Pisqa’ 292485H:283:JN2:257-258. 1. “When men struggle together” (Dt.25:11). No peace can come from struggle! And so He says: “Now, there was a quarrel between the herders of Abram’s cattle, and the herders of Lot’s cattle” (Gn.13:7). What exactly caused Lot to part ways with the Righteous? I would say: conflict! And, similarly, He says: “Should there be a quarrel between men” (Dt.25:1). What exactly causes the wicked party to receive a beating (cf. Dt.25:2)? I would say: conflict!
2. “Men” (Dt.25:11)— I might infer only that men come into conflict. How do I know that [the parties to conflict might be] a man and a woman, or a women and a man? The Teaching states: “Together” (Dt.25:11)— whoever [they may be].
“A man and his brother” (Dt.25:11)— this excludes slaves from the rule, for [familial connections such as] brotherhood do not apply to them.486=T.BQ. 8:3.
3. “And the wife of one draws near” (Dt.25:11)— but not the wife of a court-appointed agent. “To aid her husband” (Dt.25:11). Rabbi says: Since we find, in the case of [negligent] damages, that the Torah can regard unintended damage as if it were intentional— is it possible that this is such a case? The Teaching states: “And she grabbed his shameful parts” (Dt.25:11)— this explains that a person is obliged to compensate another only for intentional shame.487//M. BQ.8:3.
4. “His shameful parts” (Dt.25:11)— I might infer only that compensation is due for grabbing his shameful parts. On what basis do I know to include any act that inflicts injury? The Teaching states: “And she grabbed” (Dt.25:11)— any part [of the body]. If so, why is it stated: “His shameful parts?” (Dt.25:11) Just as his shameful parts are distinctive, being in danger of mortal injury— and, indeed, they stand under the rule “and you shall cut off her hand” (Dt.25:12)— so, too, any life-threatening injury likewise stands under the rule “and you shall cut off her hand” (Dt.25:12).
(דברים כה יא) כִּי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים, אֵין שָׁלוֹם יוֹצֵא מִתּוֹךְ נִצּוּת. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (בראשית יג ז): ״וַיְהִי רִיב בֵּין רֹעֵי מִקְנֵה אַבְרָם וּבֵין רֹעֵי מִקְנֵה לוֹט״, מִי גָרַם לְלוֹט שֶׁיִּפְרוֹשׁ מֵאוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ מְרִיבָה. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים כה א): ״כִּי יִהְיֶה רִיב בֵּין אֲנָשִׁים״, מִי גָרַם לָזֶה לִלְקוֹת? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ מְרִיבָה.
Pisqa’ 292485H:283:JN2:257-258.
1. “When men struggle together” (Dt.25:11).
No peace can come from struggle!
And so He says:
“Now, there was a quarrel between the herders of Abram’s cattle,
and the herders of Lot’s cattle” (Gn.13:7).
What exactly caused Lot to part ways with the Righteous?
I would say: conflict!
And, similarly, He says:
“Should there be a quarrel between men” (Dt.25:1).
What exactly causes
the wicked party to receive a beating (cf. Dt.25:2)?
I would say: conflict!
אֲנָשִׁים, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֲנָשִׁים, אִישׁ עִם אִשָּׁה אִשָּׁה עִם אִישׁ מִנַּיִן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: יַחְדָּו מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
2. “Men” (Dt.25:11)—
I might infer only that
men come into conflict.
How do I know that
[the parties to conflict might be]
a man and a woman, or a women and a man?
The Teaching states:
“Together” (Dt.25:11)—
whoever [they may be].
אִישׁ וְאָחִיו, פְּרָט לַעֲבָדִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחְוָה.
“A man and his brother” (Dt.25:11)—
this excludes slaves from the rule,
for [familial connections such as] brotherhood do not apply to them.486=T.BQ. 8:3.
וְקָרְבָה אֵשֶׁת הָאֶחָד, וְלֹא אֵשֶׁת שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין. לְהַצִּיל אֶת אִישָׁהּ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַזִּיקִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בָּהֶם שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין כְּמִתְכַּוֵּין, יָכוֹל אַף כָּאן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו, מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הַבֹּשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּין.
3. “And the wife of one draws near” (Dt.25:11)—
but not the wife of a court-appointed agent.
“To aid her husband” (Dt.25:11).
Rabbi says:
Since we find, in the case of [negligent] damages,
that the Torah can regard
unintended damage as if it were intentional—
is it possible that this is such a case?
The Teaching states:
“And she grabbed his shameful parts” (Dt.25:11)—
this explains that
a person is obliged to compensate another
only for intentional shame.487//M. BQ.8:3.
בִּמְבוּשָׁיו, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מְבוּשָׁיו, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְהֶחֱזִיקָה מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר מְבוּשָׁיו? מַה מְּבוּשָׁיו מְיֻחָד שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת וַהֲרֵי הוּא בִּ״וְקַצּוֹתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ״, אַף כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת הֲרֵי הוּא בִּ״וְקַצּוֹתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ״.
4. “His shameful parts” (Dt.25:11)—
I might infer only that
compensation is due for grabbing his shameful parts.
On what basis do I know
to include any act that inflicts injury?
The Teaching states:
“And she grabbed” (Dt.25:11)—
any part [of the body].
If so, why is it stated:
“His shameful parts?” (Dt.25:11)
Just as his shameful parts are distinctive,
being in danger of mortal injury—
and, indeed, they stand under the rule
“and you shall cut off her hand” (Dt.25:12)—
so, too, any life-threatening injury
likewise stands under the rule
“and you shall cut off her hand” (Dt.25:12).