MISHNAH: One who injures another person owes him under five categories: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings [Payment of medical costs and replacement of lost earnings are biblical obligations, Ex. 21:19.] , and embarrassment. How are damages determined? If he blinded his eye, or cut off his hand, or broke his leg, one considers it as if he were sold as a slave; how much was he worth and how much is he worth now [Since slaves are bought for their working power (Halakhah 7:1), what has to be estimated is the loss of earning power.] . Suffering: If he burned him with a spit, or with a nail, even on his fingernails where it does not cause a wound [If no open wound is caused, no damages are due. The payment for pain is independent of the payment for damages.] , one estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.
HALAKHAH: “One who injures another person,” etc. It was stated [Tosephta 9:1.] : “One who injures another person in five [respects] pays him for five categories, in four he pays him four, in three he pays him three, in two he pays him two, in one he pays him one.” How? If he hit him on his hand and severed it, he pays him five times: Damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his hand and it became swollen [Since the damage is not permanent, no damages are due.] , he pays four times: Suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarassment. If he hit him on his head which became swollen, he pays three times, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings [Maimonides (Hilkhot Hovel umazziq 2:2) and Rosh (Chapter 8, §1) read: embarrassment. This is reasonable since a person with a swollen head is embarrassed but not disabled. But the Genizah text supports the Leiden reading; the error, if it is one, must be a very old one. E hs a lacuna at this place.] . At a place where it is not visible he pays twice, suffering and medical costs [This supports the reading of Maimonides and Rosh.] . With a tome [Latin tomus “cut”, Greek τόμος “piece, slice”. There is no injury or hurt; therefore payment is only due for embarassment. E reads בניומוס, a scribal error. A differently formulated parallel in Sifra Emor Pereq 20(4) reads בְּלוּחַ וּבְפִינַקְס וּבְטוֹמוֹס נְייָרוֹת “with a plank, or a wooden writing tablet (πίναξ), or a bundle of papers.”] in his hand he pays only once, for embarrassment.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he severed his hand and returned and severed the arm, does he have to pay additionally for the pain inflicted the first time [If the case came to court only after the second attack. In the Babli, 85b, it is considered obvious that suffering and embarrassment must be treated separately for each attack whereas the other payments can be combined.] ?
It is written: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth [Lev. 24:20, speaking of payment for either animal or man.] .” At another place, He says: “Do not be softhearted. [Deut. 19:21, 25:12.] ” One refers to inadvertent acts, the other to intentional ones [Cf. Sifry Deut. 293. The quote Deut. 19:21 refers to the punishment of the perjured witnesses. Since in injury cases the false accuser wanted to extort money and therefore would have to pay money, it is concluded that Deut. 25:12 which prescribes punishment for intentional injury also must mean payment of money. Therefore Lev. 24:20 refers to payment for unintentional injury.] . He could mention the inadvertent but not mention the intentional. But if the inadvertent had been mentioned but not the intentional, I would have said that for the inadvertent act he shall pay money, for the intentional [have his hand cut off. Therefore it was necessary to mention the intentional. Or if the intentional had been mentioned but not the inadvertent, I would have said that for the intentional act he shall pay money, for the inadvertent] [Text missing in the Leiden ms., supplied from E and supported by the Genizah text.] he should not pay at all. Therefore it was necessary to mention both inadvertent and intentional. And if he blinded a blind man or cut off the arm of an amputee, how could one fulfill: “Do to him as he intended to do to his brother” [Deut. 19:19, referring to the punishment of perjured witnesses. The quote is confirmed by all three ms. sources but probably the reference should be to Lev. 23:19: “As a person injures another, so should be done to him”. The Babli, 84a, in quoting a similar baraita refers to Lev. 24:22: “A uniform law shall it be for you”; cf. also Sifra Emor Pereq 20(7).] ? This indicates that he only pays money.
“Suffering: If he burned him with a spit, or with a nail, even on his fingernails where it does not cause a wound.” How is this [The Genizah and E texts do not have דמי; cf. Chapter 7, Note 50.] ? If he wounded him so that he lost blood, it already is written: “A wound for a wound [Ex. 21:25. Of the three expressions mentioned there, the third one, חַבּוּרָה, “contusion”, already seems to be subsumed under the first, כְּוִיָּה, “burn”, or the second, פצע, “open wound”. A similar discussion is in the Babli, 84b.] .” Why does the verse say “a contusion”? To tell you that if he burned him with a spit on the palm of his hand and it swelled, on the sole of his foot and it swelled, or he put snow or ice on him at a place which is not visible, he has to pay his medical expenses. [A somewhat different text is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 8: “If he wounded him so that he lost blood, it already is written: ‘A wound for a wound’; if he caused a contusion, is there not written ‘a contusion for a contusion’? Why is written ‘a burn for a burn’? To tell you that if he burned him with a spit on the palm of his hand or on the sole of his foot and it was not noticeable, or he put snow on his head and gave him a cold, he has to pay for his suffering.”]
“One estimates how much a person in his state would ask to be paid in order to be willing to suffer such pain.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, one sees a person and asks him, how much would you give that such pain would not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give [The court determines the payment for suffering by asking a randomly chosen member of the public. The amount indicated by that person is imposed on the attacker.] . Mar Uqba said, the Mishnah is “how much a person would ask to be paid,” and you say so? But one sees a person and asks him, how much would you ask that such pain not be inflicted on you? And what he says, he has to give [Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 8 explains this as the meaning of payment “burn for burn”.] . Ben Azai said, one gives food invalidity [Tosephta 9:3. The Erfurt text reads “the cost of food”, for the additional cost of a sick person’s diet.] . What is food invalidity? Before that, I was eating lentils and vegetables but now I can only eat eggs and chicken. What he asks one [The court imposes the additional costs on the attacker.] gives him. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, a Roman who was sick would not go into battle until he could eat all he had been missing those days.
MISHNAH: Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs. In case a growth on that person’s body developed, if it was a consequence of the injury, he has to pay medical costs. If it started to heal but regressed several times, he has to pay medical costs. After it was healed completely he no longer has to pay medical costs.
HALAKHAH: “Medical costs. If he hit a person, he has to pay that person’s medical costs,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If there was a growth around the wound and complications ensued because of the wound, what is the rule [Is the attacker liable for delayed consequences of his attack?] ? Since it is written [Payment of medical costs and replacement of lost earnings are biblical obligations, Ex. 21:19.] : “And healing he shall heal,” if [the patient] did not follow the doctor’s instructions, he is [not liable] [For continued medical care. Babli 85a, Tosephta 9:4.] . It was stated in another baraita: If [the wound] was covered with scab, he must pay for medical treatment. It was stated [For continued medical care. Babli 85a, Tosephta 9:4.] : “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah [In the parallel texts, this is R. Jehudah’s own opinion.] says, if there was a growth around the wound, even if complications ensued because of the wound, he must pay for medical treatment but he is not liable to pay for his loss of earnings. Rebbi Simeon [In the Babli, this is quoted as “the Sages’ ” opinion. Whenever one is obligated to pay for medical treatment, he automatically is obligated to pay for lost earnings. This answers R. Jeremiah’s question in full.] says, in this paragraph [Payment of medical costs and replacement of lost earnings are biblical obligations, Ex. 21:19.] Scripture introduced a novelty stating that he has to pay for loss of earnings together with medical treatment: ‘Only his loss of earnings he shall compensate and healing he shall heal.’ ”
MISHNAH: Loss of earnings. One considers him as if he were a watchman of pumpkins since he already compensated him for the loss of his hand or loss of his foot [Once long-term disability has been compensated for, short term inability to work has to be compensated on the level of his remaining long term earning power.] . Embarrassment. Everything depends on the person embarrassing and the one embarrassed [The lower the social standing of the agressor, the more weighty is his insult. The higher the social standing of the victim, the more damaging is the insult.] . One who embarrassed a naked person [Who is in an embarrassing situation.] , or embarrassed a blind person [Who cannot see the reaction of others to his embarrassment.] , or embarrassed a sleeping person [Who does not notice his embarrassment.] is liable, but the sleeper who embarrassed is not liable. If a person fell from a roof and caused damage and embarrassed, he is liable for the damage but not liable for the embarrassment since is was said [Deut. 25:11.] : “She reached out with her hand and grabbed him at his private parts;” one is not liable for embarrassment unless if was intended.
HALAKHAH: “Loss of earnings. One considers him,” etc. Here you say, “one considers him as if he were a watchman of pumpkins.” But there, you say [Deut. 25:11.] , “if he was earning a mina per day, he pays him a mina; a tetradrachma, he gives him a tetradrachma.” Rebbi Isaac said, there are two kinds of inability to work. If he hit him on his hand and cut it off, one does not consider him as if he earned a mina a day but one considers him as if he were a lame person watching pumpkins, because he already compensated him for the loss of his hand or loss of his foot. But if he burned him on the palm of his hand and it swelled, on the flat of his head and it swelled, or he put on him snow or cold water at a place which is not visible, then he has to pay his medical expenses [The last sentence is a quote from Halakhah 1 (Note 17). According to the preceding Halakhah, the obligation of paying for medical care implies the obligation to pay for loss of temporary earnings.] .
[This paragraph is alluded to in the Babli, 28a, and Sifry Deut. #292. The verse Deut. 25:11 reads: “If men quarreled, a person with his brother, and the wife of one of them intervened to save her husband from the hand of one who hit him when she reached out with her hand and grabbed him at his private parts.” Grabbing a person’s private parts is given as an example of an action intended to embarrass. It is clear in the paragraph that “wife of x” stands for “x” himself. The court marshall meting out punishment is protected from a damage suit by the person suffering the punishment as long as he strictly follows the court’s instructions. He is not protected for actions taken on his own initiative.] It was stated: “She reached out with her hand,” but not the court marshal’s wife. Another Tanna stated, “she reached out with her hand,” including the court marshal’s wife. He who said, “she reached out with her hand,” but not the court marshal’s wife, if he whipped with permission. He who said, “she reached out with her hand,” including the court marshal’s wife, if he whipped without permission. It was stated: Not the wife of two men [Since a woman cannot have two husbands, one derives from the expression “the wife of one of them” that two people trading mutual insults have no case in court.] .
MISHNAH: This is more severe regarding a human than an ox since a human pays damages [And 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 children [Ex. 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 concussion [Ex. 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 Atonement [Desecrating 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 slave [Hebrew 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 slave [Any 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: “This is more severe regarding a human than an ox,” etc. “A person who hits his father or mother,” etc. It was stated [A similar statement is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 9.] : If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded both of his eyes simultanously, or that he knocked out two of his teeth simultaneously, he does not have to pay anything. One after the other, he gains his freedom by the first and he pays him damages for the second [Ex. 21:26–27 states that a slave gains his freedom if his master blinds him or knocks out one of his teeth. If the master injures the slave repeatedly, the slave gains his freedom by the first injury and, therefore, can claim full payment for the second as a free Jew (Babli Giṭṭin 42b). But if a double injury was inflicted in one blow, the slave was not free and has no claim beyond his automatic freedom.] . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that one estimates embarrassment for slaves [Since there is no exception made for shame in the previous statement. The statement is difficult to understand since at the moment of the second injury the slave already is a free Jew rather than a slave. As R. Eliahu Fulda points out, it also is superfluous since R. Joḥanan always follows the anonymous Mishnah as practice. Since the Yerushalmi is so elliptic, it may not be excluded that it follows the Babli (Giṭṭin 42b) in holding that the slave is automatically free only for eye and tooth which are mentioned in the verse, but for other injuries for which the court will force the slave’s freedom a bill of manumission would be required. Then R. Abbahu’s statement becomes relevant for the case of a slave in his period between servitude and freedom.] . [A text similar to the remainder of this paragraph is in Ketubot 5:5, Notes 120–130.] Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a person dedicates his earnings, he dedicates everything [Everything he earns automatically is Temple property; he cannot take anything to feed himself but has to beg his sustenance from others. Tosephta ‘Arakhin 3:8 does not support this statement.] . If he dedicates the earnings of his slave, he [The slave can support himself from his own earnings; only the excess becomes Temple property; Tosephta ‘Arakhin 3:8, Babli Giṭṭin 12a.] can take from there his upkeep and the remainder is dedicated. Here you say, the remainder is dedicated, but there you say, everything is holy. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support free people than slaves [Slaves would not be able to feed themselves from alms.] . But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say: If somebody cuts off the hands of somebody else’s slave, his master collects damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment, and that one should be supported by welfare [Babli Giṭṭin 12b.] . Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support amputated slaves than unimpaired ones. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan also give to his slave when he ate meat? Give also to his slave when he drank wine? And recited for himself the verse [Job 31:15.] : “Did not His maker make me in the womb”? They said, there a rule of law, here a rule of mercy.
MISHNAH: It is bad to meet a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person [These are not prosecutable and cannot be sued. Even if they were healed or grew up they cannot be sued for what they did when they were not responsible.] : Anybody who injures them is liable but they who cause injury are not liable. It is bad to meet a woman [A married woman, any of whose private property is administered by her husband who has the usufruct and therefore can block any payment which would diminish his income. A married woman whose husband had waved his right of administration and usufruct before marriage is counted as a male for the rules of this Mishnah.] or a slave [Any whose property is his master’s. This rule was contested by the Sadducees, Mishnah Yadayim 4:7.] : Anybody who injures them is liable but they who cause injury are not liable, but they might have to pay later. If the woman was divorced or the slave manumitted, they have to pay. A person who hits his father or mother causing a concussion [Ex. 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 to a fellow man on the Sabbath [Desecrating 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 not liable for anything since he is tried for his life [Even if he cannot be tried because of lack of eyewitnesses or other reasons; cf. Terumot 7:1, Note 16.] . One who injures his own Canaanite slave is not liable for anything.
HALAKHAH: “It is bad to meet a deaf-mute, an insane, or an underage person,” etc. It was stated [Tosephta Makkot 1:4.] : If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded the eye of his slave and broke his tooth, for that is what the master said, and they are found to be perjured, they pay to the slave [The master in fact blinded the slave and broke his tooth. Since the payment for the loss of an eye is much larger than that for the loss of a tooth, it is to the advantage of the master to free his slave for the eye and to pay only for the tooth. If the witnesses are found to be perjured, they have to pay the difference of the payments for eye and tooth to the slave, irrespective of what happened in reality.] . How can they say this about the case [How can such a case really occur? The same question can be asked about the case treated in the preceding Halakhah since even if it looked as if both eyes were blinded simultaneously, it might have been that one was injured a fraction of a second before the other.] ? Rebbi Nasa said, those might say the following: We testify about X that [the slave] came to his hand unimpaired and left with two injuries [This is unproblematic testimony.] . Then he gains his freedom with the first and he has to pay him for the second [Since the burden of proof is on the claimant, the slave becomes free on the injury to the eye and receives payment for the injury to the tooth unless he can prove by witnesses that his tooth was knocked out first.] .
MISHNAH: He who hits another [The meaning of this sentence is not clear. ‘Arukh: He blows his horn into the victim’s ear. Rashi quotes the Arukh and adds his teacher’s explanation: He hit him on his ear. Maimonides in his Mishnah Commentary: He hit him with his fist. In his Code (חובל ומזיק 9:3): He hit him with his flat hand.] pays him a tetradrachma [The word סלע used in both Talmudim for tetradrachma is not the Hebrew “rock” but the Sumerian silà used in Accadic as the unit of volume (1/300 of a gur, כּוֹר).] ; Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, a mina [100 denarii.] . If he slapped him, he pays 200 zuz [Accadic zūzum, from זוז “to split”, the half-šeqel piece, identified with the Roman denarius. The possession of 200 zuz disqualifies its holder from receiving public assistance (Mishnah Peah 8:8); it is a considerable sum.] , with the back of his hand he gives him 400 zuz. If he hurt him on his earlobe, tore out some of his hair, spat on him and the spit touched him, removed his stole, uncovered a woman’s hair [A married woman will indicate her status by having her hair covered in public. In the Babli and some Mishnah mss. it is stated explicitly “uncovered a woman’s hair in public”.] , he pays 400 zuz; everything corresponding to his honor [The sums stated in the Mishnah are maxima, applicable to the highest levels of society; the court may lower them in appropriate cases.] . Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel are treated as aristocrats who lost their property [He disagrees with the last statement of the preceding Mishnah; the sums mentioned are mandatory in all cases.] , for they are descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In a case where somebody uncovered a woman’s hair, she came before Rebbi Aqiba who obligated him to pay her 400 zuz. He said to him, Rabbi, give me some time, which he did. He watched her at the entrance of her courtyard and broke a flask before her which contained an as worth of oil [A very small amount.] . She uncovered her hair, splashed her hand with the oil and worked it onto her head. He had her observed by witnesses and came before Rebbi Aqiba, telling him, to such a one [Who uncovers herself for a very small gain.] I have to give 400 zuz? He told him, you did not say anything since a person who injures himself, while he is not allowed to do that [Gen. 9:5, Deut. 4:15.] , is not liable, but others who injure him are liable; a person who cuts down his fruit trees, while he is not allowed to do that [Deut. 20:19; Ševi‘it 4:10, Notes 109–110.] , is not liable, but others who cut down his fruit trees are.
HALAKHAH: “He who hits another pays him a tetradrachma.” “Rebbi Aqiba said, even the poorest in Israel,” etc. Rav Qarni stated: For a kick, one. For an elbow, three. For sqlvnqyt fifteen [In the parallel in Babli, 27b, the quote appears in Rav Ḥisda’s name. There, pushing with the elbow cost 3 tetradrachmas, a kick with the foot 5, and סנוקרת 13. The unexplained סנוקרת (which also is the reading of E here) according to R. Ḥananel (i. e., Gaonic tradition) means a hook with the fist under the chin; according to Rashi hitting somebody with a donkey saddle. The Genizah text reads יסקינוקינית, the Metivot fragment סקלוקינת. J. N. Epstein (ללקסיקון התלמודי 2/1 תרביץ p. 123–127) proposes Accadic sunkirtu (su-un-kir-tum) “camel’s hump” as origin. {Cf. Latin sculpturigo “scratching”, sculptorium “back scratcher” (E. G.).}] . Somebody said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: He who puts an Elder to shame has fully to pay for his shame. A person insulted Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥanina [The case is mentioned in Ketubot 4:8, Note 202.] . The case came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who fined him a pound of gold.
“If one spat on him and the spit touched him.” How far does the spit have to reach? On his body, on his garments? [The question is not answered. One may conclude that there is no difference. The Babli, 91a, comes to the opposite conclusion, viz., that spitting on somebody’s garments is not punishable.] But what is the rule if he spat and the spittle did not reach him? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that somebody who insults another person verbally is not liable [Since certainly spitting is not punishable if the spit falls to the ground before it reaches the intended victim, verbal spit which never touches cannot be punishable (in contrast to contemporary Roman or Egyptian laws.)] .
Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “You killed my ox, you cut down my fruit trees,” and the other says, I do not know, he is liable. He said to him, certainly you state that to the rabble [As J. Levy notes, the unexplained words מקרילות (Genizah מקבילות ,(מקליקות are onomatopoetic and intended as an insult. The Babli in such a situation uses חִילֵּק וּבִילֵּק “split and desolation” to designate the totally unworthy. R. Abbahu’s statement is not worth to be heard since nobody can be responsible for an undocumented claim about which he notes his own ignorance.] . He answered, it is my fault, they said the following: “We testify against X that he killed ox Y” and the other says, I do not know, he is liable. [He said, that was stated.] [Not in the Leiden ms., added from the E and Genizah texts. R. Joḥanan notes that the statement in its present form is obviously true, hence unnecessary. The Genizah text has a better version in R. Abbahu’s statement: “We testify against X that he killed Y’s ox or cut down his fruit trees.”]
MISHNAH: Even though he did pay, he will not be forgiven [The person who injures another cannot obtain mercy in Heaven unless he first has asked forgiveness on earth.] unless he asks for forgiveness, as it is said: “Now return the man’s wife since he is a prophet [Gen. 20:7. The reference as usual is to the part of the verse which is not quoted: “Let him pray for you that you will live.” This implies that Abraham first had to forgive Avimelekh before the latter obtained Heavenly mercy.] .” From where that the person asked to forgive shall not be cruel? It is said [Gen. 20:17.] : “Abraham prayed to the Omnipotent, etc.”
HALAKHAH: “Even though he did pay,” etc. [Paragraph missing in the Leiden ms., added from the Genizah text. E’s text is somewhat longer.] [And so you find with Job’s friends. [Job 42:8–10. Tosephta 9:29.] “Now yourselves take seven bulls and seven rams, etc.” “Eliphas the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Ṣophar the Naamite went and did, etc.” What does it say at the end? “The Eternal changed Job’s fortunes.” When? “When he was praying for his neighbor, etc.” “The Eternal doubled everything that Job had had.”]
It was stated [Tosephta 9:30; Babli Šabbat151b.] : Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rabban Gamliel. Since it says that [Deut. 13:18.] “He will give you mercy etc.”, let the following be a sign in your hand: Whenever that you show mercy, the Omnipresent will have mercy on you. If you do not show mercy, the Omnipresent will not have mercy on you. [Yoma 8:9 (45c), Babli 87b.] Rav said: If a person misbehaved towards another and asked for pardon but the other did not respond, let him assemble a row of people and ask for pardon, as it is written [Job 33:27.] : “Form a row of men, etc. [“Let him say, I sinned, I did evil without caring.”] ” If he does so, what is written there? [Job 33:28.] “He redeemed his soul from the pit, not to go to destruction etc.” Rebbi Yose said, that is if he did not defame, but the defamer is never pardoned.
MISHNAH: If one says: Blind my eye, cut off my hand, break my leg, he is liable [It is forbidden to injure another person (except for medical treatment). Since “there is no agency for committing crimes”, a person committing a crime on the instigation of another is not absolved from liability.] . On condition not to be liable [Even if the instigator/victim agrees beforehand that no liability would be involved.] , he is liable. Tear my garment, break my pitcher, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is not liable [Since this is purely a money matter.] . Do that to another person, on condition not to be liable, he is liable whether about his person or his money [It is forbidden to injure another person (except for medical treatment). Since “there is no agency for committing crimes”, a person committing a crime on the instigation of another is not absolved from liability.] .
HALAKHAH: “If one say: Blind my eye, cut off my hand,” etc. “If he says, blind my eye because it damages me, cut off my hand because it damages me, he is liable. On condition not to be liable, he is liable.” [Tosephta 9:32: “If one says: blind my eye because it damages me, cut off my hand because it damages me, he is not liable.” This may be a Babylonian version.] Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which really means “no”. But for a “yes” which does mean “yes” he is not liable [If a person asks to be mutilated, it is obvious that this person cannot sue for damages. Then the question arises, what does the Mishnah mean by holding the person who does the mutilation liable? The relatives can sue because they have to bear the shame of having a mutilated member in their family. If the person doing the mutilation can show that the immunity granted him by the victim was honest, they cannot sue.] . The statement of Rebbi Eleazar is about the family’s loss of standing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a “yes” which means “yes”. But for a “yes” which means “no”, he is liable [Even for the willful destruction of property.] . The statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish imples that one estimates the relatives’ loss of standing [He gives the relatives the right to sue in any case. In the Babli, 93a, R. Simeon ben Laqish’s position is attributed to his teacher R. Hoshaia, R. Eleazar’s position to his teacher R. Joḥanan. Since R. Simeon ben Laqish is a higher authority than R. Eleazar but R. Joḥanan is higher than R. Hoshaia, implicitly the two Talmudim decide in opposite ways.] . It was stated [Tosephta 9:33; quoted in Babli 117a.] : “If Gentiles forced a Jew and took from him another person’s money in his presence, he is not liable. If he handed it over, he is liable.” Rebbi Yose said, that means if they simply demanded “money” [One may use another person’s money to save his own life but he has to pay for it.] . But “X’s money”, he is not liable even if he handed it over [Cf. Terumot 8:10, Note 248.] .