(Exodus 21:18) "And if men quarrel": What is the intent of this section? It is written (Ibid. 21:24) "an eye for an eye," but sheveth (work-disability payment) and ripui (medical expenses) are not mentioned. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 19) "If he arise, etc." Scripture comes to teach of (other payments) that are due him.
"And if men quarrel": This tells me only of men. Whence do I derive (the same for) women? R. Yishmael says: Since all of the injuries in the Torah are unqualified (as to women) and Scripture specified one as pertaining to women as well as to men (viz. Exodus 21:29), so, I specify all injuries in the Torah as applying to women as well as to men.
R. Yoshiyah says: (If men and women are equated,) let neither a man or a woman be stated (in 21:29). "Because it is written (Ibid. 33) "If a man open a pit," this tells me only of a man, whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From (29) "a man or a woman," to equate a woman with a man for all of the injuries of the Torah.
R. Yonathan says: This (derivation) is not needed. Is it not already written (Ibid. 34) "The owner (whether man or woman) shall pay", (Ibid. 22:5) "Pay shall pay the lighter (whether man or woman) of the fire." Why, then, is it written (29) "a man or a woman"? For its learning (i.e., to equate a woman with a man in all other instances where "a man" is written.)
"with stone or fist": I might think that he is liable (only if he strikes) with these, but otherwise he is not liable; it is, therefore, written (Numbers 35:17) "And if with a hand-stone (i.e., a stone the size of a full hand) (whereby he can die he strike him"). He is not liable until he strikes him with something that has the potential to kill and in a locus which is critical to life.
R. Nathan says: Stone is being likened to fist, and fist to stone. Just as a stone has the potential to kill, so, a fist which has the potential to kill (is intended). And just as a fist is specific, so, the stone must be specific — so that if it is intermixed with other stones, he is not liable.
"and he not die, but become bedridden": But if he struck him a blow which was potentially lethal, he is not liable for payment for work disability and for medical expenses.
(Exodus 21:19) "If he arise and walk": I might think, even in his house; it is, therefore, written "al mishanto" (lit., "on his support'), i.e., on his own power.
This is one of three things in the Torah which R. Yishmael expounded metaphorically. Similarly, (Exodus 22:2) "If the sun shone upon him." Now is it upon him alone that the sun shines? Does it not shine upon the whole world? But, (the intent is) just as the sun is peace for the world, so, this one, if it were known about him that he (the one breaking into his house) were at peace with him (i.e., would not kill him, as in the instance of a father breaking in to steal from his son), and he (the son) killed him, he is liable.
Similarly, (Devarim 22:17) "And they (the parents of the girl accused of infidelity) 'spread the garment' (i.e., make her innocence as manifest as a spread-out garment.) Here, too, "al mishanto" is understood (metaphorically) as "on his own power."
15
"וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יִתֵּן עֲרֵבִין וִיטַיֵּל בַּשּׁוּק!*יִתֵּן עֲרֵבִין וִיטַיֵּל בַּשּׁוּק: לא יאסר, אלא יהיה חופשי ורק יעמיד ערבים לתשלום הנזק. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה", מַגִּיד שֶׁחוֹבְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶנִּתְרַפָּא.
"then the striker shall be absolved": I might think that he provides guarantors and goes free. It is, therefore, written "If he arise and walk outside, etc." We are hereby apprised that he is incarcerated until the other is healed.
"then the striker shall be absolved": from the death penalty. I might think, from disability payments (sheveth) and ripui (medical expenses). It is, therefore, written "but his sheveth shall he give, and heal shall he heal." Aside from what he pays for (injury to his limbs [nezek]), he pays for sheveth and ripui.
"but his sheveth shall he give": I might think, forever (i.e., for life-long disability.) It is, therefore, written "and heal shall he heal" (i.e., he pays) sheveth only for so long as it takes for the wound to heal.
But perhaps just as there is no distinction in ripui (between the wound itself and outgrowths of the wound), so, there should be no distinction in sheveth (between healing of the wound itself and long-term results of the wound)? It is, therefore, written "but his sheveth shall he give" — There is (such) distinction in sheveth.
"and heal shall he heal": (Whence do I derive that if) he were healed once, and then healed again, even four or five times, he is liable (if necessary) to keep on healing him? If growths sprouted because of the wound around the wound, he is liable to heal him. If not because of the wound, he is not liable. The Torah states: "but his sheveth shall he give, and heal shall he heal." Just as sheveth, because of the wound, so, ripui, because of the wound.
(שמות כא,יח) "וְכִי יְרִיבֻן אֲנָשִׁים, וְהִכָּה אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף, וְלֹא יָמוּת וְנָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב." לָמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,כד) "עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן, שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן, יָד תַּחַת יָד, רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל." אֲבָל שֶׁבֶת וְרִפּוּי לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְכִי יְרִיבֻן אֲנָשִׁים, וְהִכָּה אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף, וְלֹא יָמוּת וְנָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב." (שמות כא,יט) "אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ, וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה, רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא." בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמֵּד בּוֹ דְּבָרִים הַמְחֻסָּרִים בּוֹ.
(Exodus 21:18) "And if men quarrel": What is the intent of this section? It is written (Ibid. 21:24) "an eye for an eye," but sheveth (work-disability payment) and ripui (medical expenses) are not mentioned. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 19) "If he arise, etc." Scripture comes to teach of (other payments) that are due him.
"וְכִי יְרִיבֻן אֲנָשִׁים", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֲנָשִׁים, נָשִׁים מְנַיִן? הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרוּ כָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם, וּפָרַט אֶחָד, שֶׁעָשָׂה בוֹ נָשִׁים כַּאֲנָשִׁים, פּוֹרֵט אֲנִי בְּכָל הַנְּזָקִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, לַעֲשׁוֹת בָּהֶן נָשִׁין כַּאֲנָשִׁין.
"And if men quarrel": This tells me only of men. Whence do I derive (the same for) women? R. Yishmael says: Since all of the injuries in the Torah are unqualified (as to women) and Scripture specified one as pertaining to women as well as to men (viz. Exodus 21:29), so, I specify all injuries in the Torah as applying to women as well as to men.
רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,כט) "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,לג) "וְכִי יִפְתַּח אִישׁ בּוֹר אוֹ כִּי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בֹּר", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה", בָּא הַכָּתוּב וְהִשְׁוָה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לָאִישׁ לְכָל נְזָקִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.
R. Yoshiyah says: (If men and women are equated,) let neither a man or a woman be stated (in 21:29). "Because it is written (Ibid. 33) "If a man open a pit," this tells me only of a man, whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From (29) "a man or a woman," to equate a woman with a man for all of the injuries of the Torah.
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ! וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (שמות כא,לד) "בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם", (שמות כב,ה) "שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה"? וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (שמות כא,כט) "אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה"? לְתַלְמוּדוֹ בָא.
R. Yonathan says: This (derivation) is not needed. Is it not already written (Ibid. 34) "The owner (whether man or woman) shall pay", (Ibid. 22:5) "Pay shall pay the lighter (whether man or woman) of the fire." Why, then, is it written (29) "a man or a woman"? For its learning (i.e., to equate a woman with a man in all other instances where "a man" is written.)
"וְהִכָּה אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ", לְחַיֵּב עַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
"and a man strike his neighbor with stone or fist": to impose liability for each in itself.
"בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף", מַגִּיד הַכָּתוּב שֶׁאֶבֶן וְאֶגְרוֹף סִימָנֵי מִיתָה הֵן.
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְכָךְ בָּא, אוֹ אֵינוֹ בָא אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאִם הִכָּהוּ בְאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף, יְהֵי חַיָּב, וּבִשְׁאָר כָּל דָּבָר יְהֵי פָטוּר? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (במדבר לה,יז) "אִם בְּאֶבֶן יָד אֲשֶׁר יָמוּת בָּהּ הִכָּהוּ וַיָּמֹת, רֹצֵחַ הוּא, מוֹת יוּמַת הָרֹצֵחַ." מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיַּכֵּהוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית.
"with stone or fist": I might think that he is liable (only if he strikes) with these, but otherwise he is not liable; it is, therefore, written (Numbers 35:17) "And if with a hand-stone (i.e., a stone the size of a full hand) (whereby he can die he strike him"). He is not liable until he strikes him with something that has the potential to kill and in a locus which is critical to life.
וּמְנַיִן אֶל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְדֵי לְהָמִית? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים יט,יא) "וְאָרַב לוֹ, וְקָם עָלָיו וְהִכָּהוּ נֶפֶשׁ וָמֵת". מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב, עַד שֶׁיַּכֶּנּוּ בְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, וְאֶל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא כְדֵי לְהָמִית.
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: הִקִּישׁ אֶבֶן לָאֶגְרוֹף וְאֶגְרוֹף לָאֶבֶן: מָה אֶבֶן, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, אַף אֶגְרוֹף שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית. אוֹ מָה אֶגְרוֹף בַּיָּדוּעַ, אַף אֶבֶן בַּיָּדוּעַ, הָא אִם נִתְעָרְבָה בַּאֲבָנִים אֲחֵרוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה פָטוּר.
R. Nathan says: Stone is being likened to fist, and fist to stone. Just as a stone has the potential to kill, so, a fist which has the potential to kill (is intended). And just as a fist is specific, so, the stone must be specific — so that if it is intermixed with other stones, he is not liable.
"וְלֹא יָמוּת וְנָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב." מַגִּיד שֶׁהַצְּהָבָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי מִיתָה.*הַצְּהָבָה: הכעס והשנאה.
"וְלֹא יָמוּת וְנָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב." הָא אִם הִכָּהוּ מַכָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית, הֲרֵי זֶה פָטוּר מִן הַשֶּׁבֶת וּמִן הָרִפּוּי.
"and he not die, but become bedridden": But if he struck him a blow which was potentially lethal, he is not liable for payment for work disability and for medical expenses.
(שמות כא,יט) ["אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ, וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה, רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא."] "אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "בַּחוּץ". אוֹ "בַּחוּץ", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, אֲפִלּוּ מִתְנַוְּנֶה!*מִתְנַוְּנֶה: חלש, שמצבו הולך ומחמיר. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ", עַל בֻּרְיוֹ.* עַל בֻּרְיוֹ: בחוזקו ובמצב בריאותו הקודם.
(Exodus 21:19) "If he arise and walk": I might think, even in his house; it is, therefore, written "al mishanto" (lit., "on his support'), i.e., on his own power.
זֶה אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִין שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דּוֹרֵשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה כְּמִין מָשָׁל. (שמות כב,ב) "אִם זָרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו". וְכִי עָלָיו הַחַמָּה זוֹרַחַת, וַהֲלֹא עַל כָּל הָעוֹלָם זוֹרַחַת? אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמֶשׁ שָׁלוֹם לָעוֹלָם, אַף זֶה, אִם יָדוּעַ הוּא שֶׁבְּשָׁלוֹם הָלַךְ מִמֶּנּוּ וַהֲרָגוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב.
This is one of three things in the Torah which R. Yishmael expounded metaphorically. Similarly, (Exodus 22:2) "If the sun shone upon him." Now is it upon him alone that the sun shines? Does it not shine upon the whole world? But, (the intent is) just as the sun is peace for the world, so, this one, if it were known about him that he (the one breaking into his house) were at peace with him (i.e., would not kill him, as in the instance of a father breaking in to steal from his son), and he (the son) killed him, he is liable.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ: (דברים כב,יז) "וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה לִפְנֵי זִקְנֵי הָעִיר." מְחַוְּרִין אֶת הַדְּבָרִין כַּשִּׂמְלָה. אַף כָּן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: "עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ", עַל בֻּרְיוֹ.
Similarly, (Devarim 22:17) "And they (the parents of the girl accused of infidelity) 'spread the garment' (i.e., make her innocence as manifest as a spread-out garment.) Here, too, "al mishanto" is understood (metaphorically) as "on his own power."
"וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יִתֵּן עֲרֵבִין וִיטַיֵּל בַּשּׁוּק!*יִתֵּן עֲרֵבִין וִיטַיֵּל בַּשּׁוּק: לא יאסר, אלא יהיה חופשי ורק יעמיד ערבים לתשלום הנזק. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה", מַגִּיד שֶׁחוֹבְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶנִּתְרַפָּא.
"then the striker shall be absolved": I might think that he provides guarantors and goes free. It is, therefore, written "If he arise and walk outside, etc." We are hereby apprised that he is incarcerated until the other is healed.
"וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה", מִן הַמִּיתָה. וְשׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, מִן הַשֶּׁבֶת וּמִן הָרִפּוּי! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות כא,יט) "רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא." חוּץ מִמָּה שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין דְּמֵי אֵבָרָיו, וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ דְּמֵי שִׁבְתּוֹ.
"then the striker shall be absolved": from the death penalty. I might think, from disability payments (sheveth) and ripui (medical expenses). It is, therefore, written "but his sheveth shall he give, and heal shall he heal." Aside from what he pays for (injury to his limbs [nezek]), he pays for sheveth and ripui.
"רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, לְעוֹלָם! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא." מָה רִפּוּי מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה, אַף שֶׁבֶת מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה.
"but his sheveth shall he give": I might think, forever (i.e., for life-long disability.) It is, therefore, written "and heal shall he heal" (i.e., he pays) sheveth only for so long as it takes for the wound to heal.
אִי לֹא חָלַק מִכְּלַל רִפּוּי, כָּךְ לֹא נַחְלֹק מִכְּלַל שֶׁבֶת, כַּשֵּׁם שֶׁזָּקוּק לוֹ לְרַפֹּאת אֶת זֶה, כָּךְ הוּא זָקוּק לְרַפֹּאת אֶת זֶה, כַּשֵּׁם שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין שֶׁבֶת לָזֶה, כָּךְ נוֹתְנִין שֶׁבֶת לָזֶה? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן", מַגִּיד שֶׁחָלַק מִכְּלַל הַשֶּׁבֶת.
But perhaps just as there is no distinction in ripui (between the wound itself and outgrowths of the wound), so, there should be no distinction in sheveth (between healing of the wound itself and long-term results of the wound)? It is, therefore, written "but his sheveth shall he give" — There is (such) distinction in sheveth.
"וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא." שֶׁאִם נִתְרַפָּא וְחָזַר, נִתְרַפָּא וְחָזַר, אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים, חַיָּב לְרַפֹּאתוֹ, תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא." עָלוּ בוֹ צְמָחִין סְבִיבוֹת הַמַּכֶּה,*צְמָחִין: אבעבועות. אִם מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכֶּה, חַיָּב לְרַפֹּאתוֹ; שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכֶּה, פָּטוּר. וּכְשֶׁאָמְרָה תוֹרָה "רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא", מַה שִּׁבְתּוֹ מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה, אַף רִפּוּי מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה.
"and heal shall he heal": (Whence do I derive that if) he were healed once, and then healed again, even four or five times, he is liable (if necessary) to keep on healing him? If growths sprouted because of the wound around the wound, he is liable to heal him. If not because of the wound, he is not liable. The Torah states: "but his sheveth shall he give, and heal shall he heal." Just as sheveth, because of the wound, so, ripui, because of the wound.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: בָּא הַכָּתוּב לְלַמְּדָךְ דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ מִן הַתּוֹרָה: "רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא."
Variantly: The Torah comes to teach us proper deportment — "but his sheveth shall he give, and heal shall he heal."