SYNOPSIS
דף פ"ג
Teaching Greek to One’s Child
The ban was on its wisdom not its language. רבן גמליאל’s family was given a special dispensation since they dealt with the Roman monarchy who conversed in Greek wisdom.
Raising Dogs
One could keep a dog but only leashed except on the border he could unleash them at night. נהרדעא is a border town in בבל. The people were permitted to raise dogs.
Spreading Nets to Catch Pigeons
Even though one is required to distance a dove cot only fifty amos this is because they eat their fill from the grain they find in the first fifty amos but setting nets but they can fly a greater distance therefore one must distance the nets four mil. If there are vineyards or dovecots in between, they can fly even more than four mil. If the dovecots belong to Jews then our concern is not only the distance birds fly, but spreading the net would be prohibited because of the dovecots. However, if they belong to gentiles or הפקר or they belong to the trapper then the concern is only for the distance the birds fly.
פרק החובל
One who injures a fellow Jew is required to pay five forms of financial compensation. He is liable for damages, for the pain the victim suffered, medical expenses, unemployment and humiliation. The גמרא begins with a fundamental question. If the Torah defines the payment for damage as עין תחת עין, how do we know the compensation is monetary?
The גמרא suggests two answers from a ברייתא:
1. We compare the damage of a human being to an animal by way of a גז"ש מכה מכה
2. The Torah concerning the murder of a fellow Jew says do not exonerate the murderer by way of payment. We can infer that the laws of damages are different.
Although a verse states איש כי יכה כל נפש אדם מות יומת the גמרא explains this as there is no provision for a poor man to make less restitution so he should no perish from poverty. In addition a verse states כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו the גמרא explains this to mean the giving of money.
Still the גמרא is not satisfied because a verse says מכה אדם יומת. Even though that verse applies to a parent perhaps we compare humans to humans and not humans to animals therefore the second reason, the distinction between injury and death is needed. This verse suffices because it does not have to teach that the Torah does not require both.
The Torah clarifies that in the verse כדי רשעתו אחת ולא שתי רשעיות. Still we need the first reason to teach that the perpetrator does not have a choice to give his eye or any other limb.
