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?