Bava Kamma — Daf 86b

דמיכלמו ליה ומיכלם:

מתני׳ המבייש את הערום המבייש את הסומא והמבייש את הישן חייב וישן שבייש פטור נפל מן הגג והזיק ובייש חייב על הנזק ופטור על הבושת עד שיהא מתכוין:

גמ׳ ת"ר ביישו ערום חייב ואינו דומה ביישו ערום לביישו לבוש ביישו בבית המרחץ חייב ואינו דומה ביישו בבית המרחץ לביישו בשוק

אמר מר ביישו ערום חייב ערום בר בושת הוא אמר רב פפא מאי ערום דאתא זיקא כרכינהו למאניה ואתא הוא דלינהו טפי וביישיה

ביישו בבית המרחץ חייב בית המרחץ בר בושת הוא אמר רב פפא שביישו על גב הנהר

בעי ר' אבא בר ממל ביישו ישן ומת מהו מאי קמבעיא ליה אמר רב זביד הכי קמבעיא ליה משום כיסופא הוא והא מית ליה ולית ליה כיסופא או דלמא משום זילותא הוא והא אוזליה

ת"ש ר"מ אומר חרש וקטן יש להן בושת שוטה אין לו בושת אא"ב משום זילותא היינו דקתני קטן אלא אי אמרת משום כיסופא קטן בר בושת הוא

אלא מאי משום זילותא אפילו שוטה נמי אמרי שוטה אין לך בושת גדולה מזו

מכל מקום ניפשוט מינה דמשום זילותא הוא דאי משום כיסופא קטן בר כיסופא הוא כדאמר רב פפא דמיכלמו ליה ומיכלם הכא נמי דמיכלמו ליה ומיכלם

רב פפא אמר הכי קמבעיא ליה משום כיסופא דידיה הוא והא מיית ליה או דלמא משום בושת משפחה

תא שמע חרש וקטן יש לו בושת שוטה אין לו בושת אי אמרת בשלמא משום בושת משפחה היינו דקתני קטן אלא אי אמרת משום כיסופא דידיה קטן בר בושת הוא

אלא מאי משום בושת דבני משפחה אפי' שוטה נמי שוטה אין לך בושת גדולה מזו

מ"מ ניפשוט מינה דמשום בושת משפחה דאי משום כיסופא קטן בר כיסופא הוא אמר רב פפא אין דמיכלמו ליה ומיכלם

והתניא ר' אומר חרש יש לו בושת שוטה אין לו בושת קטן פעמים יש לו פעמים אין לו הא דמיכלמו ליה ומיכלם הא דמיכלמו ליה ולא מיכלם:

המבייש את הסומא וכו': מתניתין דלא כר' יהודה דתניא ר' יהודה אומר סומא אין לו בושת וכך היה ר' יהודה פוטר מחייבי גליות ומחייבי מלקיות ומחייבי מיתות ב"ד

מ"ט דר' יהודה גמר עיניך עיניך מעדים זוממין מה התם סומין לא אף הכא סומין לא

מחייבי גליות דתניא (במדבר לה, כג) בלא ראות פרט לסומא דברי ר' יהודה ר' מאיר אומר לרבות את הסומא

מ"ט דר' יהודה אמר לך (דברים יט, ה) ואשר יבא את רעהו ביער לחטוב עצים ואפי' סומא כתב רחמנא בלא ראות למעוטי

ור' מאיר כתב רחמנא בלא ראות למעוטי וכתב רחמנא (דברים יט, ד) בבלי דעת למעוטי הוי מיעוט אחר מיעוט ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות

ור' יהודה ההוא בבלי דעת פרט למתכוין הוא דאתא

חייבי מיתות ב"ד אתיא רוצח רוצח מחייבי גליות

חייבי מלקיות אתיא רשע רשע מחייבי מיתות בית דין

תניא אידך ר' יהודה אומר סומא אין לו בושת

he was a minor who, if the insult were mentioned to him, would feel abashed. MISHNAH. ONE WHO INSULTS A NAKED PERSON, OR ONE WHO INSULTS A BLIND PERSON, OR ONE WHO INSULTS A PERSON ASLEEP IS LIABLE [FOR DEGRADATION], THOUGH IF A PERSON ASLEEP INSULTED [OTHERS] HE WOULD BE EXEMPT. IF ONE IN FALLING FROM A ROOF DID DAMAGE AND ALSO CAUSED [SOMEBODY] TO BE DEGRADED, HE WOULD BE LIABLE FOR DEPRECIATION BUT EXEMPT FROM [PAYING FOR] DEGRADATION UNLESS HE INTENDED [TO INFLICT IT]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If he insulted a person who was naked he would be liable  though there could be no comparison between one who insulted a person who was naked  and one who insulted a person who was dressed. If he insulted him in the public bath he would be liable though one who insulted a person in a public bath  could not be compared to one who insulted a person in the market place. The Master stated: 'If he insulted a person who was naked he would be liable.' But is a person who walks about naked capable of being insulted?  — Said R. Papa: The meaning of 'naked' is that a wind [suddenly] came and lifted up his clothes, and then some one came along and raised them still higher, thus putting him to shame. 'If he insulted him in the public bath he would be liable.' But is a public bath a place where people are apt to feel offended?  — Said R. Papa: It meant that he insulted him  near the river. R. Abba b. Memel asked: What would be the law where he humiliated a person who was asleep but who died [before waking]?  — What is the principle involved in this query?  — Said R. Zebid: The principle involved is this: [Is Degradation paid] because of the insult, and as in this case he died before waking and was never insulted [no payment should thus be made], or is it perhaps on account of the [public] disgrace, and as there was here disgrace [payment should be made to the heirs]? — Come and hear: R. Meir says: A deaf-mute and a minor are subject to [be paid for] Degradation, but an idiot is not subject to be paid for Degradation. Now no difficulty arises if you say that degradation is paid on account of the disgrace; it is then quite intelligible that a minor [should be paid for Degradation]. But if you say that Degradation is paid on account of the insult, [we have to ask,] is a minor subject to feel insulted? — What then? [You say that] Degradation is paid because of the disgrace? Why then should the same not apply even in the case of an idiot? — It may, however, be said that the idiot by himself constitutes a disgrace which is second to none. But in any case, why not conclude from this statement that Degradation is paid on account of the disgrace, for if on account of the insult, is a minor subject to feel insulted? — As elsewhere stated by R. Papa, that if where the insult is recalled to him he feels abashed [he is subject to Degradation]; so also here he was a minor who when the insult was recalled to him would feel abashed. R. Papa, however, said that the principle involved in the query [of R. Abba] was this: [Is Degradation paid] because of personal insult, and as in this case [where] he died [before waking he did not suffer any personal insult, no payment should be made], or is [Degradation paid] perhaps on account of the insult suffered by the family? — Come and hear: A deaf-mute and a minor are subject to [be paid for] Degradation but an idiot is not subject to [be paid for] Degradation. Now no difficulty arises if you say that Degradation is paid on account of the insult suffered by the family; it is then quite intelligible that a minor [should be paid for Degradation]. But if you say that Degradation is paid on account of personal insult [we have to ask], is a minor subject to personal insult? — What then? [Do you say] that Degradation is paid because of the insult sustained by the members of the family? Why then should the same not apply in the case of an idiot? — It may, however, be said that the idiot by himself constitutes a Degradation [to them] which is second to none. But in any case, why not conclude from this statement that Degradation is paid on account of the insult suffered by the family, for if on account of personal insult,  is a minor subject to personal insult? — Said R. Papa: Yes, if when the insult is mentioned to him he feels insulted, as indeed taught: 'Rabbi says: A deaf-mute is subject to [be paid for] Degradation, but an idiot is not subject to [be paid for] Degradation, whereas a minor is sometimes subject to be paid and sometimes not subject to be paid [for Degradation].' The former [must be] in a case where, if the insult is mentioned to him, he would feel abashed, and the latter in a case where if the insult is recalled to him he would not feel abashed. ONE WHO INSULTS A BLIND PERSON … IS LIABLE [FOR DEGRADATION]. This Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Judah. For it was taught: R. Judah says: 'A blind person is not subject to [the law of] Degradation. So also did R. Judah exempt him from the liability of being exiled  and from the liability of lashes  and from the liability of being put to death by a court of law.'  What is the reason of R. Judah? — He derives [the law in the case of Degradation by comparing the term] 'thine eyes' [inserted in the case of Degradation  from the term] 'thine eyes'  occurring in the case of witnesses who were proved zomemim:  just as there  blind persons are not included  so also here  blind persons should not be included. The exemption from the liability to be exiled is derived as taught: Seeing him not  excepts a blind person;  so R. Judah. R. Meir on the other hand says that it includes a blind person.  What is the reason of R. Judah? — He might say to you [as Scripture says]: 'As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood',  which might include even a blind person. The Divine Law therefore says 'Seeing him not' to exclude [him]. But R. Meir might contend that as the Divine Law inserted 'Seeing him not' [which implies] an exception, and the Divine Law further inserted unawares'  [which similarly implies] an exception, we have thus a limitation followed by another limitation, and the established rule is that a limitation followed by another limitation is intended to amplify.  And R. Judah? — He could argue that the word 'unawares' came to be inserted to except a case of intention. [Exemption from] liability to be put to death by a court of law is derived [from comparing the term] 'murderer' [used in the section dealing with capital punishment  with the term] 'murderer' [used in the section setting out] the liability to be exiled.  [Exemption from] liability of lashes is learnt [by comparing the term] 'wicked' [occurring in the Section dealing with lashes  with the term] 'wicked'  occurring in the case of those who are liable to be put to death by a court of law. Another [Baraitha] taught: R. Judah says: A blind person is not subject to [the law of] Degradation.