Bava Kamma — Daf 98a

ואי מחמת תרעא זיל לא מנכינן ליה

והא קא שבח לענין נסכא אלא כי הא דרב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע עבדי עובדא בזוזי דאגרדמיס טייעא עד י' בתמניא

אמר רבה הזורק מטבע של חבירו לים הגדול פטור מאי טעמא אמר הא מנח קמך אי בעית שקליה והני מילי בצלולין דקא חזי ליה אבל עכורין דלא קחזי ליה לא והני מילי דאדייה אדויי אבל שקליה בידיה מיגזל גזליה השבה בעי מיעבד

מתיב רבא אין מחללין על מעות שאינן ברשותו כיצד היו לו מעות בקסטרא או בהר המלך או שנפל כיסו לים הגדול אין מחללין אמר רבה שאני לענין מעשר דבעינן מצוי בידך דרחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך וליכא

ואמר רבה השף מטבע של חבירו פטור מאי טעמא דהא לא עבד ולא מידי וה"מ דמחייה בקורנסא וטרשיה אבל שייפא בשופינא חסורי חסריה

מתיב רבא הכהו על עינו וסמאה על אזנו וחרשו עבד יוצא בהן לחירות כנגד עינו ואינו רואה כנגד אזנו ואינו שומע אין עבד יוצא בהן לחירות

רבה לטעמיה דאמר רבה חרשו לאביו נהרג שאי אפשר לחרישה בלא חבורה דטפתא דדמא נפלת ליה באוניה

ואמר רבה הצורם אוזן פרתו של חבירו פטור מאי טעמא פרה כדקיימא קיימא דלא עבד ולא מידי וכולהו. שוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי

מתיב רבא העושה מלאכה במי חטאת ובפרת חטאת פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים מלאכה הוא דלא מינכר היזיקה אבל צורם דמינכר היזיקה הכי נמי דמחייב בדיני אדם

אמרי הוא הדין דאפילו צורם פטור והא קא משמע לן דאפילו מלאכה דלא מינכר היזיקה חייב בדיני שמים

ואמר רבה השורף שטרו של חבירו פטור דאמר ליה ניירא קלאי מינך מתקיף לה רמי בר חמא היכי דמי

but if it was through the market supplies  that prices dropped, we would not have to deduct anything. Still,  would the creditor not derive a benefit from the additional metal? — [We must] therefore [act] like R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua who gave judgment in an action about coins, according to [the information  of] an Arabian agoran,  that the debtor should pay for ten old coins [only] eight new ones. Rabbah stated: He who throws a coin of another [even] into the ocean  is exempt, the reason being that he can say to him, 'Here it lies before you, if you are anxious to have it take it.' This applies, however, only where [the water was] clear so that it could be seen, but if it was so muddy that the coin could not be seen this would not be so. Again, this holds good only where the throwing was merely indirectly caused by him,  but if he took it in his hand he would surely have already become subject to the law of robbery  and as such would have been liable to make [proper] restitution. Raba raised an objection [from the following:] 'Redemption [of the second tithe] cannot be made by means of money not in one's actual possession, such as if he had money in Castra or in the King's Mountain  or if his purse fell into the ocean; no redemption could then be effected'.  — Said Rabbah: The case [of redemption] of tithe is different, as it is required there that the money should be [to all intents and purposes] actually in your hand, for the Divine Law says, And bind up the money in thy hand,  which is lacking in this case. Rabbah further said: One who disfigures a coin belonging to another is exempt, the reason being that he did not do anything [to reduce the substance of the coin]. This of course applies only where he knocked on it with a hammer and so made it flat, but where he rubbed the stamp off with a file he certainly diminished its substance [and would thus be liable]. Raba raised an objection [from the following:] 'Where [the master] struck [the slave] upon the eye and blinded him or upon the ear and deafened him the slave would on account of that go out free,  but [where he struck on an object which was] opposite the slave's eye and he lost his sight or [on an object which was] opposite his ear through which he lost his hearing the slave would [on account of this] not go out free'!  — Rabbah, however, follows his own reasoning, for Rabbah stated: He who makes his father deaf is subject to be executed,  for it is impossible to cause deafness without first making a bruise through which a drop of blood falls into the ear. And Rabbah [further] stated: He who splits the ear of another's cow  is exempt, the reason being that [so far as the value of] the cow [is concerned it] remains as it was before, for he did not do anything [to reduce it], since not all oxen are meant to be sacrificed upon the altar.  Raba raised an objection [from the following]: If he did work with the water of Purification or with the Heifer of Purification he would be exempt according to the judgments of Man but liable according to the judgments of Heaven.  Now surely this is so only where mere work was done with it,  in which case the damage [done to it] is not noticeable, whereas in the case of splitting where the damage is noticeable there would also be liability according to the judgments of Man?  — It may, however, be said that the same law would apply in the case of splitting, where he would similarly be exempt [according to the judgments of Man], and that what we are told here is that even in the case of mere work where the damage is not noticeable there would still be liability according to the judgments of Heaven. Rabbah further stated: If one destroyed by fire the bond of a creditor he would be exempt, because he can say to him, 'It was only a mere piece of paper of yours that I have burnt.'  Rami b. Hania demurred: What are the circumstances?