SYNOPSIS/ SUMMARY DAF YOMI | Bava Kama 84
דף פ"ד
The גמרא continues its previous discussion as to how we know when the Torah says עין תחת עין it means monetary compensation and not removing an actual eye
1. רב שמעון בן יוחי – He attempts to prove it by way of the eyes or the limbs not always being the same size. Therefore the punishment is not equal. The גמרא rejects this. In both cases the equality is the loss of sight.
2. רבי ישמעאל – The word in the Torah for compensation is נתינה. The giving refers to money.
3. בי רבי חייא – Concerning the punishment for הזמה the terminology is עין בעין not תחת עין.
4. אביי – It says עין תחת עין not עין ונפש. One may die from the removal of the eye as punishment. The גמרא rejects this. The courts will evaluate the perpetrators state of health as in administering lashes.
5. רב זביד – The additional terminology in the verse פצע תחת פצע requires the perpetrator to pay for the victim's pain. If his eye is removed he suffered pain as well. However, the גמרא rejects this proof because perhaps the Torah means the difference in pain.
6. רב פפא – Since it says ורפא ירפא it requires the perpetrator to pay his medical expenses. If the courts remove his eye he needs medical care. Again the גמרא answers it means if the victim heals slower then he pays the difference.
7. רב אשי – A גזירת שוה is learned from the verse concerning a single girl who was raped. It says תחת אשר ענה. We learn damages from a human to human.
8. רבי אליעזר – He holds עין תחת עין refers to the value of the perpetrators eye and not that of a slave.
רבא: נזקי שור בשור וששור באדם גובין בבבל אבל לא נזקי אדם באדם ולא אדם בשור
Since the verse says in relation to נזקי אדם: עד שאלוהים יבא דבר שניהם meaning he requires special judges, סמוכים. רבא explains that the judges of בבל carried out their judgements as representatives of the judges in ארץ ישראל.
This representation was limited to common cases such as animals damaging animals and where the victim stands to lose money. Therefore personal injury that is not so common or fines such as humiliation that was not compensatory were not adjudicated in בבל. Concerning damage of animals to one another only cases of שן ורגל that were commonplace were judged in בבל.
This representation was limited to common cases such as animals damaging animals and where the victim stands to lose money. Therefore personal injury that is not so common or fines such as humiliation that was not compensatory were not adjudicated in בבל. Concerning damage of animals to one another only cases of שן ורגל that were commonplace were judged in בבל.
