וְכִֽי־יַכֶּ֨ה אִ֜ישׁ אֶת־עֵ֥ין עַבְדּ֛וֹ אֽוֹ־אֶת־עֵ֥ין אֲמָת֖וֹ וְשִֽׁחֲתָ֑הּ לַֽחָפְשִׁ֥י יְשַׁלְּחֶ֖נּוּ תַּ֥חַת עֵינֽוֹ׃ (ס)
און אַז אַ מאַן װעט שלאָגן דאָס אױג פֿון זײַן קנעכט, אָדער דאָס אױג פֿון זײַן דינסט, און װעט עס איבערפֿירן, זאָל ער אים אַרױסלאָזן פֿרײַ פֿאַר זײַן אױג.
Rav Hirsch
Es heißt daher auch nicht, etwa wie ואשה גרושה מאשה (Wajikra 21, 7): וגרשה מביתו welches eine konkrete Entfernung aus dem Hause als etwa letzten Scheidungsakt ausdrücken würde, sondern שלח .ושלחה heißt nämlich nur höchst selten: fortschicken, entfernen. Seine eigentliche Bedeutung ist immer eine negative, ein Loslassen, Freilassen, sich selbst Überlassen, Entlassen, Richtzurückhalten etc. Aus den zahlreichen Stellen, in welchen es immer in solcher Bedeutung vorkommt, verzeichnen wir nur einige charakteristische. So שלח את בני וגו׳ (Schmot 4, 33) und so immer ferner die Entlassung des Volkes aus Pharaos Botmässigkeit. ושלח לכם את אחיכם (Bereshit 43, 14), כי שלחו וילך (Sam. II. 3, 22), ושלחו בדרך טובה (Sam. I, 24, 20), מי שלח פרא חפשי (Job 39, 8), לחשי ישלחנו (Schmot 21, 26). Heißt doch auch die Verheiratung von Töchtern, deren Entlassen aus väterlichem Hause: ושלשים בנות שלח החוצה ,שלח (Richter 12, 9). Unbezweifelt bezeichnet daher auch hier ושלחה מביתו nicht eine räumliche Entfernung aus dem Hause, diese bezeichnet erst das ויצאה מביתו des nächsten Verses als natürliche Folge der Scheidung. ושלחה מביתו ist aber nichts als Ausdruck der Rechtswirkung des Scheideaktes: das Lösen des bisherigen Ehebandes und das Entlassen aus der Hörigkeit an den Mann. Somit ist es der spezifische Gegensatz zu dem Begriff כי יקח וגו׳ ,לקוחים, welches die Eheschließung bezeichnete. Damit wurde ein קנין vollzogen, aus welchem die Frau durch den Scheideakt entlassen wird. Sie wird damit sich selbst wieder gegeben. Daher gibt Onkelos auch das שלח hier durch פטר wieder, das ja ein Freimachen, Entlassen bedeutet, und so auch den ganzen Rechtsbegriff der Scheidung כריתות durch גט פטורין ,פטורין, während er Wajikra 21, 7; 14, 22 u. 13 גרש durch תרך wiedergibt.
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
If a man struck his father or mother and left a wound, or if he wounded his fellow on the Sabbath, he is not liable for any of the [five] counts because he is liable for his life.
If a man wounded his Canaanite (non- slave he is not liable on any of the five counts.
Striking one’s father or mother and causing a wound or wounding another person on the Sabbath are all capital crimes. Since the person is sentenced to death, he is not obligated for the death penalty. (For more on this clause see the explanation to Mishnah three).
A non-Jewish slave is considered the property of his owner and cannot own any money. Therefore one who injures his own non-Jewish slave does not make any payment, since he would pay the money to himself in any case.
Note that this is not a license to injure non-Jewish slaves. According to Exodus 21:26-27 if a man should strike his slave and cause him to lose his eye or tooth the slave must be set free. The Rabbis expanded this law to include losses of other body parts.
If a man wounded his Canaanite (non- slave he is not liable on any of the five counts.
Striking one’s father or mother and causing a wound or wounding another person on the Sabbath are all capital crimes. Since the person is sentenced to death, he is not obligated for the death penalty. (For more on this clause see the explanation to Mishnah three).
A non-Jewish slave is considered the property of his owner and cannot own any money. Therefore one who injures his own non-Jewish slave does not make any payment, since he would pay the money to himself in any case.
Note that this is not a license to injure non-Jewish slaves. According to Exodus 21:26-27 if a man should strike his slave and cause him to lose his eye or tooth the slave must be set free. The Rabbis expanded this law to include losses of other body parts.
Tosafot
“And it killed a man or a woman.” In Shemot 21, 25, the Torah says: “and if an ox gores a man or a woman”. In the very next verse Shemot 21, 26, the Torah says: “and it will kill a man or a woman”. Our Gemara is clearly referring to verse 26. Tosafot wonders: why doesn't the Gemara quote the earlier verse 25?
This is bewildering! For the previous verse “if an ox will gore a man or a woman” should have been cited here as proof that women are equated to men when they are victims of a goring.
The second verse is used to derive another ruling:
For from verse 26, “and he will kill a man or a woman”, the Gemara expounds in Shor Shenogach Arbo’oh va’Chameeshoh (below 42b): just as the payment for a man’s damages passes to his heirs etc. so too the damages payment of a woman passes to her heirs and not to her husband.
Tosafot quotes the Gemara there on 42b:
And this is what the Gemara says there: “and he, the ox, will kill a man or a woman”, R’ Akiva says: what does this come to teach us? Perhaps that one is liable for the death of a woman as he is for the death of a man? The verse already says “if an ox will gore etc. a man or a woman. We already know that one is liable when his ox kills a woman.
Rather, the verse is needed to compare a woman to a man in regard to the recipient of the post death payment, just as a man’s damages are paid to his heirs etc., so too, a woman’s damages are paid to her heirs.
This is bewildering! For the previous verse “if an ox will gore a man or a woman” should have been cited here as proof that women are equated to men when they are victims of a goring.
The second verse is used to derive another ruling:
For from verse 26, “and he will kill a man or a woman”, the Gemara expounds in Shor Shenogach Arbo’oh va’Chameeshoh (below 42b): just as the payment for a man’s damages passes to his heirs etc. so too the damages payment of a woman passes to her heirs and not to her husband.
Tosafot quotes the Gemara there on 42b:
And this is what the Gemara says there: “and he, the ox, will kill a man or a woman”, R’ Akiva says: what does this come to teach us? Perhaps that one is liable for the death of a woman as he is for the death of a man? The verse already says “if an ox will gore etc. a man or a woman. We already know that one is liable when his ox kills a woman.
Rather, the verse is needed to compare a woman to a man in regard to the recipient of the post death payment, just as a man’s damages are paid to his heirs etc., so too, a woman’s damages are paid to her heirs.
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
צוטריטלעך נאָר פֿאַר פּרעמיום־מיטגלידערGerman Commentary
צוטריטלעך נאָר פֿאַר פּרעמיום־מיטגלידערRashi
ושלח לכם means AND MAY HE RELEASE UNTO YOU, as the Targum renders it — may He release him from his bonds. It has the same meaning as (Exodus 21:26) “He shall let him go, יְשַׁלְּחֶנוּ (Piel) free”. It would not have been correct to translate it in the Targum by “and may he send to you your other brother”, because, as a matter of fact, they were going there where he was.
Rashi
נחרפת לאיש [AND WHOSOEVER LIETH CARNALLY WITH A WOMAN THAT IS A HANDMAID] GIVEN OVER TO A MAN — נחרפת signifies: destined and designated to a man. I do not know of any similar use of it (the root חרף) in Scripture. — And it is of a Canaanitish handmaid who is partly a שפחה and partly a free-woman and who is betrothed to a Hebrew servant who is permitted to marry a שפחה, that Scripture is here speaking (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 5 2; Keritot 11a).