Question: Why, seeing as he pays his full value, is he obligated to pay 'all of them'?

Answer: According to the Ri earlier (on Daf 85b DH 'N'hi') this is in order, because, since in any event, he must pay Tza'ar, Ripuy and Boshes, it is appropriate to say 'Chaya be'Chulan' on account of them, even though Sheves is included in 'D'mei Kulo'.

Clarification: To enable him to leave his master's house with a complete hand ...

Question: 'And Sheves Ketanah to the master' - Even though the master loses, because, had the hand or the foot not been severed, he would have drawn water or gone on errands, whilst now he is only able to guard cucumbers or at the gate ...

Answer: We consider it as if he had turned sick, about which the Gemara says in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 17a & 17b) that he is not Chayav to make it up.

Implied Question: And even though if he is sick for four years (the majority of six) he is Chayav to make it up ...

Answer: ... that speaks where he does no work at all, whereas here, he is able to guard cucumbers or at the gate.

Verifying Text: This is also the text of Rabeinu Chananel.

Refuted Text: The earlier texts read 'ha'Kol le'Eved' (See Hagahos me'ha'Rav Renshberg).

Refutation: But why should the entire Sheves Ketanah not go to the master?

Conclusion: The correct text is therefore 'ha'Kol le'Rav' ...

Clarification: Sheves Ketanah goes entirely to the master, and Sheves Gedolah is used to purchase Karka (for the Eved), from which the master eats the fruit ...

Reason: ... This is because he loses with the severing of the Eved's hand, since he is no longer able to draw water and go on errands

Refuted Text: We do not have the text 've'Eitzel Atzmo Lo Picheis, P'lugta de'Abaye ve'Rava' ...

Refutation: Because in such a case they would both agree that it goes entirely to the master.

Authentic Text: Therefore, the correct text is Picheis Eitzel Atzmo ve'Eitzel Rabo, P'lugta de'Abaye ve'Rava'.

Question: The Ri queried this text too however, in that they already argue over this in the case of 'ha'Kote'a Yad Eved Ivri'?

Reinstating Refuted Text: The Ri says however, that one can resolve the problem, albeit with a Dochek - that 'Eitzel Atzmo Lo Picheis' will be a Machlokes between Abaye and Rava ...

Reinstating Refuted Text (cont.): ... where he struck the Eved on his hand, which contracted, but which stood to heal before he went free, in which case, according to Abaye he will have to pay Sheves Ketanah to the master and Sheves Gedolah to the Eved ...

Question: ... and even though the Eved loses nothing and the entire loss lands on the master ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, this comes under the heading of Nezek, and, since, regarding the Nezek of 'severing the hand' the master does not even receive the Peiros, he will not receive anything in the current case either.

Answer (cont.): ... Whereas Rava maintains that one gives everything - the Sheves day by day - to the master.

Clarification: Because there are rich people who are not more embarrassed than ordinary (free) people who have lost their wealth ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and one cannot accurately assess which of them are embarrassed as if they had lost their wealth and which of them are embarrassed to a larger or a lesser degree.

Precedent: We find similarly in the Mishnah (later on Daf 90a) in connection with someone who removes his friend's outer clothing or who uncovers a woman's hair in the main street'.

Precedent (cont.): There too, we do not examine whether there are people there before whom he/she will probably be more embarrassed or not ...

Precedent (concl.): ... such as important communal figures. But one makes one assessment for all cases.

Question: What will the Rabanan Darshen from "bi'Mevushav"?

Answer: Presumably, they need it for some D'rashah or other.

Implied Question: This is not comparable to 'Niskaven Laharog es ha'Beheimah ve'Harag es ha'Adam, le'Kuti ve'Harag es Yisrael ... '.

Answer: ... sincc there there is a Pasuk - as we Darshen in the second Perek of Makos (Daf 7b) "bi'Veli Da'as", 'P'rat le'Miskaven Laharog es ha'Beheimah ... ', whereas here there is no Pasuk.

Implied Question: Neither can we learn it from there ...

Answer: ... since we (see that) we need a Pasuk here according to Rebbi Shimon to exempt someone who intends to shame Reuven, but shames Shimon, even rhough there is a Pasuk in this regard by Dinei Nefashos.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that, since he does not mind walking around naked in public, is he at all subject to shame?

Question: But his explanation is difficult, because, why does the Gemara query the Beraisa? It should have queried the Mishnah, which says that someone who embarrasses a naked person is Chayav?

Answer: It appears that the Gemara does not query the Mishnah because, it is obvious that a naked person is subject to embarrassment should one spit on him or slap him ...

Proof #1: The Lashon of the Beraisa, on the other hand - 'Biysho Arum' - implies that he shamed him by revealing his nakedness.

Proof #2: Furthermore, the Tana concludes that one cannot compare being shamed naked to being shamed clothed; And if one spat at him or slapped him, what difference would it make whether he is naked or clothed?

Explanation #2: Hence the Gemara asks 'Is a naked person subject to Boshes - in other words, if he is naked, how can one render him naked?

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the Beraisa which declares Reuven Chayav in the bathhouse also refers to the case of 'Biysho Arum', that he rendered him naked in the bathhouse ...

Conclusion: In that case, the question the Gemara poses 'Is a person in a bathhouse subject to Boshes (in his nakedness)?' is justifiable, seeing as it is the way of people to be naked in a bathhouse.

Explanation #1: But if he raised his own clothes and his friend came and raised them more, the latter would be Patur, since he himself does not care ...

Explanation #2: ... or perhaps (it makes no difference and) the Gemara only mentions the wind because it is more common.

Question: Why does the Gemara not cite the ruling of Rav Sheishes ...

Source: ... as it does at the beginning of 'ha'Nechnakin' (Sanhedrin, Daf 85a, Tosfos DH 've'ha'Amar'), where it asks simply 'But did Rav Sheishes not say "Biysho Yashen u'Meis, Chayav"?

Added Text: Some texts therefore read 'But did Rav Sheishes not say "Biysho Yashen, Chayav"? - though they omit the word 'u'Meis'.

Refutation #1: This is not correct however, since what connection is there between someone who is sleeping and a dead man who is being taken out to be killed?

Refutation #2: Moreover, what is Rav Sheishes coming to teach us, seeing as the Mishnah already says 'ha'Mevayesh es ha'Yashein, Chayav'?

Refutation of Question: It is not so surprising however, for the Gemara not to cite Rav Sheishes to resolve the She'eilah ...

Precedent: ... just as we find in 'Ein bein ha'Mudar' (Nedarim, Daf 35b, See Tosfos DH 'Amar leih'), where the Gemara asks whether the Kohanim (in the Beis-Hamikdash) are our Sheluchim or the Sheluchim of Hash-m ...

Precedent (cont.): ... and it does not cite the words of Rav Huna b'reih de'Rav Yehoshua, who states in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 23b, See Tosfos, DH 'De'Amar') that 'These Kohanim are the Sheluchim of Hash-m; they cannot be our Sheluchim, because how can they do (on our behalf) what we ourselves cannot do?

Question: The problem remains however, that the conclusion of the current Sugya implies that if he shamed him whilst he is asleep, and he dies, he is Patur, since it concludes that it is on account of the person's own shame (and not that of the family).

Amendment of Text in Sanhedrin: Rabeinu Tam has the text there (in Sanhedrin) 'Biysho, Chayav' - and it is with reference to someone who is being taken out to be killed.

Clarification: This means that a blind person who shames is Patur, though someone who shames him is Chayav ...

Reason: ... since we cannot extrapolate from "Einecha" that he should be Patur.

Support: And so it is implied from Rashi, who explains that the Gemara extrapolates from the Mishnah not like Rebbi Yehudah, from the fact that it does not say 'Suma she'Biyesh Patur', in the same way as it says 'Yashen, she'Biyesh Patur' ...

Support (cont.): ... implying that one cannot similarly extrapolate it from the words 'ha'Mevayesh es ha'Suma, Chayav' ...

Support (concl.): ... that Rebbi Yehudah concedes that someone who shames a blind person is Chayav.

Question: Why do we not similarly say that, just as there (by Eidim Zom'min), Gazlanim and Avadim are not Chayav, so too, are they Patur from Boshes?

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer that 'a woman' will refute that suggestion, who is Pasul le'Eidus, yet she is Chayav to pay Boshes

Source: ... as the Torah writes "ve'Hechzikah bi'Mevashav" (Refer to Amud Alef) ...

Refutation: ... because if so, we will not be able to learn a Suma either.

Answer: ... seeing as the Gemara learns it (Suma) from "Einecha" "Einecha", despite the fact that "Einecha" refers to Beis-Din, it makes sense to say that the Gezeirah Shavah was handed down exclusively in connection with something that has to do with vision.

Question #1: Let the Torah write no Miy'ut at all, in which case it will automatically include?

Question #2: And one can ask the same question with regard to 'Ein Ribuy achar Ribuy Ela le'Ma'et' (in Pesachim, Daf 23a [See also Mesores ha'Shas]).

Clarification: Rebbi Yehudah here Darshens the Gezeirah Shavah "Rasha" "Rasha", and the Rabanan only disagree with him in that they do not preclude a Suma even from Chayvei Galuyos.

Precedent #1: And in 'Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin, Daf 33b, and Tosfos there, DH 'Asya') in connection with 'Dinei Nefashos Machzirin li'Z'chus' too, the Gemara, in answer to the Kashya 'Chayvei Malkiyos Minayin', answers 'Asya "Rasha" "Rasha" ', and supports it with a Beraisa.

Precedent #2: And the S'tam Gemara at the beginning of Makos (Daf 5b) also Darshens it in connection with 'Ein ha'Eidim Zom'min Neheragim a she'Yigamer ha'Din al-Pihem'.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara, in the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 10a) asks why Rebbi Yishmael maintains that Makos requires twenty-three judges, to which Abaye answers 'Asya "Rasha" "Rasha", and Rava that 'Malkos is in place of Misah' ...

Answer: ... it is not because Rava does not hold of "Rasha" "Rasha", but because it is not necessary there, since from Malkos itself one can learn twenty-three, due to the fact that Malkos is in place of Misah.

Implied Question: Regarding 'Machzirin li'Zechus ve'Ein Machzirin le'Chovah' (where Rava concedes to "Rasha" "Rasha") ...

Answer: The principle 'Malkos be'Makom Misah Omedes' is not so applicable.

Reason: ... since perhaps it applies only to Misah, on account of the Pasuk "ve'Shaftu ha'Eidah, ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah" (which does not apply to Malkos).

Implied Question: And similarly in the first Perek of Makos (Daf 5a) in connection with 'Dividing Malkos into two or three, bur not Malkos', where, in reply to the Gemara's question from where we know it, Abaye answers 'Asya "Rasha" "Rasha", and Rava, 'We need "ka'asher Zamam", which is not there (should one divide the Malkos into two or three). (continued on next Amud)