- Three more sources that עין תחת עין means money, and Rebbe Eliezer’s opinion that it is “literal”
The Gemara presents seven more proofs that עין תחת עין refers to monetary payment, four of which are not accepted. The remaining three are: (1) The Torah says regarding one who wounds his fellow, "כן ינתן בו" – so shall be given upon him, ואין נתינה אלא ממון – and there is no “giving” except of money. The Gemara explains that the passuk’s phrase is superfluous. (2) The Torah says regarding עדים זוממין: "יד ביד" – a hand for a hand, which the Gemara explains is extra, teaching: דבר הניתן מיד ליד – something which is given from hand to hand, meaning money. (3) A gezeirah shavah (תחת תחת) is ultimately derived from one who violates a besulah: "תחת אשר ענה" – for he had afflicted her, which is similarly a law about a person’s damages. Rebbe Eliezer says: עין תחת עין ממש – an eye for an eye is meant literally. Since he does not argue on all the above Tannaim, Rabbah explains he means not to evaluate him as a slave. Abaye rejects assessing him as a free man: בן חורין מי אית ליה דמי – does a free man have (marketable) value? Rav Ashi explains that Rebbe Eliezer holds it is the damager’s eye which is evaluated for payment, not the victim’s.
- Payments collected in Bavel: מילתא דשכיחא ואית ביה חסרון כיס
Rava ruled that damage payments for an ox’s injuries are collected in Bavel, whether inflicted by people or animals, whereas a person’s injuries are not. The Gemara explains that although judges in Bavel lack the semichah required for judging any such cases, שליחותייהו קא עבדינן – we are performing the agency of [judges of Eretz Yisroel]. After an extensive discussion, the Gemara concludes that קנסות – penalties (such as כפל) are never collected in Bavel. A monetary collection is only made במילתא דשכיחא ואית ביה חסרון כיס – in a matter which is common, and also involves a monetary loss, such as a loan dispute. Therefore, where a person injures another, which is uncommon, damages are not collected. בושת – humiliation is not collected because it does not involve monetary loss. Although Rava said that we collect damages one ox inflicts on another, we do not for keren of a tam, which is a קנס (and a mu’ad is an uncommon occurrence in Bavel). Rather, he was referring to damages under the categories of shein and regel, דמועדין מתחילתן נינהו – where they are considered מועדין from the beginning.
- Machlokes about pain without damage
The Gemara seeks to identify the Tanna of our Mishnah, who holds one pays for צער שלא במקום נזק – pain even where there is no permanent damage. Rava says it is Ben Azzai: In a Baraisa, Rebbe says: כויה נאמרה תחילה a simple burn (without damage) was stated first in the passuk. Ben Azzai says: חבורה נאמרה תחילה – a burn with a bruise was stated first. Rava explains that Rebbe holds the word "כויה" – burn in the beginning of the passuk would imply without a bruise, and the word "חבורה" – bruise at the end clarifies that one is only liable for a burn with a bruise (i.e., damage). Ben Azzai holds that “burn” would imply with a bruise, and the word “bruise” clarifies that the first word means even without a bruise. Thus, our Mishnah is Ben Azzai. Rav Pappa says the opposite is more logical: the Tannaim are describing what the first word (“burn”) of the passuk means after the clarification of the final word (“bruise”). Rebbe, who says a burn means (in the end) without a bruise, is the Tanna of our Mishnah. A third explanation of their machlokes is given, with the same conclusion.
