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?
Alex Gage comment #7
ReplyDeleteI agree with this Gemara because you cannot get money for inflicting damage. I agree with the fact that financial compensation is the way to go, but if someone asks you to cut their arm off then they should not have any compensation. However, if you do cut someones arm off you are definitely liable for costs and other things he cannot do because of the injury.
Alex Ravioli Comment #6
DeleteI agree with this Gemara because i believe that it is not right to receive money for doing damage to others. For Ex. If a person wants to cut off any part of his body i do not think there should be a compensation for it because he is asking you to do it for him. IF you cut off another persons body part intentionally then you should have to pay for it.The Talmud evaluates pain by seeing if they want to cut off there hand or not. In reality a normal person would never want to get his arm cut off just so they could get money for it. IF the person would want to then he would want compensation for all the damages wrong which is not right. I think the talmud is correct in this matter because it is not right to compensate for this type of pain.
Sarah Pomerantz Comment #8
ReplyDeleteThe Talmud asks the question of how we should decide pain is worth. They respond by saying that they should compensate on how much they would want to receive in order to cut off a limb. They go on to rebut the idea and say that he would need to demand equal money for all five categories of damage. They say that it should be evaluated by how much a person would pay no not have it happen. The Talmud agrees that any person would not cause themselves pain in order to receive money.
I think that this is a good idea but not fair. Everyone would pay different amounts to not have pain. For example, in class we talked about our worst pain and then talked abut how much we would pay for it not to happen. As we went around people would comment things like “I would pay more” or “I would pay less”. Everyone has different opinions and would ask for different amounts. This could cause some problems however. If everyone demanded different amounts of money the attackers would have different punishments. I think that everyone should have the same punishment. There needs to be a set punishment so that if you hurt someone you would have to pay the same amount as the next person. In the United States there is a set of laws that everyone has to follow. If someone commits a crime there is a certain punishment outlined for everyone who commits this crime. This is a fair way of doing it because then no one can say that they got punished more than the next person for the same crime.
Ariane #9
ReplyDeleteWhen the Talmud asked how to find the worth of pain, it first says that we should simply compensate the victim the amount of money that they want to have their limb cut off, but since that was illogical and not smart, the Talmud decided that we should compensate the loss of a limb by paying the amount of money to not have that pain. I find that this is a little bit unfair because not only is it very difficult to put a value on pain,but also everyone has a different pain threshold and therefore the compensation amounts would be very different from person to person. Despite this, I think that this was actually a pretty good strategy to find out how much to compensate someone because it is a very difficult and complicated question to answer.
Evelin comment #8
ReplyDeleteThe talmud says, that in order to find the value of pain, you should ask the victim how much they would want to paid in order for them to have their limb cut off. But since this wasnt the best way to go about the subject the talmud said that we should ask the victim how much they would pay to not have that pain. I think that it is a fair system. If someone asked me how much i would want for a limb to be cut off I would be unreasonable about it and say a lot of money. But if someone where to ask me how much i would pay to not have that pain then I would say a more reasonable answer. I think the subject is hard to evaluate and it would be tricky to say an actual price.
Adina Kalantarov #7
ReplyDeleteThe Talmud asks the question of what the value of pain is worth. They respond by saying that they should compensate whatever they want in order to cut off a limb. They continue by saying that the compensation should be equal to accommodate all five categories of damages; pain, healthcare, shame, damage, and unemployment. The Talmud reports that no body would cause pain for themselves in order to receive money. I believe that this solution is not just. For example, someone will want to receive more money for causing themselves pain. I could say i want a million dollars to cut off my finger, while another person may say that they want a thousand dollars to cut off their own finger. If the Talmud continues with this idea, then they have to set a limit on what pain you may cause yourself for a certain amount of money. For example, to cut off your arm, you will receive 5 thousand dollars or to cut off your finger, you will receive 1 thousand dollars, etc. This is would be a fair way to doing it because then the compensation that one receives will be equal and not unjust.
Adira Brown Comment #6 of second set
ReplyDeleteTo determine the value of pain, the Talmud believes that the proper thing to do is to ask a person how much they would pay to not feel that pain and to compensate them accordingly. I believe that this is both illogical and unjust. Of course each person has their own threshold for pain, however when it comes down to compensation, I do not think that one person should get payed more for the same injury as another. I think that compensation should be judged according to the person with the lowest threshold for pain, and each person receives just as much as that person when they are injured and need to be compensated for the pain that they are in.
Sam Friedman Comment #6
ReplyDeleteThis section deals with how to compensate for pain. While this seems like it would be a simple enough task, the major problem is how it is different from damage if compensation has already been payed for the permanent injury. This is a very important question, because if they are the same, why would there need to be five categories? In the end, it decides that compensation is the difference between how much people would ask in exchange for getting their arm cut off painfully or painlessly. As long as determining the difference in value between a painless and painful loss of the limb remains theoretical, it seems like a simple way that would be easy to determine in that time period, and is fair to all parties.
Aliya Lofland Extra Credit #1
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sam. Pain and damage are two different things, and it is hard to compensate for one and then the other, as a part of damages is pain, and a part of pain is also within damages. I agree with Sam on the fact that if they are the same, why is there five categories to assess them? I think if we need to decide pain and damages together, there should be a compensation for both added together. If it is not painful, as Sam said, we should know to differentiate between the two. We always need to keep in mind that sometimes the Talmud tells us that we should do the literal version of something, only to later contradict itself and tell us that it is actually supposed to be followed figuratively.