Friday, August 26, 2016

Bava Kamma 86-87: Some thoughts on derashot

Bava Kamma 86-87:

1) On 86b, the Mishna:
מתני' המבייש את הערום המבייש את הסומא והמבייש את הישן חייב וישן שבייש פטור נפל מן הגג והזיק ובייש חייב על הנזק ופטור על הבושת עד שיהא מתכוין:

The Bach emends the text of the Mishna, saying there is a derasha at the very end, matching the one in the previous amud, where it stated:

דכתיב (דברים יט, יא) וארב לו וקם עליו עד שיתכוון לו בושת נמי עד דמיכוין ליה דכתיב (דברים כה, יא) ושלחה ידה והחזיקה במבושיו עד שיתכוון לו

According to Rashi, the derasha is on the word bimvushav, specifically his, parallel to vearav lo, specifically him.

נתכוון לבייש את זה כו' פטור - מדשמעינן ליה לר' שמעון גבי קטלא באלו הן הנשרפין (סנהדרין דף עט:) נתכוון להרוג את זה והרג את זה פטור הכא נמי לא שנא דטעמא דהתם משום וארב לו הכא נמי כתיב במבושיו:

Tosafot wonders what the Rabanan of Rabbi Shimon would do with that word bimvushav:

עד שיתכוין לו. וא"ת לרבנן במבושיו מאי דרשי ביה ושמא מבעי ליה לשום דרשה:

I would suggest that we should ignore the parallel the gemara makes to ve’arav lo and instead focus on the words veshilcha yadah, which was after all included in the quote of the pasuk. Yes, it is idiomatic, but the point of “sending forth a hand” is to indicate intent and deliberateness. For example, by the Akeida, וישלח אברהם את ידו ויקח את המאכלת לשחוט את בנו.

2) Also on 86b:

המבייש את הסומא וכו': מתניתין דלא כר' יהודה
See Rashi and Tosafot, that the derivation has to be based not on hamevayesh et hasuma but rather וישן שבייש פטור.

סומא אין לו בושת. דסומא שבייש פטור אבל המבייש את הסומא חייב דהא לא משתמע מעיניך שיהא פטור וכן משמע מתוך פירוש הקונטרס דפי' דדייק מתניתין דלא כרבי יהודה מדלא קתני סומא שבייש פטור כדקתני ישן שבייש פטור משמע דלא מצי דייק מדקתני המבייש את הסומא חייב דמודה רבי יהודה דמבייש את הסומא חייב:

If this is so, the citation is misleading. I would note that the text between the two dots which cite the Mishna and thus fix what gemara goes on what part of the Mishna is really late, from the time of the Geonim.

3) Also on 86b, there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda about a blind accidental murderer:

דתניא (במדבר לה, כג) בלא ראות פרט לסומא דברי ר' יהודה ר' מאיר אומר לרבות את הסומא מ"ט דר' יהודה אמר לך (דברים יט, ה) ואשר יבא את רעהו ביער לחטוב עצים ואפי' סומא כתב רחמנא בלא ראות למעוטי ור' מאיר כתב רחמנא בלא ראות למעוטי וכתב רחמנא (דברים יט, ד) בבלי דעת למעוטי הוי מיעוט אחר מיעוט ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות ור' יהודה ההוא בבלי דעת פרט למתכוין הוא דאתא חייבי מיתות ב"ד אתיא רוצח רוצח מחייבי גליות חייבי מלקיות אתיא רשע רשע מחייבי מיתות בית דין תניא אידך ר' יהודה אומר סומא אין לו בושת...

All of these derashot are the attempts by the setama degemara to make Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir work. They are not direct citations of derashot from these Tanaaim. And there is the characteristic systematic nature of analysis in play.

I would suggest that the derashot are much simpler. The pasukim in Bemidbar 35 read:


כב  וְאִם-בְּפֶתַע בְּלֹא-אֵיבָה, הֲדָפוֹ, אוֹ-הִשְׁלִיךְ עָלָיו כָּל-כְּלִי, בְּלֹא צְדִיָּה.
22 But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or hurled upon him any thing without lying in wait,
כג  אוֹ בְכָל-אֶבֶן אֲשֶׁר-יָמוּת בָּהּ, בְּלֹא רְאוֹת, וַיַּפֵּל עָלָיו, וַיָּמֹת--וְהוּא לֹא-אוֹיֵב לוֹ, וְלֹא מְבַקֵּשׁ רָעָתוֹ.
23 or with any stone, whereby a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, so that he died, and he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm;
כד  וְשָׁפְטוּ, הָעֵדָה, בֵּין הַמַּכֶּה, וּבֵין גֹּאֵל הַדָּם--עַל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, הָאֵלֶּה.
24 then the congregation shall judge between the smiter and the avenger of blood according to these ordinances;

Where it says בְּלֹא רְאוֹת, where he didn’t see, for Rabbi Yehuda this functions as a miut, meaning that usually he could see, because he is capable of seeing, but in this particular case he didn’t happen to see. Thus we exclude the blind man. For Rabbi Meir, note that it says בְּלֹא רְאוֹת, that he did not see. This can function as a ribuy to include any case where he did not see, including someone who is blind.

4) The Mishna on Bava Kamma 87a confuses me:

העבד והאשה פגיעתן רעה החובל בהם חייב והם שחבלו באחרים פטורין אבל משלמין לאחר זמן נתגרשה האשה נשתחרר העבד חייבין לשלם

It states that a wife is exempt from paying. Rashi explains that the slave and the wife don’t have their own assets from which to pay, and so are exempt from paying at the time. But if she gets divorced, then she would pay.

Doesn’t this go against the pesukim of a woman who seizes a man’s testicles in Devarim 25:12?

יא  כִּי-יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים יַחְדָּו, אִישׁ וְאָחִיו, וְקָרְבָה אֵשֶׁת הָאֶחָד, לְהַצִּיל אֶת-אִישָׁהּ מִיַּד מַכֵּהוּ; וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ, וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו.
11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets;
יב  וְקַצֹּתָה, אֶת-כַּפָּהּ:  לֹא תָחוֹס, עֵינֶךָ.  {ס}
12 then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity. {S}

Chazal interpret that this refers to a monetary payment, for boshet. And she is the wife of one of the two men who are fighting!

Monday, August 22, 2016

The true derasha of 'an eye for an eye' = compensation

In today's daf, I really enjoyed the various derashot for ayin tachat ayin meaning kesef rather than an actual eye. I didn't really appreciate how the systemic analysis of the setama degemara analyzed and modified the meaning of those derashot.

To take one example, here is a powerful derasha at the beginning of the gemara (Bava Kamma 83b):
גמ' אמאי (שמות כא, כד) עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת"ל (ויקרא כד, כא)מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין ואם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר (במדבר לה, לא) לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברים שאין חוזרין הי מכה אילימא (ויקרא כד, כא) מכה בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת ההוא בקטלא כתיב אלא מהכא (ויקרא כד, יח) מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה נפש תחת נפש וסמיך ליה (ויקרא כד, יט) ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו האי לאו מכה הוא הכאה הכאה קאמרינן מה הכאה האמורה בבהמה לתשלומין אף הכאה האמורה באדם לתשלומין

Why [pay compensation]? Does the Divine Law not say 'Eye for eye'?3  Why not take this literally to mean [putting out] the eye [of the offender]? — Let not this enter your mind, since it has been taught: You might think that where he put out his eye, the offender's eye should be put out, or where he cut off his arm, the offender's arm should be cut off, or again where he broke his leg, the offender's leg should be broken. [Not so; for] it is laid down, 'He that smiteth any man…' 'And he that smiteth a beast …'4  just as in the case of smiting a beast compensation is to be paid, so also in the case of smiting a man compensation is to be paid.5  And should this [reason] not satisfy you,6  note that it is stated, 'Moreover ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death',7  implying that it is only for the life of a murderer that you may not take 'satisfaction',8  whereas you may take 'satisfaction' [even] for the principal limbs, though these cannot be restored.' To what case of 'smiting' does it refer? If to [the Verse] 'And he that killeth a beast, shall make it good: and he that killeth a man, shall be put to death',9  does not this verse refer to murder?10  — The quotation was therefore made from this text: And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life,11  which comes next to and if a man maim his neighbour: as he hath done so shall it be done to him.12  But is [the term] 'smiting' mentioned in the latter text?12  — We speak of the effect of smiting implied in this text and of the effect of smiting implied in the other text: just as smiting mentioned in the case of beast refers to the payment of compensation, so also does smiting in the case of man refer to the payment of compensation.

The derasha from the brayta is pretty clear. It is based on Vayikra 24:21:

וּמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה וּמַכֵּה אָדָם יוּמָת.

The brayta uses the words of the pasuk in sequence, makei beheima … umakei adam, and has a form of yeshalmena. The setama degemara, for various reasons, dismisses this as the pasuk under discussion, and instead uses sequential pesukim, where makei beheimah has an intervening nefesh and there is no words makei adam, let alone umakei adam.

But this pasuk (Vayikra 25:21) was the source, and the derasha works as follows. There are two implications to the word makei. It could mean smite to kill (vehikeiti kol bechor) or it could mean to injure (makei aviv ve’imo). In context, on a peshat level, of course it refers to smiting which kills. As the gemara says, ההוא בקטלא כתיב. (My assumption is that the gemara refers to the ketala which the perpetrator did.) But on that same peshat level, the pasuk is explicit that if someone kills, he gets the death penalty, יוּמָת.

However, the derasha does two things. Change it to injury and lop off the last word. And what operates here is juxtaposition, rather than a gezeira shava of makei makei. So it is:

וּמַכֵּה בְהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה
one who wounds a beheima shall pay
וּמַכֵּה אָדָם
as well as one who wounds a person.

Believe me that there are derashot that operate like this, lopping of the pasuk ending which provides context, and reinterpreting the word. Here is a famous example, about techiyat hameitim:

In parashat Vayelech, the following pasuk:
טז  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הִנְּךָ שֹׁכֵב עִם-אֲבֹתֶיךָ; וְקָם הָעָם הַזֶּה וְזָנָה אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵי נֵכַר-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר הוּא בָא-שָׁמָּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ, וַעֲזָבַנִי, וְהֵפֵר אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אִתּוֹ.
16 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Behold, thou art about to sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go astray after the foreign gods of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake Me, and break My covenant which I have made with them.

There is a famous gemara in Sanhedrin 90b:
Sectarians [minim]17  asked Rabban Gamaliel: Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead? He answered them from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, yet they did not accept it [as conclusive proof]. 'From the Torah': for it is written, And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise up [again].18  'But perhaps,' said they to him, '[the verse reads], and the people will rise up?'

This pasuk is also listed in Yoma 52b as one of five pesukim which Issi ben Yehuda considers ambiguous, in the sense that it can be read associating both forward and backwards.

But our gemara treats the derasha with a systematic seriousness which spoils the derasha. The word makei can have only one meaning, and there is an ending to the pasuk. And it assumes it is a gezeira shava rather than a creative juxtaposition / lop derasha. And so it ends up with a forced derasha which is nowhere near as creative and enjoyable, but is rather a mechanistic pilpul which gives me a headache. And due to the gemara’s reinterpretation, no one knows the true derasha anymore.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin