Bava Kamma

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?