Bava Kamma

he is liable for all of the Five Items. Now, how are we to picture no bruise being made [in such a case]? Does this not mean, e.g., where he struck him on his arm which will ultimately recover  and it is nevertheless stated that he 'is liable for all of the Five Items'?  — It may, however, be said that we are dealing here with a case where e.g., he made him deaf  without making a bruise on him. But did Rabbah not say  that 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?  — It must therefore be said that we are dealing here with a case where e.g. he shaved him [against his will] — But will not the hair grow again in the case of shaving? And that is the very question propounded.  — It may, however, be said that we are dealing here with a case where e.g. he smeared nasha  over it so that no hair will ever grow there again. Pain [in such a case should similarly be paid] where he had scratches on his head and thus suffered on account of the sores. Healing [should similarly be paid] as it requires curing. Loss of Time would be where he was a dancer in wine houses and has to make gestures by moving his head and cannot do so [now] on account of these scratches.  Degradation [should certainly be paid], for there could hardly be a case of greater degradation. But this matter which was doubtful to Rabbah was quite certain to Abaye taking one view, and to Raba taking the opposite view. For it was stated: If he struck him on his arm and the arm was broken but so that it would ultimately recover completely, Abaye said that he must pay for General Loss of Time  plus Particular Loss of time, whereas Raba said that he will not have to pay him anything but for the amount of the Loss of Time  for each day [until he recovers]. It was stated: If a man cuts off the arm of a Hebrew servant of another, Abaye said that he will have to pay the servant for General Loss of Time, and the master for Particular Loss of Time, whereas Raba said that the whole payment should be given to the servant  who would have to [invest it and] purchase real property whose produce would be enjoyed by the master. There is no question that where the servant became [through the injury] depreciated in his personal value while no loss was caused so far as the master was concerned, as for instance, where the offender split the top of the servant's ear or the top of his nostrils,  the whole payment would go to the servant himself. It was only where the depreciation affected the master [also]  that Abaye and Raba differ. 'DEGRADATION': — ALL TO BE ESTIMATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUS OF THE OFFENDER AND THE OFFENDED. May we say that our Mishnah is in agreement neither with R. Meir nor with R. Judah but with R. Simeon? For it was taught: 'All [sorts of injured persons] should be considered as if they were freemen who have become impoverished since they are all the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;  this is the view of R. Meir. R. Judah says that [Degradation in the case of] the eminent man [will be estimated] in accordance with his eminence, [whereas in the case of] the insignificant man [it will be estimated] in accordance with his insignificance. R. Simeon says that wealthy persons will be considered merely as if they were freemen who have become impoverished, whereas the poor will all be put on the level of the least among them.  Now, in accordance with whom is our Mishnah? It could not be in accordance with R. Meir, for the Mishnah states that all are to be estimated in accordance with the status of the offender and the offended, whereas according to R. Meir all [sorts of persons] are treated alike. It could similarly not be in accordance with R. Judah, for the Mishnah [subsequently] states  that he who insults even a blind person is liable, whereas R. Judah  says that a blind person is not subject to the law of Degradation. Must the Mishnah therefore not be in accordance with R. Simeon?  — You may say that they are [even] in accordance with R. Judah. For the statement made by R. Judah that a blind person is not subject to the law of Degradation means that no payment will be exacted from him [where he insulted others], whereas when it comes to paying him [for Degradation where he was insulted by others], We would surely order that he be paid. But since it was stated in the concluding clause 'If he insulted a person who was sleeping he would be liable [to pay for Degradation], whereas if a person who was asleep insulted others he would be exempt', and no statement was made to the effect that a blind person insulting others should be exempt, it surely implied that in the case of a blind person  there was no difference whether he was insulted by others or whether he insulted others, [as in all cases the law of Degradation would apply]!  — It must therefore be considered as proved that the Mishnaic statements were in accordance with R. Simeon. Who was the Tanna for what our Rabbis taught: If he intended to insult a katon  but insulted [by accident] a gadol  he would have to pay the gadol the amount due for the degradation of the katon, and so also where he intended to insult a slave but [by accident] insulted a freeman he would have to pay the freeman the amount due for the degradation of the slave? According to whom [is this teaching]? It is in agreement neither with R. Meir nor with R. Judah nor even with R. Simeon, it being assumed that katon meant 'small in possessions' and gadol [similarly meant] 'great in possessions'. It could thus hardly be in accordance with R. Meir, for he said that all classes of people are treated alike. It could similarly not be in accordance with R. Judah, for he stated that in the case of slaves no Degradation need be paid. Again, it could not be in accordance with R. Simeon, since he holds that where the offender intended to insult one person and by an accident insulted another person he would be exempt, the reason being that this might be likened to murder, and just as in the case of murder there is no liability unless where the intention was for the particular person killed,  as it is written: 'And lie in wait for him and rise up against him'  [implying, according to R. Simeon, that there would be no liability] unless where he aimed at him particularly, so should it also be in the case of Degradation, that no liability should be imposed on the offender unless where he aimed at the person insulted, as it is written: 'And she putteth forth her hand and taketh him by the secrets'  [which might similarly imply that there should be no liability] unless where the offence was directed at the person insulted. [Who then was the Tanna of the teaching referred to above]? — It might still be said that he was R. Judah, for the statement made by R. Judah that in the case of slaves there would be no liability for Degradation means only that no payment will be made to them, though in the matter of appraisement we can still base the assessment on them. Or if you like I may say that you may even regard the teaching as being in accordance with R. Meir, for why should you think that gadol means 'great in possessions' and katon means 'small in possessions', and not rather that gadol means an actual gadol [i.e. one who is of age] and katon means an actual katon [i.e. a minor]? But is a minor subject to suffer Degradation? — Yes, as elsewhere stated by R. Papa, that if where he is reminded of some insult he feels abashed  [he is subject to Degradation] so also here