Bava Kamma

deal with False Evidence, the liability for which is also civil? — He holds the view of R. Akiba who maintains that the liability for False Evidence [is penal in nature and] cannot [consequently]  be created by confession.  But if R. Oshaia follows R. Akiba why does he not reckon Ox as two distinct kinds of damage: Ox damaging chattel and Ox injuring men, for have we not learnt that R. Akiba said: A mutual injury arising between man and [ox even while a] Tam is assessed in full and the balance paid accordingly?  This distinction could, however, not be made, since it is elsewhere  taught that R. Akiba himself has qualified this full payment.  For R. Akiba said: You might think that, in the case of Tam injuring man, payment should be made out of the general estate; it is therefore stated, [This judgment] shall be done unto it,  to emphasise that the payment should only be made out of the body of the Tam and not out of any other source whatsoever. Why did R. Oshaia omit Rape, Seduction and Slander, the liabilities for which are also civil?  — What particular liability do you wish to refer to? If for actual loss, this has already been dealt with under Depreciation; if for suffering, this has already been dealt with under Pain; if for humiliation, this has already been dealt with under Degradation; if again for deterioration, this is already covered by Depreciation. What else then can you suggest? The Fine.  With this [type of liability] R. Oshaia is not concerned. Why then omit Defilement, Adulteration and Vitiation of wine, the liabilities for which are civil? — What is your view in regard to intangible damage?  If [you consider] intangible damage a civil wrong, defilement has then already been dealt with under Depreciation; if on the other hand intangible damage is not a civil wrong, then any liability for it is penal in nature, with which R. Oshaia is not concerned. Are we to infer that R. Hiyya considers intangible damage not to be a civil wrong? For otherwise would not this kind of damage already have been reckoned by him under Depreciation? — He may in any case have found it expedient to deal with tangible damage and intangible damage under distinct heads. It is quite conceivable that our Tanna  found it necessary to give the total number [of the principal kinds of damage] in order to exclude those of R. Oshaia;  the same applies to R. Oshaia who also gave the total number in order to exclude those of R. Hiyya;  but what could be excluded by the total number specified by R. Hiyya? — It is intended to exclude Denunciation  and Profanation of sacrifices. The exclusion of profanation is conceivable as sacrifices are not here reckoned; but why is Denunciation omitted? — Denunciation is in a different category on account of its verbal nature with which R. Hiyya is not concerned. But is not Slander of a verbal nature and yet reckoned? — Slander is something verbal but dependent upon some act.  But is not False Evidence a verbal effect not connected with any act and yet it is reckoned? — The latter though not connected with any act is reckoned because it is described in the Divine Law as an act, as the text has it: Then shall ye do unto him as he had purposed to do unto his brother. It is quite conceivable that the Tanna of the Mishnah characterises his kinds of damage as Principals in order to indicate the existence of others which are only derivatives: but can R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia characterise theirs as Principals in order to indicate the existence of others which are derivatives? If so what are they? — Said R. Abbahu: All of them are characterised as Principals for the purpose of requiring compensation out of the best of possessions.  How is this uniformity [in procedure] arrived at? — By means of a uniform interpretation of each of the following terms: 'Instead',  'Compensation',  'Payment',  'Money'. THE ASPECTS OF THE OX ARE [IN SOME RESPECTS] NOT [OF SUCH LOW ORDER OF GRAVITY] AS THOSE OF THE 'SPOLIATOR' [MAB'EH]. What does this signify? — R. Zebid in the name of Raba said: The point of this is: Let Scripture record only one kind of damage  and from it you will deduce the liability for the other!  In response it was declared: One kind of damage could not be deduced from the other. NOR ARE THE ASPECTS OF EITHER OF THEM IN WHICH THERE IS LIFE. What does this signify? R. Mesharsheya in the name of Raba said: The point of it is this: