Talmud su Esodo 21:22

MISHNAH: The one who comes to his daughter, his granddaughter from his daughter or his son, his wife’s daughter, his wife’s granddaughter from her daughter or her son⁴²These are the only cases among the incest prohibitions of Lev. 18,20 which are both capital crimes and may involve a virgin girl. does not pay the fine since he committed a capital crime and should be executed by the court; for anybody committing a capital crime⁴³Even if he cannot be executed because of missing eyewitnesses to a due warning and the deed. does not pay cash as it is said⁴⁴Ex. 21:22. The next verse reads: “But if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life.” This excludes the imposition of a fine in a murder trial.: “If there is no case of murder, a fine shall be imposed.”

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: We understand that, since it said⁴⁴Ex. 21:22. The next verse reads: “But if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life.” This excludes the imposition of a fine in a murder trial. “if there is no case of murder, a fine shall be imposed”, that if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life? Why does the verse say, it is a case of murder? To add the case of premeditation and warning⁴⁸Which is a case where a person actually could face execution.. Rebbi Yose said, is that not a Mishnah, “for anybody committing a capital crime does not pay cash”, that it deals not only with cases of error. ⁴⁹Cf. fol. 27b, line 30; Terumot 7:1, Notes 16,18; Babli 35a.Ḥizqiah said, one states a baraita⁵⁰Lev. 24:21.: “The slayer of an animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him from paying money.

MISHNAH: This is more severe regarding a human than an ox since a human pays damages³⁷And the other four categories of payments mentioned in Mishnah 1. These are enumerated by the Mishnah in the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss. and pays for unborn children³⁸Ex. 21:22 prescribes that an attack on a woman which leads to a miscarriage but does not endanger the woman’s life entitles the woman’s husband to go to court and exact payment for the loss of prospective children., but the ox pays only damages and does not pay for unborn children.
A person who hits his father or mother without causing a concussion³⁹Ex. 21:15 declares hitting father or mother to be a capital crime. Hitting one of the parents without causing visible damage is a sin but not a crime. Therefore there is no obstacle to pressing monetary claims. Cf. Mishnah 7. or who causes injury on the Day of Atonement⁴⁰Desecrating the Day of Atonement is a deadly sin but not a prosecutable crime; it is outside the purview of the human court. Injuring somebody on the Sabbath is a capital crime. Cf. Mishnah 7. is liable for everything. He who injures a Hebrew slave⁴¹Hebrew slavery was an institution permanently abolished, never resurrected in the Second Commonwealt; cf. Qiddušin 1:2, Note 150. The argument is purely theoretical. is liable for everything except for lost earnings if he is his own. He who injures another person’s Canaanite slave⁴²Any Gentile slave becoming potentially Jewish by circumcision and immersion in a miqweh; cf. Qiddušin 1:3, Note 328. A person severely injuring his own slave has to set him free (Ex. 21:26–27). is liable for everything. Rebbi Jehudah says, slaves have no claim for embarrassment.

HALAKHAH: “If one intended to hit someone on his hips,” etc. Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a deadly stone which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other³⁹In Ex. 21:22–23 it is spelled out that in case of injuries, payment is due only if there is no criminal case. But this refers only to one person. If the stone had killed one person and broke the same person’s vessels, no payment for the vessels would be due. But this says nothing about the obligations of the thrower towards a third person, not involved in the personal injury case.? Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a stone which was not deadly but which killed one person⁴⁰Assuming that in the previous case the law was that the thrower could not be sued by the owner of the vessels, the question remains open whether he can be sued if the thrower cannot be sued for murder (Num. 35:17) but only sued for money by the heirs of the slain person. In the Babli 79b both questions are answered in the negative. and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other?

MISHNAH: If a bull intended [to hurt] another bull but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he is not liable. But if a man intended [to hurt] a neighbor but hit a woman who then had a miscarriage, he pays for the children³³Ex. 21:22 speaks only about quarrelling men hitting a woman, not animals attacking.. How does he pay for the children? One estimates the worth of the woman before and after she gave birth³⁴How much she would be worth on the slave market.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, but the value of a woman increses after giving birth!³⁵Before she gave birth, a potential buyer would discount the price to account for the risk of death in childbirth. But one estimates how much the children would have been worth and gives [the value] to the husband; if she does not have a husband, to the latter’s heirs. If she was a freedwoman or a proselyte³⁶If she was pregnant when she was manumitted or converted, she has no legal father of the children. Also if a woman was married to a freedman or a proselyte who died childless, the attacker does not have to pay since the husband has no heir (but cf. Babli 49a/b, Mekhilta dR. Simeon b. Ioḥai21:22)., he is not liable.

Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something⁸⁵A baraita. from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them⁸⁶Ex. 21:28 discusses the tame bull which kills a human. Verses 29–32 deal with the notorious bull which is killing. Verses 35–36 then deal with both kinds of bulls as damaging goods.. I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave⁸⁷Since the payment for killed slaves is not treated as weregilt but as payment of damages to the owner for the loss of his slave, might it not be trated as part of the rules for payment of damages?; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said⁸⁸A different but parallel argument is in the Babli, 42b., everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother)⁸⁹It seems that one has ro read: “a male or female slave”. the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for fetuses⁹⁰There is an obvious lacuna here which is filled by E: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: “but the owner of the bull is free,” free from paying for fetuses.
The scribe’s error was induced by the repetition of the same text. For the statement of R. Eleazar ben Azariah, cf. Note 71.
The payment for fetuses refers to Ex. 21:22: If quarelling people unintentionally hit a pregnant woman who then has a miscarriage, they have to indemnify her husband. The argument in the text presupposes the statement later in the text: “ ‘people’ but not bulls.” (cf. Midrash Haggadol to Ex. 21:22) This exempts the owner of a notorious bull from payment if it causes a miscarriage. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the owner of a tame bull should pay. Why should R. Eleazar b. Azariah have to mention it?. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave⁹²It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave⁹²It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. But is it not written: “If people quarrel⁹³Ex. 21:22.”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free⁷²Ex. 21:28.;” free from paying for a slave⁹²It seems that one has to read here: “for fetuses”.. But is it not written: “When they quarrel⁹³Ex. 21:22.,” “when they brawl⁹⁴Ex. 21:18, specifying the payments due for intentionally inflicted injuries.”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl⁹⁵There is missing the corresponding rhetorical question “and fight the same as quarrel”? It is in E. The arguments are used to impose the payments mentioned in Ex. 21:18 for intentional injuries on the unintentional injuries mentioned in 21:22, and vice-versa (Nazir 9:5, Notes 183–184; Sanhedrin 9:3, 27a l. 58; Midrash Haggadol21:22).? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this⁹⁶Which of the two contradictory arguments is to be accepted? Neither.? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.

It was stated: “I am selling you a fertile slave girl, her children increase her value. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, this is buttocks⁴⁰Greek κάθισμα “buttocks, behind; seat; sinking”. It may be that the word is used here in a slightly pornographic meaning..” It is written⁴¹Ex. 21:22.: “If quarrelling men hit a pregnant woman and she loses her children.” ⁴²Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 8; partially quoted in the Babli, 49a. Abba Yose ben Ḥanan said, from the meaning of “and she loses her children” would I not know that she was pregnant? Then why does the verse say “pregnant”? It tells you that he is not liable unless he hits her at the place of her pregnancy. Therefore, if he hit her on the palm of her hand or the sole of her foot, he is not liable⁴³In E and Or Zarua‘ (vol. 3, #236), one reads: “If he hit her on the palm of her hand or the sole of her foot, on her head or any of her limbs, would we understand that he be liable? The verse says, “pregnant” (it tells you that he is not liable …).. “As the woman’s husband will put on him”. Do I understand, even if the pregnancy is not his⁴⁴If he married a pregnant girl.? The verse says, “pregnant”. It tells that he pays only to the master of the pregnancy. Rebbi Uqba⁴⁵In the Medieval parallel sources [Tosaphot 43a, Or zarua‘, Yalqut Šim‘oni Qonṭeros Aḥaron (Ashkenazi), Rashba ad 43a (Sephardi)], “R. Aqiba”, an unlikely text. asked, if somebody sleeps with his mother or his sister, is that one not also the master of the pregnancy? The verse says “husband”, somebody who may be called “husband”. This excludes those who cannot be called^45aThe translation follows the reading להיקרות of E, not the bland “to be” of L. “husband”⁴⁶Since an incestual marriage is no marriage at all (Qiddušin 3:12), Or zarua‘ (loc. cit.) deduces from here that the adulterous father of a bastard fetus has a claim on the money since he could have married the woman had she not been otherwise married. The Babli, 43a, explicitly gives the claim to the money to the boyfriend of an unmarried pregnant woman..

If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]¹⁸²Reading of Sanhedrin. The reading here, הָעֶבֶד “the slave” is an obvious misspelling for הָאֵבֶד “the limb”. Throughout the Halakhah, the scribe is not sure in his distinction between ע and א.
It is clear that the attacker has to pay for the operation since this is medical treatment. The question is whether he also has to pay for the permanent impairment of the victim’s earning power caused by the loss of his hand.? Let us hear from the following: “If people quarrel¹⁸³Ex. 21:22, speaking of the injury to an innocent bystander, the unintended victim of an intended hit. The verse decrees the responsibility of the attacker for pain and impairment of the victim.,” “if people brawl.¹⁸⁴Ex. 21:18, the paragraph under discussion, about the intended victim of an intended hit. The verse decrees the responsibility of the attacker for medical cost and disability.” Is not quarrel brawl and brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, “if people quarrel, if people brawl”? To apply the rules of the unintended to the intended and of the intended to the unintended¹⁸⁵In both cases, all four payments are due from the attacker.. It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if it is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the [hand]¹⁸²Reading of Sanhedrin. The reading here, הָעֶבֶד “the slave” is an obvious misspelling for הָאֵבֶד “the limb”. Throughout the Halakhah, the scribe is not sure in his distinction between ע and א.
It is clear that the attacker has to pay for the operation since this is medical treatment. The question is whether he also has to pay for the permanent impairment of the victim’s earning power caused by the loss of his hand.? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pay for the hand¹⁸⁶Since the attacker has to pay for the operation, he has to pay for the permanent impairment..