1)

(a)What common ruling does the Mishnah later in the Perek issue regarding someone who strikes his parents without actually wounding them and someone who wounds a fellow-Jew on Yom Kipur?

(b)How do we try to resolve our current She'eilah (Sheves ha'Pochsaso mi'Damim) from this Mishnah?

(c)Why is the counter-suggestion that the Tana is referring to a case where the Mazik deafened his parents without drawing blood not acceptable?

(d)What do we prove when we then suggest that the Mishnah is talking about someone who did not actually strike his parents, but who shaved them?

1)

(a)The Mishnah later in the Perek rules that someone who strikes his parents without actually wounding them and someone who wounds a fellow-Jew on Yom Kipur are both Chayav to pay (since neither is Chayav Misah).

(b)We try to resolve our current She'eilah (Sheves ha'Pochsaso mi'Damim) by establishing the case of striking one's parents without actually wounding them, where he wounds them only temporarily, which the Tana clearly considers Nezek.

(c)The counter-suggestion that the Tana is referring to a case where he deafened his parents without drawing blood is not acceptable due to a ruling by Rabah, declaring someone who does so Chayav Misah, seeing as becoming deaf in this way is an indication that there must have been a movement of blood inside the ear.

(d)When we then suggest that the Mishnah is talking about someone who did not actually strike his parents, but who shaved them we are once again trying to resolve our She'eilah, since hair that has been shaven tends to re-grow.

2)

(a)We conclude that the Tana is speaking when he smeared his parents' heads with a permanent hair-remover. This accounts for Nezek, Ripuy and Boshes. But how does it account for ...

1. ... Tza'ar?

2. ... Sheves?

(b)Abaye holds that if someone strikes his friend on the hand, and the hand shrivels temporarily, he is obligated to pay Sheves Gedolah and Sheves Ketanah. What is ...

1. ... Sheves Gedolah?

2. ... Sheves Ketanah?

(c)What does Rava say? How is the Sheves assessed?

(d)But is this not Rabah's She'eilah?

2)

(a)We conclude that the Tana is speaking when he smeared his parents' heads with a permanent hair-remover. This accounts for Nezek, Ripuy and Boshes. It accounts for ...

1. ... Tza'ar in a case where they already had a wound on the head, and shaving them caused them additional pain.

2. ... Sheves in a case where they were professional clowns, who would make their rounds of the shops and put on a clownish acts which involved moving their heads in different directions and pulling funny faces, which they are now unable to do because of the pain.

(b)Abaye holds that if someone strikes his friend on the hand, and the hand shrivels temporarily, he is obligated to pay Sheves ...

1. ... Gedolah otherwise known as 'Nezek'.

2. ... Ketanah what we call 'Sheves' (work-loss).

(c)According to Rava the Mazik pays only Sheves (i.e. the full work-loss, and not like a guard in a cucumber-field, seeing as he does not pay Nezek).

(d)This is indeed Rabah's She'eilah and Abaye adopts one side of it, and Rava, the other.

3)

(a)If Reuven cuts off the hand of Shimon's Eved Ivri, says Abaye, he pays Nezek to the Eved and Sheves to the master. What does Rava say?

(b)How would both Abaye and Rava rule in a case where he cut off the tip of the Eved's ear, causing no loss to the master?

3)

(a)If Reuven cuts off the hand of Shimon's Eved Ivri, says Abaye, he pays Nezek to the Eved and Sheves to the master. According to Rava he pays everything to the Eved Ivri, who buys with the money land, from which the master eats the Peiros.

(b)In a case where he cut off the tip of the Eved's ear, causing no loss to the master, everyone agrees that the entire amount goes to the Eved, and nothing to his master.

4)

(a)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, rules that one assess all Jews equally with regard to Boshes. What does he mean when he says 'Ro'in Osan Ke'ilu Heim B'nei Chorin she'Yardu mi'Nichseihem'?

(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(c)We suggest that the author of our Mishnah ('Boshes, ha'Kol L'fi ha'Mevayesh ve'ha'Misbayesh') must be Rebbi Shimon. What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(d)Why can our Mishnah not go like Rebbi Meir?

4)

(a)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, rules that one assesses all Jews equally with regard to Boshes. When he says 'Ro'in Osan Ke'ilu Heim Bnei Chorin she'Yardu mi'Nichseihem', he means that we neither assess the rich according to their wealth (as that would be a tremendous Chumra), nor the poor according to their poverty (which would be an equally tremendous Kula). He reckons everyone as if he was a rich man who had fallen on hard times.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah says that we reckon everyone according to his current situation.

(c)We suggest that the author of our Mishnah ('Boshes ha'Kol L'fi ha'Mevayesh ve'ha'Misbayesh') must be Rebbi Shimon, who says that we reckon a rich man as if he has fallen on hard times (like Rebbi Meir), but a poor man as if he was the poorest of the poor.

(d)Our Mishnah cannot go like Rebbi Meir because he makes no distinction between a rich man and a poor one regarding Boshes, whereas our Mishnah says 'ha'Kol L'fi ha'Mevayesh ve'ha'Misbayesh'.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah does not appear to go like Rebbi Yehudah either. Why not? What does Rebbi Yehudah say about the Boshes of a blind man that appears to clashes with our Mishnah?

(b)What distinction do we draw between the two cases, to reconcile Rebbi Yehudah with our Mishnah?

(c)What does the Tana there say about the Boshes of a sleeping man?

(d)How does this affect our previous effort to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah?

5)

(a)Our Mishnah does not appear to go like Rebbi Yehudah either because he says 'Suma Ein Lo Boshes', whereas our Mishnah states 'ha'Mevayesh Es ha'Suma, Chayav'.

(b)To reconcile Rebbi Yehudah with our Mishnah, we draw a distinction between a blind man who shamed someone (whom R. Yehudah declares Patur) and someone who shamed a blind man (who, R. Yehudah concedes, is Chayav).

(c)The Tana there makes this very same distinction regarding the Boshes of a sleeping man (absolving a sleeping man who shames someone else, but obligating someone else who shames him).

(d)This refutes our previous effort to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah because if such a distinction existed in the case of a blind man, then the Tana ought to have said so; and seeing as he did not, the Mishnah clearly holds that a blind man who shamed is Chayav too (in which case, the author cannot be Rebbi Yehudah).

6)

(a)What does the Tana say about Reuven who intended to shame a Katan and he shamed a Gadol, or to shame an Eved, and he shamed a free man?

(b)How do we initially interpret 'Katan' and 'Gadol' in this Beraisa?

(c)In that case, why can the author of the Beraisa not be Rebbi Meir?

(d)And why can the author not be Rebbi Yehudah? What did he say about Avadim?

6)

(a)The Tana rules that if Reuven intended to shame a Katan and he shamed a Gadol, or to shame an Eved, and he shamed a free man he pays the Boshes that he would have had to give the person that he intended to shame.

(b)We initially interpret 'Katan' and 'Gadol' in this Beraisa to mean small or big in property (in other words, a poor man and a rich man, respectively) ...

(c)... in which case, the author of the Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Meir because he does not differentiate between the Boshes' of a poor man and that of a rich man, as we just learned.

(d)And the author of the Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Yehudah who later in the Sugya rules 'Ein la'Avadim Boshes', whereas the Beraisa assesses the Boshes of an Eved.

7)

(a)And why can the author not be Rebbi Shimon? What did he say about 'Niskaven le'Vayesh es Zeh, u'Biyesh es Zeh'?

(b)Rebbi Shimon correlates the Pesukim "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav" (Shoftim) and "ve'Shalchah Yadah ve'Hichzikah bi'Mevushav" (Ki Seitzei). What does he learn from ...

1. ... "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav"?

2. ... "ve'Shalchah Yadah ve'Hichzikah bi'Mevushav"?

(c)What distinction do we draw to establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah ('Ein la'Avadim Boshes')?

(d)And how do we reinterpret 'Katan' and 'Gadol' to establish it like Rebbi Meir?

7)

(a)Neither can the author be Rebbi Shimon, who says 'Niskaven le'Vayesh Es Zeh, u'Biyesh Es Zeh', Patur whereas the Beraisa clearly holds 'Chayav'.

(b)Rebbi Shimon correlates the Pesukim "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav" (Shoftim) and "ve'Shalchah Yadah ve'Hichzikah bi'Mevushav" (Ki Seitzei). From the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav" he learns that one is only Chayav Nezek if one actually aimed at the person that he ultimately hit.

2. ... "ve'Shalchah Yadah ve'Hichzikah bi'Mevushav" he learns that one is only Chayav Boshes if one actually aimed at the person whom he ultimately shamed.

(c)To establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah ('Ein la'Avadim Boshes') we establish Rebbi Yehudah with regard to paying an Eved Boshes, whereas the Beraisa is speaking about assessing him, and giving the Boshes to someone else.

(d)And to establish it like Rebbi Meir, we reinterpret 'Katan' and 'Gadol' to mean literally, a child and a grown-up. A Katan we assume, is generally not subject to Boshes; however, one who reacts to being shamed, obviously is.

86b----------------------------------------86b

8)

(a)What do someone who shames a man who is naked, who is blind and who is asleep, have in common?

(b)What does the Tana say about ...

1. ... a sleeping man who shames someone else?

2. ... someone who falls from a rooftop and shames someone as he lands on top of him?

(c)What distinction does the Tana of the Beraisa draw between a shamed man ...

1. ... who is naked and one who is clothed? Note, that shame in this entire context (from this point on), is confined to uncovering his body.

2. ... who is in the bathhouse, and one who is in the street?

(d)If, as we assume, a man ...

1. ... who walks around naked is not subject to shame, how will we explain the Beraisa, which obligates the person who shames him to pay Boshes?

2. ... is not subject to Boshes in the bathhouse, how does Rav Papa explain the Beraisa, which obligates the person who shames him there, to pay Boshes?

8)

(a)What someone who shames a man who is naked, who is blind and who is asleep, have in common is that the Tana obligates all three to pay Boshes.

(b)The Tana says that ...

1. ... a sleeping man who shames someone else is Patur from Boshes.

2. ... someone who falls from a rooftop and shames someone as he lands on top of him is Chayav Nezek, but Patur from Boshes, unless he deliberately turns over in order to soften his fall when he lands on him (as we learned above in the second Perek).

(c)The Tana of the Beraisa draws a minor distinction between a shamed man ...

1. ... who is naked and one who is clothed inasmuch as the shame is greater in the latter case (though in both cases, the 'Mazik' is Chayav). Note, that shame in this entire context (from this point on), is confined to uncovering his body.

2. ... who is in the bathhouse, and one who is in the street in exactly the same way as in the previous case.

(d)Seeing as a man ...

1. ... who walks around naked is not subject to shame, the Beraisa, which obligates the person who shames him to pay Boshes must be speaking (not when he is walking around naked, but) when the wind had already partially uncovered him, when the 'Mazik' adds to his shame by uncovering him more.

2. ... is not subject to Boshes in the bathhouse, Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa, which obligates the person who shames him there, to pay Boshes (not by a regular bathhouse, but) by a bathhouse in the open, beside a river, where the concept of Boshes does apply.

9)

(a)Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asks whether someone who shames a sleeping man who subsequently dies in his sleep is obligated to pay Boshes. What are the two sides to the She'eilah?

(b)What distinction does Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa make regarding Boshes, between a Cheresh and a Katan on the one hand, and a Shoteh on the other?

(c)How do we attempt to resolve our current She'eilah from Rebbi Meir's ruling by a Katan?

(d)How do we refute ...

1. ... the counter-argument to this proof (that if it were a matter of degradation, then why is one not Chayav Boshes for shaming a Shoteh, too)?

2. ... the proof from a Katan that Boshes must therefore mean degradation (by citing Rav Papa again)? What did Rav Papa say in similar circumstances?

9)

(a)Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asks whether someone who shames a sleeping man who subsequently dies in his sleep is obligated to pay Boshes. The two sides to the She'eilah are whether Boshes is defined as degradation (which applies in such a case) or embarrassment (which does not).

(b)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa rules that Boshes applies to someone who shames a Cheresh and a Katan, but not to someone who shames a Shoteh.

(c)We attempt to resolve our current She'eilah from Rebbi Meir's ruling by a Katan by assuming that although a Katan is subject to degradation, he is not subject to embarrassment (in which case we have a proof that the criterion for Boshes is the degradation).

(d)We refute ...

1. ... the counter-argument to this proof (that if it were a matter of degradation, then why is one not Chayav Boshes for shaming a Shoteh, too) by establishing that the degradation of a Shoteh is already absolute, so that even degradation is not applicable to him, since it is not possible to degrade him any further.

2. ... the proof from a Katan that Boshes must therefore mean degradation by citing Rav Papa again who says elsewhere that Rebbi Meir is speaking about a Katan who displays embarrassment when shamed (and who is therefore subject to embarrassment as well.

10)

(a)Rav Papa has another interpretation of Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's She'eilah. What are the two sides of the She'eilah in his opinion?

(b)How do we ...

1. ... try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Meir's ruling by a Shoteh (that we just cited)?

2. ... refute that proof?

(c)And how does Rav Papa refute the proof from Rebbi Meir's ruling by a Katan that Boshes must be a matter of family honor, because otherwise, since when is a Katan subject to Boshes?

(d)Rav Papa's explanation is borne out by a Beraisa. What does Rebbi say regarding Boshes, about ...

1. ... a Cheresh?

2. ... a Shoteh?

3. ... a Katan?

10)

(a)Rav Papa has another interpretation of Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's She'eilah. In his opinion, the two sides of the She'eilah are whether Boshes constitutes the Nizak's embarrassment or the family honor.

(b)We ...

1. ... try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Meir's ruling by a Shoteh (that we just cited) because, if Boshes was a matter of family honor, why would it not apply even when one shamed a Shoteh?

2. ... We refute that proof however on the grounds that even family honor no longer exists in the case of a Shoteh, and shaming him more makes no difference.

(c)Rav Papa refutes the proof from Rebbi Meir's ruling by a Katan that Boshes must be a matter of family honor because otherwise, since when is a Katan subject to Boshes by differentiating between a S'tam Katan and one who displays embarrassment when shamed (as we have already quoted him twice as saying).

(d)Rav Papa's explanation is borne out by a Beraisa, where Rebbi rules ...

1. ... that a Cheresh receives Boshes ...

2. ... a Shoteh does not, and ...

3. ... a Katan sometimes does (when he displays embarrassment), and sometimes does not (when he doesn't).

11)

(a)Our Mishnah obligates someone who shames a blind man to pay Boshes. This is the opinion of Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa. What does Rebbi Yehudah say about a blind man regarding ...

1. ... Boshes?

2. ... Chayvei Galuyos, Chayvei Malkiyos?

3. ... Chayvei Misos Beis-Din?

(b)How do we know that, when Rebbi Yehudah says 'Suma Ein Lo Boshes', he is not referring exclusively to a blind man who was shamed (but not to one who shamed others)?

(c)What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Katzosa es Kapah, Lo Sachos Einecha" (Ki Seitzei) from "Lo Sachos Einecha" (Shoftim)? In which connection is the second "Einecha" written?

(d)How does he know that a blind man cannot become an Eid Zomem?

11)

(a)Our Mishnah obligates someone who shames a blind man to pay Boshes. This is the opinion of Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa. Rebbi Yehudah rules that a blind man is Patur ...

1. ... from Boshes.

2. ... Galus, Malkus, and ...

3. ... Misos Beis-Din.

(b)When Rebbi Yehudah says 'Suma Ein Lo Boshes', he is not referring exclusively to a blind man who was shamed (but not to one who shamed others) because then, the Tana should have made this distinction with regard to a blind man in the same way as does by a sleeping man (as we explained earlier).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ve'Katzosa Es Kapah, Lo Sachos Einecha" (Ki Seitzei) from "Lo Sachos Einecha" (Shoftim, in connection with Eidim Zomemin) that just as a blind man cannot become an Ed Zomem, so too, is he not punishable for shaming someone.

(d)He learns that a blind man cannot become an Ed Zomem from the fact that he cannot be a witness (seeing as he cannot even profess to having seen what happened [see Gilyon ha'Shas]).

12)

(a)And he learns the P'tur from Galus from the Pasuk in Mas'ei "be'Lo Re'os", 'P'rat le'Suma'. His starting point is the fact that the Torah writes "va'Asher Yavo es Re'eihu ba'Ya'ar". How does he establish that Pasuk? How does he extrapolate from there that the first Pasuk precludes a blind man?

(b)How would Rebbi Yehudah have explained "be'Lo Re'os", were it not for the Pasuk "va'Asher Yavo ... "?

(c)How does Rebbi Meir extrapolate from the two Pesukim "be'Lo Re'os" and "Bi'vli Da'as" to include a blind man?

(d)And what does Rebbi Yehudah learn from "Bi'vli Da'as"?

12)

(a)And he learns the Ptur from Galus from the Pasuk "be'Lo Re'os", 'P'rat le'Suma'. His starting point is the fact that the Torah writes "va'Asher Yavo Es Re'eihu ba'Ya'ar" which, by implication, includes someone who is blind. Consequently, "be'Lo Re'os" must come to preclude him.

(b)Were it not for the first Pasuk "va'Asher Yavo ... "), Rebbi Yehudah would have included a blind man from "be'Lo Re'os", which implies that he is able to see, but failed to do so.

(c)Rebbi Meir extrapolates from the two Pesukim "be'Lo Re'os" and "Bi'Vli Da'as" to include a blind man due to the principle "Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela Le'rabos" (when two exclusions follow one another other, they come to include).

(d)Rebbi Yehudah uses "bi'Vli Da'as" to preclude someone who kills on purpose, from Galus (even if there are no witnesses or if there was no warning).

13)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah learns the P'tur of Chayvei Miysos by a blind man from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach" from "La'nus Shamah Rotze'ach" (both in Mas'ei), and Chayvei Malkiyos from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha" (Ki Seitzei) from "Asher Hu Rasha La'mus (Mas'ei)". In which connection does the Pasuk write ...

1. ... "La'nus Shamah Rotze'ach"?

2. ... "Asher Hu Rasha La'mus"?

13)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah learns the Ptur of Chayavei Misos by a blind man from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach" from "Lanus Shamah Rotze'ach" (both in Mas'ei), and Chayavei Malkiyos from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha" (Ki Seitzei) from "Asher Hu Rasha La'mus (Mas'ei)". The Pasuk writes ...

1. ... "Lanus Shamah Rotze'ach" in connection with Chayavei Galuyos, and ...

2. ... "Asher Hu Rasha La'mus" in connection with Chayavei Misos Beis-Din.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF