Bava Kamma 082

נושא: BK

BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI

Red Line

Green Line

One who strikes a parent and causes a bruise and one who injures his fellow on Shabbat are not liable for any [payments] because he is tried for his life. One who strikes his own Canaanite bondman is not liable for any [payments].

1:
In BK 078 we learned that

One who strikes his father or mother without causing a bruise … is liable for all [five payments].

However, our present mishnah presents the opposite situation in which a child strikes a parent so forcefully that it causes physical damage – a bruise, a welt or any kind of lesion of the skin. Let us remind ourselves that the origin of this provision of our mishnah is to be found in the Torah [Exodus 21:15]:

He who strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

In BK 078 I explained that

The sages understood this as referring to physical injury, a blow which causes a welt or a bruise. It is for this reason that our present mishnah refers to striking a parent without causing a bruise, because if there had been physical damage it would be considered a capital crime.

And this is exactly the situation described in our present mishnah.

2:
The penalty prescribed by the Torah for causing bodily harm to a parent is death. Before are hackles are raised in indignation we should remind ourselves of what we learned about the death penalty when we studied Tractate Sanhedrin. Here is a very brief resumé:

A capital crime must be seen by at least two witnesses. These witnesses must warn the culprit before the deed that what he or she is about to do is a capital crime and the perpetrator must have, nevertheless and immediately, committed the crime in their presence. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is therefore unacceptable: the crime must have been committed beyond any doubt whatsoever and the criminal must have been aware that what he or she was doing is a capital crime. The two witnesses on whose testimony a court sentences a culprit to death are the executioners.

It was quite clear to the sages that their interpretation of the rulings of the Torah was novel. There is a very well-known mishnah [Makkot 1:10] which illustrates their attempt to reduce capital cases to something approaching nil.

A court which pronounces a death sentence once in seven years is called 'killer'. Rabbi El'azar ben-Azarya says, 'once in seventy years'; Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say, 'had we been in the court no one would ever have been executed.' Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el says, 'because of them there would have been many murderers in Israel.'

3:
The reason why the striking of a parent is dealt with so harshly is because of the connection made between parents and God! The Gemara [Kiddushin 30b] explains:

[The bible] says "Honour your father and your mother" [Exodus 20:12] and it [also] says "Honour God with your wealth, with the best of all your income" [Proverbs 3:10]. Thus scripture likens honouring a parent to honouring God. [The bible] says "Each one of you shall revere his mother and his father" [Leviticus 19:3] and it [also] says "Revere your God and worship Him alone" [Deuteronomy 6:13], thus likening reverence of parents to reverence of God. [The bible] says "He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death" [Exodus 21:17] and it [also] says "Any man who curses his God shall not be guiltless" [Leviticus 24:15], thus likening the cursing of parents to the cursing of God. But [comparing] striking [of parents to striking God] obviously is impossible. All this is logical because all three are partners in [a human being]. Our sages have taught: There are three partners in [the creation of] a human being: God and his father and his mother. When a person honours his parents God says 'I reckon that as if I had been living among them and have been honoured.'

4:
The same argument holds in a case where party A strikes party B on Shabbat. Since this violation of the sanctity of Shabbat is a capital charge the injured party may not sue for damages. We have established on several occasions already that a person who is charged with a capital crime cannot also be required to pay a fine.

5:
If a master strikes his Canaanite bondman the latter cannot sue the former because he is considered to be the master's property. In all probability in some households some measure of physical punishment was necessary to maintain order and discipline. (We have already established that a Jewish bondman who is struck by his master may sue for damages.)

In the previous shiur I translated a certain phrase in Aramaic as "It is better to live with a heap of grief than to live as a widow." Amnon Ron'el writes:

I suspected that the word rendered 'live' was actually 'render' and I know 'heap of woe' as 'two together'. So I went to Wikipedia to check the freedom of your translation…

I respond:

Amnon does not say what he found in Wikipedia!

"It is better to live two together than to live as a widow" is the way Rashi understands the saying [Yevamot 118b and elsewhere]. However, Marcus Jastrow, in his Dictionary of Talmudic Aramaic, renders as I did – and even explains! "It is better to dwell in grief than to dwell in widowhood, i.e. a woman prefers an unhappy married life to singlehood." He quotes the Targum (translation into Aramaic) of Job 17:16 to prove the point. In his commentary on that verse Rashi seems to agree that the Hebrew word means 'grief' or 'trouble'.

Green Line