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
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
Matthew Hailpern when it says that a blind man cannot pay for embarrassment because he has no money, feels no shame, and has no intention of shaming someone else. I personally think that that rabbi Shimon is correct everyone should be punished because of how severe the crime was. I believe the reason it states all three opinions is to show the three different ways that this situation can be handled in but the only way that can have a fair outcome is that everyone is treated equally.
ReplyDeleteAriane #7
ReplyDeleteI find that the way we deal with the compensation of an embarrassed person is pretty logical. Both the rich and the poor are seen as the lowest in both of their social class. But, I also find that its a little unfair for the poor. The rich are still doing well financial-wise, but the poorest poor person is really screwed. I think that the playing fields should be evened out so that they get an equal compensation because no matter what social title you hold, everyone gets embarrassed or hurt emotionally. This is why I really like the first opinion of Rabbi Meir. He suggests that everyone be treated equally because we all share the same history and forefathers. The concept is reassuring, but unfortunately there is a difference between the rich and poor social classes which is why Rabbi Meir's theory doesn't work. I think that the reason why the Mishnah tells us all of the three opinions even when there is only going to have one 'winner', is because its not about derriving an answer, but it's about the argument and the logic behind why we chose which opinion. Its important to follow the stream of thinking and to understand the mindset because it gives us a better sense of what the argument was about.
Laurel Esstman #7
ReplyDeleteI think the way the Talmud deals with embarrassment is very logical and makes sense. I agree with Ariane that it is unfair to the poor because they are treated like their lowest which is very low. I think the rich should be looked at by their lowest and the poor should be looked at by their highest therefore making it more even. I really like the opinion of Rabbi Meir that everyone is treated equal. I agree with this one because rather than class playing a role it says that even if you are the poorest of the poor you are treated like the richest or rich which i think makes everyone on the same level in the case of embarrassment. I think we list all three opinions because as we learned earlier this year that in a good argument you state the other persons opinion than your own.The Talmud wants to show us that they know people have different options and they take them into consideration.
I think that a poor person should be treated a little less then a wealthy man just because the wealthy man has worked hard to be where he is at. Although the poor man doesn't work as hard as the wealthy man i still believe he deserves some amount of treatment because everyone in the world deserves some help at one point. I don't believe that a poor person should be treated like the richest of the rich like laurel said because then what special privilege does a rich man have? A rich man has worked very hard so he should be treated the best.
ReplyDeleteAdira Brown Comment #4 of second set
ReplyDeleteI agree with Laurel in that everyone should be treated equally. I think that while Rabbi Shimon's interpretation is understandable, if they really wanted to level the playing field, they would. That would mean that everyone would be equal. Although there was some difficulty in this, I believe that it is the least problematic, and makes the most sense. A human's worth is indefinable, so if everyone is "worth" the same amount, then no problems will arise. It is unacceptable to value a person as lesser just because they may find themselves in a difficult situation. If one is below the defined position of poverty , it may also further embarrass them to value you them at the poorest of the poor. And if a poor person comes into a little luck and reaches just above the poverty line, it would not be fair to treat him as an equal to the richest of the rich who would be judged as the least of the rich. Therefore, everyone should be treated equally. No judgments according to stature and none according to economic worth. While Shimon's makes sense, Rabbi Meir's belief makes the most sense to me.
Sam Comment #8
ReplyDeleteI have a similar opinion to many people above me, in that everyone should be treated equally. However, there are two main problems with this idea. The first is the same that is the one in the text. Why would the Mishnah mention two people when everyone is equal? Ignoring this, there is one other problem. If everyone is equal, how do you decide how much someone should be compensated, as one who is very rich or one who is very poor? If there is no difference, they would be compensated nothing. This being said, I think that there is a way to reconcile these two problems. If you took the average of all people, not two groups, you would be able to compensate for shame.
I think if everyone was equal, the amount would either be uniform for everyone, like, say, $1000, or it would be determined not by wealth but by the act of embarrassment- getting punched by a ninja might be worth more than, say, a 97 year old man with a cane.
Deletesorry- the ninja would be LESS (because who can dodge a ninja?) The old man would be worth more, because thats embarrassing.
Delete