him? אמר ליה, so he said to him, אישמט, that means I should take away this דין from my דינים? In other words, do you tell me that this ברייתא that I learned is wrong? אמר ליה, so he said to him, לא, no, it is not wrong. But תרגמה למתניתך, you could explain your ברייתא that there could be a case when he would believe. בשור העומד להריגה, if it was an ox that was לכתחילה standing to be killed, for instance it was a שור הנסקל, if it was an ox that killed a person, so the דין is that that ox has to be killed. או באילן העומד לקציצה, or if it was a tree that was ready to be chopped off, for instance it was a tree for עבודה זרה, and the דין is you must chop off that tree, or it was a tree that was standing in a public place that was falling, it was a danger to the public, so the דין is that you must chop off that tree. So in a case like that, if it was a tree that was ready to be chopped off or an ox that was ready to be killed, and he says you told me to do it, that's when we believe him, because probably it's true, probably he did tell him to do it, because anyway it was supposed to be done. But then he says, אי הכי, if so, מאי קא טעין ליה? So what's he complaining about? If anyway it had to be chopped off and the ox had to be killed, so what's he complaining to him, why did you do it? And the גמרא says, דאמר ליה, he says to him, אנא בעינא דאעביד הא מצוה, I wanted to do this מצוה. Since this ox was supposed to be killed, it was a מצוה to kill him, it was a מצוה to chop off this tree, I wanted to do this

מצוה. דתניא, as we learned in a ברייתא, the פסוק says ושפך וכסה, this is concerning the מצוה of כיסוי הדם. The דין is that if you שחט a bird or if you שחט a חיה, you must cover the blood בעפר, with sand or with dust. And the פסוק says ושפך, when you spill the blood, meaning when you שחט it, וכסה, then you must cover the blood. And we learn out from here, מי ששפך יכסה, that the one that spilled the blood, the one that שחט the animal, he is the one that is supposed to cover the blood. ומעשה, there was a story, באחד ששחט, a person, this person שחט the animal, וקדם חבירו וכסה, and his friend came, and before the first one, the שוחט, managed to cover the blood, the other one did it, וחייבו רבן גמליאל ליתן לו עשרה זהובים, and רבן גמליאל made him pay ten זהובים. him for taking away the מצוה. So we see that taking away a מצוה has a value. So that's the טענה of that person: You chopped off my tree, you killed my ox, meaning you took away the מצוה that I wanted to perform. And תוספות explains that in מסכת חולין it is משמע that the reason רבן גמליאל made him pay ten זהובים for taking away the מצוה of כיסוי הדם, it was because he took away the ברכה. When you do the מצוה of כיסוי הדם, you make a ברכה. So since he took away the ברכה from him, that's why he made him pay ten זהובים. But תוספות asks: That is for the ברכה, what about paying for taking away the מצוה itself? So תוספות says that the מצוה and the ברכה go together, meaning that both together are worth ten זהובים. So in a case where you only have a מצוה, for instance when he killed the ox that it was a מצוה to kill or he chopped off the tree that it was a מצוה to chop off, there you only have that he took away his מצוה, but then you would pay only for the מצוה. In the case where you take away a מצוה and a ברכה, so then you pay for the מצוה and the ברכה, and there the מצוה and the ברכה was worth ten זהובים. And then תוספות says that if you take away from somebody ברכת המזון, which is four ברכות, you would have to pay forty זהובים. And then תוספות brings a story that somebody took away from somebody else an עליה, where you have two ברכות, the ברכה before the עליה and after the עליה. So the רבינו תם made him give that person a chicken to שחט, which would make up for the two ברכות, the ברכה for the שחיטה and the ברכה for the כיסוי הדם. But the ר״י said that this reason doesn't seem to fit, because if you could compensate by giving him something else to make the ברכה on, so why did רבן גמליאל make him pay ten זהובים? But then תוספות says there was another reason why the רבינו תם didn't make him pay money, because since he answered אמן, and the rule is that גדול העונה אמן יותר מן המברך, that if someone answers אמן it's even more than he makes the ברכה, so really he didn't take anything away from him because he himself also had the ברכה and even more because he answered אמן. And as the מהרש״א explains according to this תירוץ, there is no קשיא why רבן גמליאל did make him pay the ten זהובים, because in the case of רבן גמליאל it's possible that he made the ברכה quietly, so the other one didn't answer אמן. So therefore he took away from him the ברכה, so he made him pay. But in the case of רבינו תם where it was concerning taking away an עליה, by an עליה you make the ברכות out loud, so he heard the ברכות and he answered אמן, so there he really didn't take away the ברכה because he answered אמן, therefore the רבינו תם didn't make him pay. But then תוספות says that באמת there's another reason why the רבינו תם didn't make him pay, because רבינו תם says that anytime we make a person pay for something that doesn't have a loss of money, we cannot judge it outside of ארץ ישראל. And therefore, paying for taking away a ברכה is a payment for something that there is no loss in money involved, therefore we cannot make a person pay for that. Then the גמרא continues: אמר רב, רב said, דיקלא דטעין קבא, a palm tree, a date tree, is able to give out a קב of dates, אסור לקוצו, you're not allowed to cut it off. Because the דין is you're not allowed to cut off a tree that gives fruit. מיתיבי, the גמרא says we'll ask you a קשיא, we learned, כמה יהא בזית ולא יקצצו, how many olives does an olive tree have to give out in order for us not to be allowed to cut them off? רובע, a quarter of a קב. So how did רב say that it has to give out a קב? So the גמרא says, שאני זיתים דחשיבי, זיתים are different because they are more important. So therefore, a quarter of a קב of זיתים is already enough to be considered that it is worth to keep the tree. But by dates, in order to say you shouldn't cut off the tree, it has to give out a קב. אמר רבי חנינא, רבי חנינא said, לא שכיב שבחת ברי, my son שבחת did not die, אלא, only, דקץ תאינתא בלא זמנה, because he cut off a fig tree before its time. And that was the punishment for doing this עבירה. אמר רבינא, רבינא said, אם היה מעולה בדמים מותר, if it was worth more, it's allowed. In other words, if by cutting off the tree the land will be worth more, for instance if by cutting off the tree you'll be able to build something on the land, so the land is worth more without the tree than with the tree, then you're allowed to cut off the tree. The גמרא says, תניא נמי הכי, we also learned in a ברייתא to that effect. The ברייתא quotes the פסוק, רק עץ אשר תדע, there's a פסוק in פרשת שופטים where the תורה tells us the דין that you're not allowed to cut off a tree that gives fruit. The תורה says in קפיטל כ׳, פסוק כ׳: רק עץ אשר תדע כי לא עץ מאכל הוא, but a tree that you will know that it's not a fruit tree, אותו תשחית וכרת, that you could destroy and cut off. So the גמרא says that we דרש from the words רק עץ אשר תדע, that זה עץ מאכל, that this refers even to a fruit tree, because באמת it's extra words. The תורה should have said רק אשר לא הוא מאכל, only if it is not something of fruit you should cut off. Why does the תורה have to start off by saying, but a tree that you know is not a tree of fruit? It should have said, but if it's not a fruit, you could cut off. So that comes to add something, that even a fruit tree you could cut off. the fruit tree. And when the תורה continues and says כי לא עץ מאכל הוא, that it's not a fruit tree, זה אילן סרק, that טאקע means a wild tree, a tree that doesn't give fruit. So the תורה tells us both, that in certain circumstances you're allowed to cut off even a fruit tree, and certainly you're allowed to cut off a tree that doesn't give fruit. But then the question is, וכי מאחר שסופנו לרבות כל דבר, since eventually we include everything, meaning even a fruit tree, if you have to because it is worth more to cut it off than to keep it, you're allowed to cut it off, מה תלמוד לומר כי לא עץ מאכל, why does the תורה have to tell us כי לא עץ מאכל, which comes to teach us that you're allowed to cut off a tree which doesn't give fruit? If you're allowed to cut off a tree that does give fruit, certainly you're allowed to cut off a tree that doesn't give fruit. So the answer is, להקדים סרק למאכל, to say that first you should cut off a tree that doesn't give fruit before you cut off a tree that gives fruit. And then the ברייתא continues: יכול, I would think, אפילו מעולה בדמים, even if it's worth more money, in other words, if to cut off the fruit tree you could get more from the wood of the tree than you would get of the fruit, so I would think even in such a case you should first cut off a tree that doesn't give fruit before a tree that gives fruit, תלמוד לומר, so the תורה says רק, רק is always a מיעוט, comes to exclude and tell us that when is this דין that first you should cut off a tree without fruit before a tree that gives fruit? That is only if it is not worth more. But if it is worth more to cut off the tree that gives fruit, so then you first cut off the tree that gives fruit. So from this ברייתא we see that if it is worth more to cut off the tree that gives fruit than not to cut it off, then you're allowed to cut it off. So this is a ראיה to what רבינא said, that if it was מעולה בדמים you're allowed to cut off the tree that gives fruit. Then the גמרא continues with a story: שמואל אייתי ליה אריסיה תמרי, the field worker of שמואל brought him dates. אכל, he ate it, טעם בהו טעמא דחמרא, he felt in them a taste of wine. אמר ליה, he said to him, מאי האי? What is this? אמר ליה, so he said to him, ביני גופני קיימי, they're found amongst the vines, and that's why they absorb the taste of wine. אמר, so he said, מכחשי בחמרא כולה האי, they're weakening the vines that much, if they absorb the taste, obviously they're pulling out the taste from the wine and they're weakening the vines, so למחר אייתי לי מכורייהו, tomorrow bring me their roots. Or another פשט in רש״י that tomorrow bring me the grass that grows around their roots, but what he meant was you should pull them out, since they spoil the vines, so it is more worth to have them pulled out than to keep them in. And therefore he said you should do it. So we see that you're allowed to pull out even fruit if by pulling it out you will gain more than by keeping them in. And in this case it was that way; if you would keep them in, it spoiled the vines, therefore he said pull them out. Then the גמרא tells another story, that רב חסדא חזא תאלי בגופני, רב חסדא saw that there were palms amongst his vines. אמר ליה לאריסיה, so he said to his field worker, עקרינהו, pull them out. Why? Because גופני קני דיקלי, because vines could buy palms, but דיקני, דיקלא לא קני גופני, but palms cannot buy vines. In other words, it is better to have vines than palms, because with the money of the vines, of the wine that you will get, you're able to buy fields and have more palms. But by having the palms, they're not expensive, you will not get so much money, so it's worth not to have them there and rather have more space or have the vines better. And that's why he said pull them out. So this also fits to what we said before, that you're allowed to pull out even fruits if it spoils other things and it is more worth to have them out than to keep them in. Concerning what the גמרא said, that רב חנינא said that his son שבחת died because he cut off a tree, a fruit tree before its time, so the מהרש״א says, based on that, you could explain the discussion between the נחש and חוה. We find in חומש that the נחש, when he tried to convince חוה to eat from the עץ הדעת, he said to her, אף כי אמר אלקים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן? Is it true that השם said you should not eat from all the trees of the garden? He didn't say, did השם say you shouldn't eat from all the fruits of the trees? He used the term, did השם say you shouldn't eat from all the trees of the garden? The מהרש״א says that according to the opinion that the עץ הדעת was an אתרוג, and the גמרא says that by an אתרוג the taste of the fruit and the tree are equal, and that's what he said to her: Did השם say you shouldn't eat from the trees of the garden? And he meant the trees. He meant the אתרוג tree; did השם say you shouldn't eat from the trees? So she said that השם said we shouldn't eat, not from the tree and not from the fruit. So he said to her, it is not so, the only thing השם doesn't want you to eat, and if you do you will die, die, that is only if you eat from the tree. But if you eat from the fruit, it won't happen. Now, why should it happen if you eat from the tree? Because, as the גמרא says here, that the punishment for taking off a tree that gives fruit is that he dies, so that's what he said, if you will eat from the tree, meaning you will chop off the tree, that's when השם will punish you that you will die. But from eating of the fruits, you will not die. And that convinced her, and she ate from the fruit of the tree. Concerning what we learned before in the גמרא that if somebody says to his friend that you told me to chop off the tree, so we said in the גמרא that we don't believe him, we only believe him if it was a tree that was ready to be chopped off. So תוספות asks that we find in the גמרא in בבא בתרא in חזקת הבתים דף ל"ו, it says that if a person is taking a מגלא דתובילא and he says, I'm going to chop off the דק the דקלא the palm tree of that person because he sold it to me, he is believed. And the גמרא says, why do they believe him? Because a person does not have the חוצפה to cut off someone else's tree. Since he is going to do it, obviously he did buy it. So לכאורה this seems to contradict our גמרא. In our גמרא it says that if a person says that the reason I chopped off the tree is because you told me to do it, he is not believed. And over there it says that a person doesn't have the חוצפה to chop off someone else's tree, and therefore we believe him that he bought it. So why don't we believe him here too that it is his tree? And תוספות says that over there we're not talking about chopping off a tree. Over there we're talking about taking off the fruit, and that is common that a person sells somebody the fruit of a tree. So when a person says that I'm taking off my fruit, we believe him. But in the case of chopping off a tree, which is the case of our גמרא, there it is not common for a person to tell somebody else to chop off his tree, and therefore the גמרא says that he is not believed. And תוספות is מדייק from the לשונות of the גמרא, the instruments the גמרא mentions that he took in order to cut it off, we see that it means that he went to cut off the fruit. But in our גמרא it says clearly that he went to chop off the tree. So that's where we don't believe him, but when it comes to collect the fruit, there we would believe him.