I don't understand the Gemorrah's answer on the top of daf 91b, beginning with "Hochi Ke'omar..." - You wrote:-
"(e) Answer: He told him thusly: not only regarding embarrassment, by which Reuven may embarrass himself, if Shimon embarrasses him he is liable;
1. Even regarding bodily damage, by which Reuven may not damage himself, if Shimon damages him, he is liable (even though Reuven damages himself, showing his indifference to damage)."
Firstly, I don't understand the logic behind the "Lo miboay" (not only...) - surely the svorah should be the opposite ! If a person can't injure himself, all the more so someone else can't injure him !
Second, the story in the Mishna is that the man embarrassed the woman (not damaged her), so how does this fit in with the words of the answer above which seems to be saying that he damaged her (chavala) !?
Thank you in advance for any help in explaining to me what the Gemorrah means here.
Shlomo Steinhart, Ramat Bet Shemesh, Israel
Your second question is actually the Gemara's question. The Beraisa says that Rebbi Akiva told the person, "Although one who damages himself..." etc., to which the Gemara asks that the case was one of embarrasment, not of Chavalah.
The Gemara answers that we are being taught an additional Chidush: we might have thought that only one who embarrasses himself, who has not done anything wrong, can still rightfully claim compensation for embarrasment from another, while someone who shows such disdain for himself that he even damages himself, contrary to the Halachah, should not be entitled to receive compensation when damaged by someone else since his own lack of respect for himself is a clear indication that he relinquishes the right to claim damages. Ka Mashma Lan, that in the latter case, as well, he may still claim damages.
D. Zupnik