Answer #1 (Mishnah): If one strikes his father or mother and does not make a wound, or strikes a person on Yom Kipur, he is liable for all damages.

Question: What is the case in which he does not make a wound?

Answer: He hit him on the hand, and later it will return to normal. The Mishnah obligates for all damages.

Rejection #1: No. The case is, he deafened him without making a wound.

Objection: Rabah taught that one who deafens his father is killed, for one cannot deafen someone without making a wound. Surely, a drop of blood fell into the ear!

Rejection #2: No, the case is, he shaved him.

Question: His hair will grow back. The damage is only temporary. We can still settle our question from the Mishnah!

Answer: No, the case is, Reuven anointed Shimon with Nasa (a potion that permanently stops hair from growing).

The Mishnah obligates for all damages. We explain how all the other damages apply:

Pain - he has sores in ridges on his head (and the potion aggravated them).

Refu'ah - he must heal the sores;

Sheves - he used to get paid for jesting, i.e. shaking his head while dancing, and the sores prevent him from doing so.

Embarrassment - baldness is the ultimate embarrassment!

Abaye and Rava argued about the law that Rabah was unsure about.

(Abaye): If Reuven hit Shimon on the hand, and later it will return to normal, he pays Nezek and Sheves;

(Rava): He pays only Sheves.

(Abaye): If Reuven cut off the hand of Shimon's (Yisrael) slave, he pays Nezek to the slave, and Sheves to Shimon;

(Rava): The slave gets the entire payment. We buy land with the money, and Shimon gets the produce (until the slave goes free).

If the slave was damaged, and this affects only the slave, not the master, obviously, the slave gets the entire payment.

Question: What is the case?

Answer: He cut off the end of the ear or nostrils.

If the slave was damaged, and this affects only the master, but not the slave, Abaye and Rava argue about this (as above).

(Mishnah): We evaluate embarrassment according to the one who embarrassed and the one who was embarrassed.

Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?

Answer #1: Our Mishnah is like R. Shimon:

(Beraisa - R. Meir): Rich and poor people (who were embarrassed) are judged equally, as if they were rich people who lost their property, for all descend from Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov.

R. Yehudah says, a rich person is judged according to his wealth. A poor person is judged according to his poverty;

R. Shimon says, a rich person is judged like a rich person who lost his property. A poor person is judged like the poorest man there is.

Our Mishnah is unlike R. Meir, who says that rich and poor are judged equally;

Our Mishnah obligates for embarrassing a blind person. It is unlike R. Yehudah, who says that Boshes does not apply to a blind person.

Answer #2: Our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah. He says that a blind person does not pay embarrassment, but he can receive it!

Objection (Reisha): One who embarrasses a sleeping person is liable, but a sleeping person who embarrasses is exempt;

It does not exempt a blind person who embarrasses. This implies that he can receive and pay for embarrassment!

Conclusion: We must answer as Answer #1.

Question: Who is the Tana of the following Beraisa?

(Beraisa): If one intended to embarrass a Katan (one of small wealth) and embarrassed a Gadol (rich person), he pays the Gadol what is proper for a Katan;

If one intended to embarrass a slave and embarrassed a free person, he pays the free person what is proper for embarrassing a slave

Summation of question: This is not like R. Meir, R. Yehudah or R. Shimon!

It is not like R. Meir. He judges rich and poor people equally!

It is not like R. Yehudah, who says that Boshes does not apply to a blind person.

It is not like R. Shimon. He holds that one who intended to embarrass Reuven and embarrassed Shimon is exempt!

Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?

Answer: He learns from murder. One who intended to kill Reuven and killed Shimon is exempt - "he waited in ambush for him and rose against him." He is liable only if he intended for his victim;

The same applies to embarrassment - "she sent her hand and grabbed his shameful place" - she is liable only if she intended for him.

Answer #1: Really, the Beraisa is like R. Yehudah. He says that a slave does not receive (payment for) embarrassment, but we can evaluate how much he would want to receive to suffer such an indignity (and this is paid to the free person who was embarrassed).

Answer #2: Really, it is like R. Meir. 'Katan' refers to a minor, and Gadol refers to an adult.

Question: Do minors really suffer (and therefore receive) embarrassment?!

Answer: Yes, like Rav Papa taught (elsewhere).

(Rav Papa): When people mention the embarrassment and shame him, he is pained

(Mishnah): One is liable for embarrassing a blind, naked or sleeping person;

A sleeping person who embarrassed someone is exempt.

If Reuven fell from the roof and damaged and embarrassed, he is liable for the damage and exempt for the embarrassment, unless he intended to embarrass.

(Gemara - Beraisa): Reuven embarrassed Shimon when Shimon was naked (or in the bathhouse), Reuven is liable, but not as much as one who embarrasses a clothed person (or in the market).

Question: Does a naked person really feel embarrassment?!

Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, a wind lifted up Shimon's garment. Reuven lifted it higher (exposing more of Shimon).

Question: Does one really feel embarrassment in the bathhouse? (Everyone is naked there!)

Answer (Rav Papa): He embarrassed him by the riverbank.

Question (R. Aba bar Mamal): If Reuven embarrassed Shimon when Shimon was sleeping; and Shimon (never woke up and) died, what is the law?

Question: What is the basis of the question?

Understanding #1 (Rav Zvid): If one pays because the victim feels shame, if so, (since Shimon never found out,) Reuven is exempt;

If one pays because he disgraced the victim, Reuven is liable.

Answer (Beraisa - R. Meir): A Cheresh (deaf-mute) or child receives payment for embarrassment. A lunatic does not.

If one pays due to disgrace, this explains why a child collects;

Question: But if it is because the victim feels shame, a child does not feel shame!

Counter-question: If one pays because of disgrace, even a lunatic is disgraced!

Answer: Being a lunatic is the greatest disgrace. He cannot be disgraced more.

Suggestion: The original answer remains. Since a child collects, this shows that one pays for the disgrace.

Rejection: A child suffers shame like Rav Papa taught;

(Rav Papa): When people mention the embarrassment and shame him, he is pained.

Understanding #2 (of question (h) - Rav Papa): If one pays because the victim feels shame, (since Shimon never found out,) Reuven is exempt;

If one pays because the victim's family is embarrassed, Reuven is liable.

Answer (Beraisa): A Cheresh or child receives payment for embarrassment. A lunatic does not.

If one pays because the victim's family is embarrassed, this explains why a child collects;

Question: But if it is because the victim feels shame, a child does not feel shame!

Counter-question: If one pays because the victim's family is embarrassed. even a lunatic's family is disgraced!

Answer: Having a lunatic in the family is the greatest disgrace. The family cannot be embarrassed more.

Suggestion: The original answer remains. Since a child collects, this shows that one pays for the family's embarrassment.

Rejection (Rav Papa): When people mention the embarrassment and shame him, he is pained.

Support (Beraisa - Rebbi): A Cheresh receives embarrassment. A lunatic does not. Sometimes a child receives, and sometimes he does not.

A child who is pained when people mention the embarrassment and shame him, he collects.

(Mishnah): One who embarrasses a blind person...

The Mishnah (does not exempt a blind person who embarrasses. This) is unlike R. Yehudah.

(Beraisa #1 - R. Yehudah): A blind person does not pay for embarrassment. Also, he is exempt from exile, lashes and capital punishment.

Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?

Answer - part 1 (regarding embarrassment): He learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Einecha-Einecha" from Zomemim witnesses.

Just like a blind person never pays for being an Ed Zomem (since he cannot be a witness), he never pays for embarrassment.

Answer - part 2 (regarding exile - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Without seeing" excludes a blind person;

R. Meir says, this includes a blind person.

Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?

Answer: "Who will enter a forest when his fellowman is there" includes a blind person. "Without seeing" excludes a blind person.

R. Meir explains that "without knowing" also excludes a blind person. Two exclusions for the same matter come to include.

R. Yehudah uses "without knowing" to exclude one who intended (to kill an animal, and killed a person).

Answer - part 3 (regarding capital punishment): He learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Rotze'ach-Rotze'ach" from exile.

Answer - part 4 (regarding lashes): He learns a Gezeirah Shavah "Rasha-Rasha" from exile.