Комментарий к Бава Кама 8:9

One who wounds his friend is obligated to pay 5 etc: One who embarrasses a naked person, who embarrasses etc...

החובל. וכמה הוא יפה – for if he needed to, he would sell himself as a Hebrew slave. But the one who damages him causes him the loss of this money.

Introduction Chapter eight of Bava Kamma deals with personal injury law. According to Jewish law when a person injures another person he is obligated for five different payments: 1) compensation for the injury itself; 2) compensation for the pain; 3) payment of medical costs; 4) loss of wages; 5) compensation for indignity caused by the injury. Our mishnah teaches how each of these types of compensation are calculated.

When he cuts off his hand or his foot he is obligated in the 5 punishments, but when he does to him 1 of these damages or 2 from these, for example, that he embarrasses him only, he is not obligated except for embarrassment. And similarly if it's only pain he's not obligated except for pain. As is said as an example that he burns him with a skewer on his fingernail and all this one should examine. And if he passes over, the victim, on the words of the doctor, and was added to his illness or another injury happens because of this, the damager is not obligated for any of this new illness, because the patient neglected himself. And know that it is very important principle from the principles of our religion, that you don't collect fines in Babylonia and all the other lands outside of the land of Israel only. Because that he blessed be he said "before the judges" and we do not have judges that heir name is called [true] judges except for judges with ordination in the land of Israel. And this is explained in Sanhedrin. All judges in the world it is as if they stand in the place of judges in the land of Israel, and even so they do not fill their place except in matters of general things people do, in order that they should not lose the rights of people. For example loans, buying, selling, acquiring, admissions, and denials. And when an animal damages with the tooth or the foot that they are accustomed to this, as is explained, and similarly when a person damages an animal. However an animal to a person or a person to a person, and all fines, they do not pay anything, except with the court in the land of Israel, because these are things that from them they don't happen except for a little bit, and from these things you do not lose a lot of money. And it is appropriate to do when someone wounds his friend that it should be evaluated in all that he would be obligated, from time off work, and embarrassment, doctor bills, pain, and the fines, and they should add together everything and the one who wounds will pay at one time and will be absolved, if it was that the court case was in the land of Israel. And if it was outside the land we excommunicate the one who wounds until he gives what he obligated to pay on the basis of mutual agreement or go up with the other person to the land of Israel and when he gives what he is obligated to pay to him we release his excommunication, and even if the one who wounds is not happy with this. It is appropriate to mention here that the half damages that an innocuous ox pays is considered a fine and we do not collect this outside of Israel except according to what is mentioned. However half damages with stones that was mentioned already in the second chapter from this tractate and it is that when rocks shoot out from his [the animals] feet and it breaks vessels he pays half damages from the entire damage [not limited to the value of the animal], that this is law and not fines and we can collect it outside of Israel and only if it was in the domain of the person who was damaged. However in the public domain he is not liable for any damage of the foot as it is explained there. And full damages are not a fine and is collected outside the land of Israel except an ox that is accustomed alone because the idea in our hand there are not 'accustomed' oxen in in Babylonia [because there is no Sanhedrin].

כיוצא בזה – according to what he enjoys, the greatness of his trouble and pain.

He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts: for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. Section one lists the five payments for personal injury, as we explained in the introduction. The remainder of the mishnah explains these payments.

צמחין – white pustules.

‘For injury’: How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. Section two Injury is assessed by evaluating the previous and current worth of the person as a slave. The payment is the difference between the two.

שבת – all the days of the illness, we see him as if he is watchman of cucumbers and provide his salary of each day. For behold he is not fit for another labor even without illness for his hand is cut off or his leg and he has already been given their value.

‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. Section three Compensation for pain is assessed by evaluating how much a person would accept in exchange for having such an injury.

הכל לפי המבייש – an unimportant man who was put to shame, his insult is greater.

‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing]. If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. Section four The person who inflicted the injury is obligated to pay for whatever the costs of healing may be. If sores or other later complications occur, he will be liable as long as the later complications are a result of the original blow. Finally, the person who inflicted the injury will be liable until the wound completely heals.

והמתבייש – according to his importance is his shame [greater]. And each of these five things are derived from Biblical verses. Damages/נזק, as it is written (Exodus 21:24): “eye for eye” – and that does not mean to say an actual eye, as it is written (Numbers 35:31): “You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer.” For the life of a murderer you don’t take a ransom, but you do take a ransom for the heads of his limbs, for if he blinded he eye of his fellow, we give him the value of the eye, and that is “eye for an eye.” Pain/צער – we derive from (Exodus 21:25): “wound for wound.”. For it is an additional verse making him liable for the pain and even in the place of damage. And you should not say, behold he acquired his hand, and he now must cut it off. But we say that he should have cut it off with a drug, and this one severed it with iron and caused him pain. Therefore, he pays for the pain [that he caused]. ריפוי ושבת /healing and idleness/sitting. (Exodus 21:19): “Except that he must pay for his idleness and his cure,” and specifically if the illness comes on account of the wound. But if the hill person was negligent regarding himself and transgressed the words of the physician, the one who did damage is not liable for idleness and healing for we require on account of negligence. בשת/insult or indignity – as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:12): “You shall cut off her hand; [show no pity] – it is money. And the law of the Torah is that one cannot judge aa single law in the world other than judges who are ordained in the Land of Israel, as it is written (Exodus 22:8): “the case of both parties shall come before God.” And they [who judge] are not called "אלהים"/God, other than those who are ordained in the Land of Israel. But loans, business transactions, agreements by which one’s landed estate is mortgaged in the form of a sale from date (independent of he loan to consummated afterwards so that at a certain date the creditor can claim the property, even if sold in the meantime, by referring to the priority of his purchase (i.e., deeds of transfer), admissions and denials, we adjudicate them outside the Land [of Israel] as if they (i.e., the judges) are representatives of the Jewish court of the Land of Israel and their agency we make use of. And this alone in a found matter where there is a [potential] loss of money [and similarly] an animal that damaged with the tooth or the foot and they are forewarned, or if a man caused damage to an animal. But an animal that caused damage to a person, or a person to another person, we don’t judge hem outside the Land [of Israel] at all. Rather, we excommunicate the person who wounds or the one who causes damage, until he go up with his fellow litigant to the Land of Israel or that he will provide, through the path of compromise, something close to what appears in the eyes of the judge. But a limited matter, they don’t render a decision upon. And the same law applies to fines that written in the Torah and in all of them is Talmudic learning: We don’t collect them – the judges of the Diaspora, but rather we excommunicate whomever is liable for them as we have explained.

‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. Section five loss of income is assessed by evaluating the wage of a person doing the lowest paying job possible, a cucumber patch guard. There is some overlap between this payment and the payment for injury. For instance if the person injured was a blacksmith who earned 100 dollars a month and the injury blinded him, thereby preventing him from continuing in his profession. The payment for the injury will compensate him for this loss. Therefore the payment for the loss of income is compensation only for the loss of ability to do any job, no matter how low paying.

‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity]. Section six payment for indignity is relative to the person who inflicts the indignity and to the person who incurs it. A person of lower social status will inflict greater indignity and will suffer less indignity. (In Mishnah six of this chapter we will see that Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this idea). For instance, if a poor peasant were to strike the queen, the indignity would be greater, according to the mishnah, than the queen striking a poor peasant. However, the mishnah teaches that indignity payments are applicable even if the person embarrassed is naked (meaning he has brought upon himself indignity) or sleeping (unaware of his indignity) or blind (unable to see his indignity). Finally we learn that a person is obligated to pay for the indignity only if the blow was purposeful. All of the other payments mentioned in the mishnah are obligatory even if the blow was accidental.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three states that “even if the injury is on the fingernail”. What is the meaning of this clause? Furthermore, this section states, “such a man”; what is the meaning and import of these words?
• What is the relationship of clause 6a to clause 6c?
• In our society is indignity suffered still relative to the social status of the two parties?

This is a stringency with man compared to ox that the man etc...

ושור אינו משלם אלא נזק – as it is written (Leviticus 24:19): “If anyone [maims] his fellow, [as he has done so shall it be done to him,” and not an ox for its fellow.

Introduction Mishnah two compares payments for injuries caused by an ox with payments for injuries caused by a human. Mishnah three deals with several laws related to personal injury.

They said this stringency with min compared to ox there is in it a reliance on the topic which is already in the third chapter of this tractate, that an ox that embarrasses is not obligated, and we already explained in the 5th chapter also that the ox is exempt from fetuses.

ופטור מדמי ולדות – as it is written (Exodus 21:22): “When men fight” - men and not oxen.

The law is more strict in the case of a man than in the case of an ox: for a man must pay for injury, pain, medical costs, loss of income and indignity, and make restitution for the value of the young; whereas the ox pays only for injury and is not liable for the value of the young. This mishnah lists the differences in liability for an ox that injures versus a human who injures. As we learned in the previous mishnah a human who injures another person must make five different payments. An ox, however, who injures a human being pays only for the injury itself. Furthermore, if a human should injure a woman and cause her to miscarry, he is obligated to pay for the value of the miscarried child/ren. An ox that injures is not liable for this payment. (For the assessment of such a payment see above 5:4).

He strikes his father or mother and did not cause...

החובל בחבירו ביה"כ חייב – even though that in the entire Torah , a person who violates a transgression for which he is liable for flogging and payment, he is flogged but does not pay. Here, he pays and is not flogged. For in the commentary, the Torah widened the scope of the law concerning a person who strikes his fellow for payment and not for stripes, from what is written (Deuteronomy 19:21): “hand for hand,” which is money since it is written (Leviticus 24:19): “as he has done so shall it be done to him.” Why does it say “hand for hand?” But rather to include a person who strikes his fellow on Yom Kippur that pays and does not get flogged.

If a man struck his father or his mother and inflicted no wound, or if he wounded his fellow on Yom Kippur, he is liable for all five counts. Section one teaches a few laws, for which we will find the opposite scenario in mishnah five. There we will learn, as we have learned in other places, that a person cannot receive two punishments for the same crime. Inflicting a wound on one’s father or mother is a capital crime (Exodus 21:15) as is inflicting a wound on the Sabbath. Therefore if he were to perform one of these acts he would be obligated for the death penalty and therefore exempt from a monetary fine. However, in our mishnah he did not commit a crime for which he could receive the death penalty, and therefore he is liable for the monetary fine. Striking one’s parents without causing a wound is not a crime for which one would receive the death penalty. Likewise, inflicting a wound on Yom Kippur, as all forbidden acts on Yom Kippur is punishable by “kareth” (cutting off) and not the death penalty.

We already explained that from the main rules that are in our hand, a man does not get lashes and pay, rather that if a man does something that obligates him in lashes and payment, he gets lashes and does not pay. With the exception of one who wounds his friend on the day of atonement only, that he pays and does not receive lashes, because the passage is clear, with one who wounds that he should pay no matter what. And that is what it means when it says 'a hand for a hand'. And the explanation that comes from this, that it is something given from hand to hand, and what is it?.. money. Since after that it says that as he did should be done to him, that it did not need to say 'hand to hand'. And this is idea that the torah clearly included, one who wounds his friend (is obligated) in payment. And the laws is not like Rebbi Yehudah.

רבי יהודה אומר אין לעבדים בושת – as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:11): “If two men get into a fight with each other,” for whom that he has brotherhood, excluding a slave who lacks brotherhood. Ut the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If he wounded a Hebrew slave, he is liable on all five counts, except loss of income if it was his slave. If he wounded a Canaanite slave (non-Jewish he is liable on all five counts. Rabbi Judah says: “Slaves do not receive compensation for indignity.” Section two deals with injuring slaves. There are two kinds of slaves in Jewish law, a Jewish slave and a non-Jewish slave. If one injures a Jewish slave he is obligated for all of the payments unless he injured his own slave. His own slave performs work for him and therefore there would be no sense in paying the slave for loss of work. If one injures a non-Jewish slave he is obligated for all of the payments. Rabbi Judah disagrees. In his opinion slaves do not receive payment for indignity since they are already in a position of constant indignity.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think that when an ox injures a human its owner is only obligated to pay for the injury, whereas when a human injures another human, he must make five different types of payment?
• What do you think Rabbi Judah would say about indignity payments for Jewish slaves?

A deaf person, an imbecile, or a child encountering them is disadvantageous.

עבד ואשה שחבלו באחרים פטורים – for they lack what to pay.

It is losing proposition to meet up with a deaf-mute, an idiot or a minor: he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt.
It is a losing proposition to meet up with a slave or [married] woman; he that injures them is obligated; and they that injure others are exempt. However, they pay after some time; if the woman was divorced or the slave freed they are liable for restitution.
Mishnah four deals with two sets of exceptional categories to personal injury law: the first set includes deaf-mutes, idiots and minors; the second set includes married women and slaves. People who fit into these categories receive payment if someone else injures them and yet do not pay if they injure someone else.
Mishnah five teaches opposite scenarios from those we learned in mishnah three. The law mentioned here reiterates the principle that a person cannot be obligated for the death penalty and a financial penalty for the same crime.
According to our mishnah there are several categories of people who receive payment for injuries done to them but do not pay if they injure others. Section one lists people who according to Jewish law are not capable of taking responsibility for their actions. Therefore if they injure others they are not legally obligated. However, the mishnah points out that this is not a reciprocal law. If one injures them he is still obligated for remuneration. These people, while not halachically capable of being responsible for their own actions, are still human beings and deserve both the protection that the law affords through the right to compensation if injured. One who injures them is obligated, therefore, on all five counts mentioned in mishnah one.
The second category of people who receive payment for injuries done to them but do not pay if they injure others are slaves and women. Slaves and women cannot pay others because their money is linked to their master or to their husband. There is, however, significant difference in this matter between slaves and women. Non-Jewish slaves own no property; everything they acquire belongs to their master. They therefore have no money with which to make financial compensation. In contrast, married women can own property. However, a woman’s husband has a lien on her property and he also has the right to the benefits of the property. For instance if she owns a piece of land, she cannot sell it without her husband’s consent and he gets the benefit of what is grown on the land, as long as they are married. Therefore she doesn’t own any property that is totally available for which to make compensation if she should injure someone else. However, the mishnah teaches that once the slave is freed or the woman divorced or widowed, they now have the obligation to compensate the person they injured.

All this is clear. And there is to the judge to afflict them so as to remove their damages from among people.

נתגרשה האשה ונשתחרר העבד – and they acquired property, they are liable to pay. For at the beginning, they are liable, but they lack what to pay as the usufruct of the wife is mortgaged to her husband for its fruits and for inheritance.

One who strikes his father or mother and causes to them a bruise...

מפני שהוא נדון בנפשו – for even though he is disgraced, he is repaired regarding his Creator, since his wrath has been appeased and his anger has been put to rest through [his act].

If a man struck his father or mother and left a wound, or if he wounded his fellow on the Sabbath, he is not liable for any of the [five] counts because he is liable for his life.
If a man wounded his Canaanite (non- slave he is not liable on any of the five counts.
Striking one’s father or mother and causing a wound or wounding another person on the Sabbath are all capital crimes. Since the person is sentenced to death, he is not obligated for the death penalty. (For more on this clause see the explanation to Mishnah three).
A non-Jewish slave is considered the property of his owner and cannot own any money. Therefore one who injures his own non-Jewish slave does not make any payment, since he would pay the money to himself in any case.
Note that this is not a license to injure non-Jewish slaves. According to Exodus 21:26-27 if a man should strike his slave and cause him to lose his eye or tooth the slave must be set free. The Rabbis expanded this law to include losses of other body parts.


One who slaps his companion gives to him a selah rabbi Yehudah says...

התוקע לחבירו – who attaches his fingers in the palm of his hand and strikes him with a fist (see Talmud Bava Kamma 90a about other possible meanings – like slapping his neighbor on the ear or shouting into his ear).

If a man boxed the ear of his fellow, he must pay him a sela (four. Rabbi Judah says in the name of Rabbi Yose the Galilean: “A maneh (one hundred.”
If he slapped him he must pay 200 zuz.
If with the back of his hand, he must pay him 400 zuz.
If he tore at his ear, plucked out his hair, spat at him and his spit touched him, or pulled his cloak from off him, or loosed a woman’s hair in the street, he must pay 400 zuz.
This is the general rule: all is in accordance with the person’s honor.
Rabbi Akiva said: “Even the poor in Israel are regarded as free people who have lost their possessions, for they are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It once happened that a man unloosed a woman’s hair in the street and she came before Rabbi Akiva and he condemned him to pay her 400 zuz. He said, “Rabbi, give me time”. And he gave him time. He caught her standing at the entrance to her courtyard, and he broke a jug of one issar’s worth of oil in front of her. She unloosed her hair and scooped up the oil in her hand and laid her hand on her head. He had set up witnesses up against her and he came before Rabbi Akiva and said to him, “Rabbi, should I give one such as this 400 zuz?” He answered, “You have said nothing.”
If a man injures himself, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But others who injure him are liable.
If a man cuts down his own saplings, even though he has no right to do so, is not liable. But, if others cut them down, they are liable.
Most of mishnah six deals with injuries inflicted on another person that do not cause lasting damage but cause great embarrassment. The end of the mishnah deals with people who injure themselves or their own property.
Sections one through four contain a list of fines a person must pay for striking another person. These types of blows will probably not cause any damage and therefore the fines are for embarrassment only. Note that these are extremely large fines. They demonstrate that Jewish law takes publicly embarrassing another person very seriously and penalizes such a person with a stiff financial penalty. Indeed according to Jewish tradition one who publicly embarrasses another is akin to a murderer.
Section five tempers the fines imposed in sections one through four. According to section five, these fines are imposed only one those people who are of the highest honor and are therefore greatly embarrassed by being slapped etc. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this statement. According to Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest, if not the greatest Rabbi in the Mishnah, all of Israel is of equal honor, since all of Israel comes from the same roots. A person’s honor is not based on his current financial status, as the opinion in section five intimates. Rather it is based on his noble roots as a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The story in sections 6a through 6f illustrates this point. In this story a man disgraces a woman who, as we learn later in the story, is willing to disgrace herself over a tiny portion of oil. (An issar is probably less than an ounce of oil). Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva makes the man pay 400 zuz, as he would have to pay to a woman of the most honorable status. According to Rabbi Akiva, all Israelites are of equal honor, even those who are poor.
Section seven relates to the story told in section six. Here, and in the next section, we learn that a person is not allowed to injure himself, but there is nevertheless no penalty for doing so. However, if another person should inflict such an injury on him, he is liable, even if the injured person regularly should injure himself. In the example in the story, although the woman undid her own hair, and thus disgraced herself, no other person has the right to do this to her.
Section eight relates a similar law with regards to cutting down saplings. A person should not cut down his own saplings but if he should do so, he is not liable. However, if another should cut down his saplings, he is liable, even though this is something that the person himself has done before.
A final note on unloosing a woman’s hair. This phrase can alternatively be translated “to uncover a woman’s hair.” In Mishnaic times it was customary for men and women to cover their hair in public. It was considered a disgrace for anyone to go out with their hair uncovered.

One who slaps his companion, this is one who strikes his companion with the palm of his hand closed, on the back of his neck. 'He slaps'- That he hit him with the palm of his hand on his face. With the back of his hand he hits him- with the back of the hand, this is more embarrassing. He pulls his ear- that he hurts his ear as if it was stung. And what that it says 'everything is according to their honor' means to say the explanation is these amounts that are mentioned these are the maximum, what they would give to an important person. And if it was a lesser person, they will lessen for him from these amounts. And they don't give money except for based on his importance. And Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this and says that all of Israel is equal in these laws. And from the main rules of judgement that the court should note extend the time of cases of damages, however Rabbi Akiva gave time with embarrassment alone. And the law is not like Rabbi Akiva when he makes everyone equal and t not like he law is not like Rabbi Yehuda. And all of these are fines and the law is in the land of Israel as has been explained.

נותן לו סלע – the monetary value of his embarrassment. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda who holds that he gives him a Maneh.

סטרו – that he struck him with the palm of his hand on his cheek, and there is greater indignity.

צרם – pulled. Another language: he cut/damaged.

הכל לפי כבודו – all of these monies that were mentioned in the Mishnah are not other than for the most honored. But for a despised person, we lessen it for him.

אמר רבי עקיבא וכו' – Rabbi Akiva disputes with the first Tanna/teacher as he holds that whether the person is honored or despised, they are equivalent for the laws of these fines. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva.

ונתן לו זמן – and these words are for indignity when it doesn’t cause loss of money, we give him time. But for damages that cause him loss of money, we don’t give him time.

שימר – he waited until he saw here standing at the entrance of her courtyard.

ובו כאיסר שמן – oil that is purchased for an Issar.

לזו אני נותן ארבע מאות זוז – for on an Issar’s worth of oil she disregarded herself to reveal her head and she shows that she is not strict about indignity/embarrassment.

Even though he gives him [money] he is not forgiven until...

על מנת לפטור חייב – if the one who wounds would ask the one wounded, on condition to exempt me , you say, “blind my eye,” and the wounded responded “yes,” for it is not the manner of human beings to pardon on the pain of their bodies, but if a person says to his fellow: “break my pitcher,” and the one doing damage asked: “on condition that you will exempt me you state this,” even though the one who suffered damage responded to him negatively, this “no” is like a “yes”, and it is as if he said to: “but didn’t I not say to you on condition that I would be exempt?” And therefore, he is exempt, for such is the manner of human beings to pardon on monetary damages.

Introduction The first half of our mishnah teaches that a person is not forgiven for embarrassing another person merely by paying whatever fine was imposed upon him. He must ask for forgiveness. When he does the injured person should be gracious and forgive him fully and speedily. The second half of the mishnah teaches several laws concerning a person who asks someone to injure him or injure his property.

They said there is a 'yes' that is like a 'no', and it is this person that said to him regarding damage to his body on condition to be exempt. As is known that a person is not forgiving in something like this, and therefore he's obligated.

As we explained in the introduction, section one states that a person is not forgiven for embarrassing another until he asks the injured party for forgiveness. The mishnah learns this from the story of Avimelech and Abraham in Genesis 20. According to the story, when Abraham came to Gerar he told the people there that Sarah was his sister. Avimelech, thinking that Sarah was available, took her, with the intent of having relations with her. In a dream God warned him not to touch Sarah. God told Avimelech to return Sarah to Abraham and to ask him to pray on Avimelech’s behalf so that he would not be punished for taking Sarah. From this story our Mishnah learns that merely rectifying the crime is not enough. Avimelech was not forgiven for his (almost crime) just by returning Sarah. He had to ask Abraham for forgiveness as well. We also learn from this story that the wronged person should forgive easily. Abraham did not delay in praying for Avimelech but immediately answered his request.

If a man said, “Blind my eye”, or “Cut off my hand”, or “Break my foot”, he [that does so] is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is still liable. [If he said] “Tear my garment”, or “Break my jug”, he that does so is liable. [If he added] “On the condition that you will be exempt”, he is exempt. [If he said], “Do so to so-and-so, on the condition that you will be exempt, he is liable, whether it was [an offense] against his person or his property. Section two deals with a person who asks someone else to injure him or his property. We learn several general principles from the mishnah. First of all, if a person asks another person to injure him or his property, without saying that the injurer will be exempt, the injurer is liable. Second, if he asks the other person to injure his body, even if he says that the injurer will be exempt, the injurer is liable. Third, if he asks the other person to injure a third party, again even if he says that the injurer will be exempt, the injurer is liable. Note the beautiful, carefully crafted structure of the last section of this mishnah. It is a classic example of mishnaic style.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the connection between the first and second halves of the mishnah?
• According to section two, if a person asks another person to injure his body and tells him that he will be exempt if he should do so, he is nonetheless liable. Why? What is the difference between bodily injuries and damages to property?