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
Michelle comment # 3
ReplyDeleteIf a person gets hit in the arm or leg etc and it starts to swell because of the hit then the person who hit the other person should pay the price of health care I agree with that. In the Aurora movie theater shooting James Holmes killed a lot of people and the argument is weather or not he should be put to death. (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/aurora-colorado-shooting.htm) "eye for an eye" In that text if it was to be taken literally then yes, James Holmes should be put to death because he took the lives of others. If the person was unemployed before the incident then nothing should be done about that. But if its is after then incident then the person who harmed the other one should help him/her get a job because the stoke is the reason that the person can not get a job. What exactly does it mean by shame? In my opinion the person who is shaming the other person is liable.
Sarah Brill Comment #4:
ReplyDeleteThis relates to our earlier text of an "eye for an eye" only for this case it is the outcome of the strike. If a person punches someone and a bruise or swelling appears, then the person who hit the other person is liable for whatever is needed to get the bruise or swelling to go away. If a person is hit but does not get a swelling, but does get a swelling from a completely different cause, then the hitter does not have to pay. This makes sense because if there is no damage done, then the person should not have to pay or be liable. If there is damage done, then the person should compensate for the damage that is done. This is way to ensure that the striker does not strike again. Going off of Michelle, in many shootings, many friends and families are killed or injured. This will make the shooter pay for what he or she has done. This means that the shooter should be charged with either capitol or criminal punishment. If the shooting or whatever else is serious, the person should be charged with capital punishment and should be put to death. Mostly, if someone commits an act of murder or attempted murder, the murderer should be put to death. If the damage is not bad but there is still damage, then the person should spend life in jail under criminal punishment. This relates to our text because if the injury is big and it shows, then the person is liable for damage, if the injury is small and no bruise or appearance shows, then the person is not liable. My questions is, is the striker the one who is shamed or the person who is hit, is he shamed? Which one does the Talmud talk about, or is it both?
Aliya Lofland- Comment #3
DeleteI agree with Sarah. I think that there should be a punishment inflicted upon the attacker. Like Sarah put it, this will (hopefully) ensure that the attacker does not attack again. This is something that is very important to make sure that crimes don’t go unpunished, as punishments provide a preventative measure against that crime is not committed again and again. Another thing that I agree with Sarah and Michelle about is the fact that if there is a shooting, the shooter needs to have a penalty, and that will deter other shooters, and show that all actions will have a consequence that follows them. And if the case in these shootings involves the murdering of innocent lives, then the shooter should be put to death. One difference in opinion that I have from Sarah is what to do in the case of an attempted murder. I believe that there SHOULD be a punishment, but not as harsh as death. I think that prison for a number of years, or even life in prison should be the punishment for that. I also agree with the text that a person should pay for an injury that was their fault. The injured person deserves compensation for an injury that was caused on purpose by another.
Sarah Pomerantz Comment #2
ReplyDeleteIn this text it is the second part of the text dealing with pain and damage. Healthcare, pain, and damage all deal with suffering from a hit but shame and unemployment is just dealing with suffering. I am wondering why they put two completely different types of suffering into the same text. Unlike Sarah and Michelle I do not believe a person should be put to death because of a murder. It would be like telling someone not to hit another but then you personally hitting them as punishment. I think that it is interesting that the Talmud decides on how liable a person is not based on if it is visable it is. The Talmud basically says that if you hit someone and swelling occur then you have to pay. I am also confused on why they chose a cucumber watcher as the job that that they talk about unemployment. A cucumber watcher is almost never found in todays society and is irrelevant. Also, in class we talked about how unemployment is classified as day labor and that the Talmud thinks of labor as hour to hour work. The problem with this is that not everyone is going to have labor by the hour all the time. How do they estimate how much a person makes and how much they should be compensated? Lastly, if someones shames a naked, blind, or sleeping person the person shaming should be ashamed. How will they compensate the person who is shamed? The Talmud does not really go into the subject like the other topics. Each other the other topics go into detail of the kind of pain that is caused but it seems as though unemployment and shame were just thrown in at the end.
Evelin Arriaza Comment #5
ReplyDeleteI think that if someone lets say twist my arm intentionally and it turns out to be broken then they should pay for my medical bills. If they injure me and i have a job and the injury effects my job, then i think the person should help me get another job or help me keep my job. Its an eye for an eye but in a different way. In the case of shame, the talmud does not speak of shame too much. I personally think that if someone shames or embarrasses me then i have the right to do it back to them.
Laurel Esstman Comment #5
ReplyDeleteI think having to pay for the healthcare of the victim you hurt is logical. But what happens if you are already in debt and you hurt someone how will you pay for it, won't it dig you deeper into debt? If someone hurts me i obviously want them to pay for my bill, but it makes sense if you get hurt and the medicine they apply makes you swell up how the person that hurts you wont have to pay for that because they didn't cause they part of your injury.
For the shamming part i do not understand. i almost believe that if you hurt someone in anyway you should be shamed for some amount of time depending on the case depends on how bad they are shamed. Shamed meaning not like publicly shamed but looked down upon almost.
I agree with Laurel in that the message of this text is logical, but it is not full-proof. Paying for your victims healthcare is reasonable and should always apply however the shaming, not so much. Does it really require a public shamming to convince someone of their wrongdoings? I do not believe that it does. If the person who has wronged comes forth and is paying for the healthcare, I think that they will be able to realize what they did wrong, and with that realization comes inner shame. I know at least for me that when do something horrible I am ashamed and embarrassed to show my face, but I learn that I made a mistake I will never want to repeat. Public shaming would not benefit anyone, and I believe to that extent, the Talmud has taken it too far.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this text and the other commenters on the blog that what the Talmud says makes sense and is very logical. If you are responsible for hurting someone else, then you have to pay their medical bill, and if it wasn't you, then its not your job to. In this case of the Aurora Shooting, James Holmes, the man who shot up the theater, did a terrible thing, and will have to pay for what he did. His form of payment will be prison time and probably for the rest of his life due to the awful thing that he did. The Torah/Talmud agrees that if you do something bad, then there are consequences and even society agrees with this concept of crime and punishment.
ReplyDeletewebsite: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html
Alex Rafailov comment #4
ReplyDeleteI think that if a person hurts another person they should pay for there medical bills only if it happened from the incident. Just like what Evelin said. I also believe that if a person hurts another persons arm or leg and that arm or leg is valuable in the job that they are in then the injurer must help to find a job or compensate for the job. I also do not get the part about shame. IT does not give enough info about shame and barely talks about it.
If a human is injured by another person, lets say they work for a manufacturing company and they use their arms 90% of the time. If they become injured from someone else in the arm they are unavailable to work. I agree with Alex and Evelin, because the person that caused the injury should be liable for the arm, medical bills, and the time they lost being unable to work at their job. If the incident was an accident then the person should still be liable because the injured person would be hopeless without some support when he is unavailable to work.
ReplyDeleteHolding the attacker liable for the swelling that occurred because of the strike recognizes that everyone’s body reacts differently to the same injury and holds the attacker responsible for not only the injury, but how the injury personally affected the victim’s physical condition. The compensation for unemployment ignores the victim’s actual salary and gives him the salary of a cucumber watcher. This gives someone who was already unemployed more money than he is entitled to and gives someone with a high-paying job less money than he is entitled to. Saying that the one who shames is only liable if he shames someone who is blind, naked or sleeping makes the assumption that only a blind, naked or sleeping person can be shamed. If someone verbally insults a deaf person, is it not shame? If someone shames a poor or homeless person should they not be liable in court? Does the naked person have to be completely naked or can they still be shamed if they are only wearing their undergarments? If a person is nearly blind or blind in one eye, is it still shame?
ReplyDelete