Sarah Brills Awesome Final Project!

Four Ways of a Person- Sheli sheli...

משנה מסכת אבות 

ה:ט ארבע מדות באדם, האומר שלי שלי ושלך שלך, זו מדה בינונית, ויש אומרים זו מדת סדום. שלי שלך ושלך שלי עם הארץ. שלי שלך ושלך שלך חסיד. שלי שלי ושלך שלי רשע

In the Talmud, (in volume Pirkei Avot, which deals with how to conduct ourselves)  we also learn about how  to think about self and other in respect to our property  and income versus another persons. Read the text above, and add your comments and thoughts below. 

Im Ain Ani Li...?

משנה מסכת אבות

א:יד הוא (הלל) היה אומר, אם אין אני לי, מי לי; וכשאני לעצמי, מה אני; ואם לא עכשיו, אימתיי.

This famous phrase by Rabbi Hillel tells us a lot about the attitude in Judaism of self vs. other

Add you comments and thought below

To Have a Standard

One thing we spoke about in class was the notion of a standard. In the text on בושת , we saw that the Mishnah says 'Everything is according to the one that embarrasses and the one that is embarrassed. Three rabbis give three different interpretations of one that means. Two use wealth, but another uses stature.

We spoke in class about how societies need to establish standards regarding wealth for a variety of reasons. Why? What are some different standards of wealth, privilege or stature that are used? Are there example of 'good' standards and 'bad' standards a society applies?

Teens, Photos, Internet and Embarrassment

The story below is of a Georgia teen who was embarrassment by a photograph the school of used of her, and sued the Georgia School District for $2 million for emotional distress. Read and comment below, and/or answer the questions.

http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/06-26-2013/one-peril-internet-posting-2-million-federal-lawsuit

When is embarrassment something you bring upon yourself, and when is someone else guilty of embarrassing you? Which is this a case of? Of the five categories of damage, should embarrassment be the most valuable, least valuable, or somewhere in between?

BK 86a Pt VII- Causing Shame

BK 86a Pt VII- Shame

 בושת- הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש:   מני מתניתין? לא רבי מאיר ולא ר' יהודה אלא ר' שמעון היא, דתנן: וכולן רואין אותן כאילו הם בני חורין שירדו מנכסיהם, שהן בני אברהם יצחק ויעקב, דברי ר' מאיר. ר' יהודה אומר הגדול לפי גודלו והקטן לפי קטנו. רבי שמעון אומר עשירים רואין אותן כאילו הם בני חורין שירדו מנכסיהם, עניים כפחותין שבהן. מני ? <השתא> אי רבי מאיר מתניתין קתני: הכל לפי המבייש והמתבייש, ורבי מאיר כולהו בהדי הדדי נינהו! ואי ר' יהודה מתניתין קתני: המבייש את הסומא- חייב, ואילו ר' יהודה אומר סומא אין לו בושת. אלא לאו רבי שמעון היא? אפילו תימא ר' יהודה כי אמר ר' יהודה סומא אין לו בושת למשקל מיניה, אבל למיתבא ליה יהבינן ליה. והא מדקתני סיפא- המבייש את הישן- חייב. וישן שבייש פטור ולא קתני סומא שבייש פטור מכלל דלא שנא הכי ולא שנא הכי אלא מחוורתא מתניתין רבי שמעון היא:

(Mishnah) 

Everything is according to the one that shames and the one that is shamed. According to whom is our Mishnah? Not Rabbi Meir, and not Rabbi Yehuda, rather it is according to Rabbi Shimon.

As it is taught, 'everyone should be seen as if they were a free person that has declined in their wealth, since they are all the children of Abraham, Isaach and Jacob'- these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says, 'One that is great in stature, according to his/her greatness, and one that is lesser in stature, according to their (lack of) stature. Rabbi Shimon says, 'The wealthy should be seen as if they are free persons that have declined in their wealthy; the poor should be seen as the least among them

So, according to whom? Now, if it is taught according to Rabbi Meir, "everything is according to the one that shames and the one that is shame - here they are exactly the same! And if it is taught according to Rabbi Yehuda, the one who embarrasses a blind person is guilty, but according to Rabbi Yehuda, he would experience no embarrassment -so how can he be guilty? b

We can even say it could be according to Rabbi Yehuda, for Rabbi Yehuda would say a blind person -  has no capacity for shame- this applies if the blind person is the one that causes shame, since they
cannot see what they do, but if a blind person is embarrassed, they certainly should collect damages. e

Except that later on, our Mishnah exempts a blind man that causes embarrassment from paying damages for boshet, while Rabbi Yehudah does NOT exempt him. <Thus, our Mishnah cannot be according to Rabbi Yehuda> t 

 Rather it is according to Rabbi Shimon. n 

What do you think about the law regarding how we compensate a person that is embarrassed?Of the three opinions, is there one you prefer better than the eventual winner? And why would we list all three opinions if in the end, we only follow Rabbi Shimon? a

Conflict- to compensate? Or resolve?

Our Talmud has spend a lot of effort debating what is fair in paying money in the event one person hurts another intentionally.

But at our school as well as in life, when you and a friend fight- either physically or with words- there are other things that need to happen to get things 'right'. 

Comment below disagreements in your life and in the world, and  ways that people solve disagreements.

BK 85a Pt VI- What is pain worth? How do we decide its value?

Bava Kamma 85a - Pt 6

אומדין כמה אדם כיוצא בזה רוצה ליטול וכו':    

צער במקום נזק היכי? שיימינן אמר אבוה דשמואל, אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליטול, לקטוע לו ידו.

 לקטוע לו ידו? לא צער לחודיה הוא הא כולהו חמשה דברים? 

איכא ועוד- בשופטני עסקינן? אלא לקטוע ידו הקטועה. 

ידו הקטועה, נמי לא צער לחודיה- איכא הא צער ובושת, איכא דכסיפא ליה מילתא למשקל מבשרו למשדייה לכלבים!  

אלא אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליטול- לקטוע לו ידו 

המוכתב למלכות בין סם לסייף.  

האי ליטול ליתן מבעי ליה? אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ליטול זה מזה מה שנתן זה:

(Mishnah): 'it has to be calculated how much a man of equal standing would require to be paid to undergo such pain. …' 

(Gemara): How do we evaluate pain when there is also Nezek? (He already receives compensation for losing the limb)!

 We evaluate how much one like this would want to receive to have his leg or arm cut off.

 This is wrong. He would demand money equal to all five damages! A normal person would not agree to have his limb cut off for any sum of money!

We evaluate how much one like this would want to receive to have his limb cut off if it was mutilated/dangling (and useless). That is too much, for it also entails embarrassment (that his limb will be fed to dogs)!

We imagine that the king had decreed that his limb must be cut off; we evaluate how much one would want to receive to have it cut off the way the damager did this, as opposed to through a potion (painlessly).

A normal person would not agree to cause himself pain on condition to receive money!

We imagine that the king had decreed that his limb must be cut off. We evaluate how much one would pay to have it cut off (painlessly) through a potion, as opposed to the way the damager cut it.

Shmuel's father said that we evaluate how much one like this would want to receive, not to pay!

He means, the victim receives from the damager what a man would pay to the king (to have his limb cut off painlessly).

How does the Talmud decide what pain is worth? Is it fair, in your opinion?

BK 84a Pt IV- A life and an eye

BK 84a Pt 4

אביי אומר: אתיא מדתני דבי חזקיה דתנא דבי חזקיה (שמות כא) 'עין תחת עין, נפש תחת נפש, ולא נפש ועין תחת עין.' ואי סלקא דעתך ממש, זימנין דמשכחת לה עין ונפש תחת עין, דבהדי דעויר ליה נפקא ליה נשמתיה. ומאי קושיא? דלמא מימד אמדינן ליה, אי מצי מקבל ;עבדינן, ואי לא מצי מקבל ;לא עבדינן. ואי אמדינן דמצי מקבל ועבדינן ביה, ונפק רוחיה אי מיית לימות.   מי לא תנן גבי מלקות: אמדוהו ומת תחת ידו- פטור  

Abaye says: It was brought from a teaching of the school of Hezekiah, that the school of Hezekiah taught 'An eye for an eye, a life for a life.' (Exodus 21); and NOT a life AND an eye for an eye. 

And if you might have though really (eye for an eye=literal) some time it could happen that (you do) an eye and a life for an eye, that you mean to blind him and his soul departs from him.  And this is a difficulty? 

Perhaps we stand him up (to receive the punishment); if he is able, he receives it; and if he is not able, he does not receive it. 

And if you stand him up after we decide he is able to withstand it, and we do it, and he sould departs- the one that kills, he is killed. 

Was it not taught regarding lashes: you stand him up, and he dies by (the administrators) hand- is he not exempt?

The text is making one more effort to reject the idea of 'an eye for an eye' as a literal, physical punishment. Is this a compelling argument? How about the rebuttal? Is either of these practical?

BK 84 Pt V- The Child bitten by a donkey

BK 84a Pt 5

ההוא חמרא דקטע ידא דינוקא אתא לקמיה דרב פפא בר שמואל אמר להו זילו שומו ליה ארבעה דברים אמר ליה רבא והא אנן חמשה תנן א"ל לבר מנזק קאמינא אמר ליה אביי והא חמור הוא וחמור אינו משלם אלא נזק אמר להו זילו שומו ליה נזקיה והא כעבדא בעי למשיימיה אמר להו זילו שיימוהו כעבדא אמר להו אבוה דינוקא לא בעינא דזילא ביה מילתא אמרו ליה והא קא מחייבת ליה לינוקא אמר להו לכי גדיל מפייסנא ליה מדידי: 

A donkey once bit off the hand of a child. When the case was brought before R. Papa b. Samuel he said [to the sheriffs of the court], ‘Go forth and ascertain the value of the Four items.’24 Said Raba to him: Have we not learnt Five [items]? — He replied: I did not include Depreciation. Said Abaye to him: Was not the damage in this case done by a donkey, and in the case of an donkey [injuring even man] there is no payment except for Depreciation?25 — He therefore ordered [the sheriffs], ‘Go forth and

make valuation of the Depreciation.’ But has not the injured person to be valued as if he were a slave? — He therefore said to them, ‘Go forth and value the child as if it were a slave.’ But the father of the child thereupon said, ‘I do not want [this method of valuation], as this procedure is degrading.’

They, however, said to him, ‘What right have you to deprive the child of the payment which would belong to it?’26 He replied, ‘When it comes of age I will reimburse it out of my own.'

There are a lot of things to discuss in this text; who is responsible if your animal bites a passerby? Are there different circumstances that might change how a case would be handled? Is it degrading to compare a child to a slave? How else would you assign value to a lost limb?

One Law, Rich or Poor, Great and Small; BK 83b pt 3

בבא קמא פג עמוד ב

תניא ר' דוסתאי בן יהודה אומר עין תחת עין- ממון. אתה אומר ממון או אינו אלא עין ממש? אמרת הרי שהיתה עינו של זה גדולה ועינו של זה קטנה, היאך אני קורא ביה "עין תחת עין"? וכי תימא כל כי האי שקיל מיניה ממונא התורה אמרה (ויקרא כד) "משפט אחד יהיה לכם" משפט השוה לכולכם.

Bava Kamma 83b Pt. 3
It was taught: R. Dosthai b. Judah says: Eye for eye means pecuniary compensation. You say
pecuniary compensation, but perhaps it is not so, but actual retaliation [by putting out an eye] is meant? 

What then will you say where the eye of one was big and the eye of the other little, for how can I in this case apply the principle of eye for eye? 

If, however, you say that in such a case pecuniary compensation will have to be taken, did not the Torah say, "You shall have one manner of law," implying that the manner of law should be the same in all cases?

Here we see the Talmud discuss whether a 'large eye' and a 'small eye' are to be valued the same- this is used as a קושיא (difficulty) to the idea of a literal עין תכת עין punishment. What do you think? Should justice be the same for all people? Is the murder of a rich or important person, like a president or important leader like Martin Luther King, to receive the same punishment as the murder of a 'nobody'?

Justice, Justice… What is Justice?

The Torah teaches us in Deuteronomy 16:20
"צדק צדק תרדוף"
"Justice, justice shall you pursue."

* Rashi comments 'Go after a good court."


* Ramban comments 'Justices need to seek   the just answer, so to YOU need to seek proper justice.'

* Rabbi Akiva taught: 'It is doubled, because one should pursue justice, whether one financially profits or loses.'

* Ibn Ezra teaches 'Not just once, but each and every time.'

Yesterday we spoke at length about what 'justice' means to you. Comment below on your definition, AND the Torah and commentaries thoughts, too.

Imagine Yourself in Rubin Carter's Shoes

Our unit about 'self and other' has so far studied the biblical and rabbinic punishments for assault and murder. As I would expect (and maybe hope), so far all the student comments have focused themselves around the possibility of being the victim of a crime, but not the person accused of the crime.

Carter's story became famous, first due to a song by Bob Dylan (below), and later, a movie starring Denzel Washington. The song tells the story pretty well, too.

Read the obituary from this past weekend of Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter, and think about A) how the criminal justice system treated him, B) how YOU would want the justice to treat you if you had been accused of a crime (regardless of your guilty or innocence), and C) Why perhaps the literal interpretation 'an eye for an eye' might be problematic in Rubin Carter's case.

Reflect in the comments below.

 

The Only Constant… Is Change

Talmud Bava Kamma 83b

הי מכה?

אילימא (ויקרא כד) "מכה בהמה ישלמנה ומכה אדם יומת".

 ההוא בקטלא כתיב! 

אלא מהכא (ויקרא כד) "מכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה נפש תחת נפש." וסמיך ליה (ויקרא כד) "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 .

Which 'Makkah'?

Perhaps we're talking about "one who strikes an animal (and kills it) shall pay, and one who strikes a man (and kills him) shall be put to death."

But (in this Makkah) he gets killed!

Rather, it is from this one; "One who strikes the life of an animal (and it dies) shall pay, a life for a life." And we combine it with "and a man, when he gives a wound to his fellow, as he did, so shall be done to him."

But this verse doesn't have the phrase 'Makkah'? 

Hakkah is implied in second text by the hakkah in the first text.

(Also) Just as 'hakkah' is said to be for animals a payment, so too 'hakkah' is said for a person as payment.

The Talmud seems to take great efforts to overturn the Torah's stated law that one literally should be punished as they have injured- an eye for an eye.

Laws in society change constantly. Think of (or look up) an American law that has been changed or eliminated altogether. Describe it in your post here- or better yet, use this as an opportunity to find one of your required articles!

Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:1, Pt. II

בבא קמא ח:א

(3) רִפּוּי, הִכָּהוּ חַיָּב לְרַפְּאוֹתוֹ. עָלוּ בוֹ צְמָחִים, אִם מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה חַיָּב. שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה, פָּטוּר. חָיְתָה וְנִסְתָּרָה, חָיְתָה וְנִסְתָּרָה, חַיָּב לְרַפְּאֹתוֹ. חָיְתָה כָּל צָרְכָּהּ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְרַפְּאוֹתוֹ.(4) שֶׁבֶת, רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלוּ הוּא שׁוֹמֵר קִשּׁוּאִין, שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ דְּמֵי יָדוֹ וּדְמֵי רַגְלוֹ. (5) בֹּשֶׁת, הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְבַיֵּשׁ וְהַמִּתְבַּיֵּשׁ. הַמְּבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הֶעָרוֹם, הַמְּבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הַסּוּמָא, וְהַמְּבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הַיָּשֵׁן, חַיָּב.

(3)

Healthcare? When he strikes him, he is liable for his healthcare costs. If swellings grew on him, if it was because of the strike, then he is liable; but if it was not because of the strike, he is exempt. The swelling emerges and then is hidden, emerges and then is hidden: he is liable for his healthcare. (4) Unemployment? We see him as if he were a cucumber watcher, since he already give him the value of his hand or his leg. (5) Shame? All depends on the one who shames and the one who is shamed. One who 

.shames a naked person, a blind person or a sleeping person is liable

.Read the text above and comment or add your questions or thoughts

GM, Boston Bombing, 9/11; They all need a way to compensate victims

Kenneth Feinberg, who was mentioned in class, was recently appointed to decide how to compensate for victims of car accidents caused by a defect in GM cars.

Feinberg is famous for his involvement in these kinds of cases; read more here.

After you read, comment below on how Feinberg does what he does, and how it is similar or different to our Talmud.

Eye for an Eye Part II: Mishnah Bava Kamma

משנה בבא קמא 8:1

הַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵירוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים, בְּנֶזֶק, בְּצַעַר, בְּרִפּוּי, בְּשֶׁבֶת, וּבְבוֹשֶׁת. בְּנֶזֶק כֵּיצַד. סִמָּא אֶת עֵינוֹ, קָטַע אֶת יָדוֹ, שִׁבֵּר אֶת רַגְלוֹ, רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הוּא עֶבֶד נִמְכַּר בַּשּׁוּק וְשָׁמִין כַּמָּה הָיָה יָפֶה וְכַמָּה הוּא יָפֶה. צַעַר, כְּוָאוֹ בַּשְּׁפוּד אוֹ בַמַּסְמֵר. וַאֲפִילוּ עַל צִפָּרְנוֹ. מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה, אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה רוֹצֶה לִטֹּל לִהְיוֹת מִצְטַעֵר כַּךְ

MISHNAH. One who injures a fellow man becomes liable to him for five

items: 1) for depreciation, 2) for pain, 3) for healing, 4) for loss of time and 5) for

shame/degradation. 

How is it with (1) Depreciation?  If he put out his eye, cut off his arm or broke his leg, the injured person is considered as if he were a slave being sold

 in the marketplace, and a valuation is made as to how

much he was worth (previously). And how much he is worth (now).

(2) Pain —If he burnt him either with a skewer or with a nail, even though it is on a place where no bruise could be made, it has to be calculated how much a man of equal standing would require to be paid to undergo such pain. 

What questions, comments, or problems do you see with the Talmud here?

An Eye for an Eye: Exodus 21

שמות כא:כד-כה 

 עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל: כְּוִיָּה תַּחַת כְּוִיָּה פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע חַבּוּרָה תַּחַת חַבּוּרָה:

Exodus 21:24-25

24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25. Burning for burning, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

This is your first opportunity to share your thoughts and questions on the meaning of this verse. 

What do you think this means? What do you think this meant in biblical times to Jews? How would this law and consequence have been carried out? If you have other questions or thoughts, or want to respond to your classmates here, please feel free.