דף צ
Freedom of the wife's נכסי מלוג slaves
There are two conflicting ברייתות whether they go free בשן ורגל. One ברייתא holds only if she blinds the slave or knocks out his tooth. The other ברייתא says neither her nor her husband can free them. Either the argument is that one ברייתא is before the תקנה so she is the principle owner and can free him, the other where she cannot free him is after the תקנה or according to רבא both are after the תקנה. However, freeing a slave undermines a lien similar to consecrating a lien on a loan or something that became prohibited בהנאה such as chometz as collateral for a loan, undermines the lien. According to the other ברייתא the תקנה strengthens the husband's lien. This is similar to another argument betweenרבי מאיר ורבי יהודה where one sold his slave retaining service for an additional thirty days. The question is who benefits from the law of יום או יומים. Who in fact is the master of the slave? רבי מאיר holds since the verse says ומת תחת ידו it is the first master who he presently serves. רבי יהודה holds it is the new master since the verse says כי כספו הוא. רבי מאיר holds where the husband has rights to work the slave it is his and the wife's blinding him would not free him. However רבי יהודה would hold hers is the principle ownership. There is also the opinion of רבי אליעזר. He holds that neither have rights to sell נכסי מלוג because no one is an absolute owner. According to him כי כספו הוא means his sole property.
Laws of Mishnah:
1. One who punches one in the ear or shouts in one's ear according to the ת"ק pays a סלע; according to רבי יהודה pays twenty five times as much a מנה. The גמרא explains a מנה צורי that were pure silver not מנה מדינה which was one part siver and seven parts copper.
2. He slapped one on the cheek with palm of his hand pays two hundred zuz; the back of his hand pays four hundred.
3. If one pulled another's hair or ear, spit on his body, removed even his outer garment, removed a woman's hair covering he pays four hundred zuz.
Rule: The greater the honor the greater the compensation. According to רבי עקיבא even the poor are viewed as those that had and lost money.
4. According to רבי עקיבא, even if a woman were motivated to remove her hair covering in public, it would not exempt the perpetrator. It is no different than one who mutilates himself, although not permitted, does not exempt another. One is not allowed to destroy his own trees and if he does so it does not exempt the damage of another.
Can a witness be a judge
The גמרא brings a מעשה that רבי יהודה נשיאה decided a case to pay a מנה צורי upon witnessing one punch another in the ear. However there is a ברייתא that says even if the סנהדרין witnessed a murder according to רבי טרפון some have to be judges and others witnesses whereas רבי עקיבא holds all must be witnesses. The reason is they witnessed this at night. Since they could not try the murderer at night only during the day when they did not see the incident they must hear testimony from witnesses. Their witnessing only has value at the time of the trial. During the day one can judge on the basisשלא תהא שמיעה גדולה מראיה. רבי יהודה נשיאה witnessed the victim being punched during the day.
According to the second answer הא אנא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי means he holds like him, then the distinction of day and night does not apply. A witness can never be a judge.
שמות פרק כא יח
וְכִי יְרִיבֻן אֲנָשִׁים וְהִכָּה אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף
שמעון התימני explains the verse as saying just as a fist can be examined so the weapon used like a rock must be available to determine whether it could have done the damage. רבי עקיבא disagrees. We must rely on witnesses to assess the weapon used since even the weapon will not suffice since he did not hit him in court. Apparently if the perpetrator hit his opponent in court the judges could rule! This contradicts רבי עקיבא's previous assertion that a witness cannot be a judge. The גמרא answers he argued the illogical aspect of שמעון התמני's exegesis.
