Guémara
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : say that we require ordained judges [elohim] and there are not any ordained judges in Babylonia.
״אֱלֹהִים״ בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, what is different about damage to an ox caused by an ox and damage to an ox caused by a man, so that Babylonian judges can rule in these cases even though they are not ordained? The difference is that we, the judges of Babylonia, perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael, just as we do with regard to the halakhot of admissions and loans, as we are permitted to rule in those cases as agents of the ordained judges in Eretz Yisrael. If so, then in cases of damage caused to a person by a person and cases of damage caused to a person by an ox as well, why not say that the judges of Babylonia perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael, just as it is with regard to the halakhot of admissions and loans?
אֶלָּא מַאי שְׁנָא שׁוֹר בְּשׁוֹר וְשׁוֹר בְּאָדָם? דִּשְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ קָא עָבְדִינַן – מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַהוֹדָאוֹת וְהַלְוָאוֹת. אָדָם בְּאָדָם וְאָדָם בְּשׁוֹר נָמֵי, שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ קָא עָבְדִינַן – מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַהוֹדָאוֹת וְהַלְוָאוֹת!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Sages state, with regard to the distinction: When we, the judges of Babylonia, perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael, we do so in matters where the ruling is clear to us; but in matters where the ruling is not clear to us, such as in the case of an injury to a person, which requires an appraisal, we do not perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael.
אָמְרִי: כִּי קָא עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ – בְּמִידֵּי דְּקִים לַן בְּגַוֵּיהּ; בְּמִידֵּי דְּלָא קִים לַן בְּגַוֵּיהּ – לָא עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Sages state an objection: In cases of damage caused to an ox by an ox, and damage caused to an ox by a man, cases that we do judge in Babylonia, the ruling is also not clear to us, as the damage must be appraised. Rather, how is the judgment assessed in those cases? We say: Go out and see how much an ox is sold for in the marketplace, and thereby assess the value of the damages, without a detailed appraisal. If so, in the case of damage caused to a person by a person, and damage caused to a person by an ox, say too: Go out and see how a slave is sold in the slave market. Why, then, are these latter cases not judged in Babylonia?
אָמְרִי: שׁוֹר בְּשׁוֹר וְשׁוֹר בְּאָדָם נָמֵי לָא קִים לַן בְּגַוֵּיהּ – אֶלָּא פּוֹק חֲזִי (הֵיכָא) [כַּמָּה] מִזְדַּבְּנִי תּוֹרֵי בְּשׁוּקָא; אָדָם בְּאָדָם וְאָדָם בְּשׁוֹר נָמֵי, פּוֹק חֲזִי (הֵיכָא) [כַּמָּה] מִזְדַּבְּנִי עַבְדֵי בְּשׁוּקָא!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And furthermore, in the case of payment of double the principal incurred by a thief, and in the case of the fourfold or fivefold payment incurred by a thief who stole a sheep or ox and then slaughtered or sold the animal, where the payments are fixed and there is no need for an appraisal, we should perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael.
וְעוֹד, תַּשְׁלוּם כֶּפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּם אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, דְּקִיצִי, נַעֲבֵד שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Sages state, with regard to the distinction: When we perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael, we do so only in cases where the guilty party pays monetary restitution for a loss he caused. But in cases of a penalty, such as the double, fourfold, or fivefold payments of a thief, we do not perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael.
אָמְרִי: כִּי קָא עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ – בְּמָמוֹנָא, בִּקְנָסָא – לָא עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: In cases of damage caused to a person by a person, where the liable party pays monetary restitution, should we perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: When we perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael, we do so only in cases that are common. Therefore, in cases of damage caused to a person by a person, cases that are uncommon, we do not perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael.
אָדָם בְּאָדָם, דְּמָמוֹנָא הוּא, נַעֲבֵד שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ! כִּי קָא עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ בְּמִילְּתָא דִשְׁכִיחָא, אָדָם בְּאָדָם דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא – לָא עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara challenges: But accordingly, for indemnities paid to a woman for humiliation and degradation after being raped or seduced, a case that is common, we should perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael. The Sages say in response: Indeed, we do collect compensation for humiliation and degradation in Babylonia, as Rav Pappa collected four hundred dinars as compensation for humiliation when he judged these cases. The Gemara questions this explanation: But the other Sages do not agree with that ruling of Rav Pappa, as Rav Ḥisda sent this question to Rav Naḥman, asking if he should collect compensation for humiliation and degradation, and Rav Naḥman sent him the following reply: Ḥisda, Ḥisda, do you collect a penalty in Babylonia?
הֲרֵי בּוֹשֶׁת וּפְגָם, דִּשְׁכִיחַ, נַעֲבֵיד שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ! אָמְרִי: הָכִי נָמֵי; דְּהָא רַב פָּפָּא אַגְבִּי אַרְבַּע מְאָה זוּזֵי לְבוֹשֶׁת. וְהָא לֵיתֵיהּ לִדְרַב פָּפָּא! דִּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן, וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ: חִסְדָּא חִסְדָּא, קְנָסָא קָא מַגְבֵּית בְּבָבֶל?!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, explain the distinction this way: When we perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael, we do so only in a matter that is common and involves, i.e., the payment is for, a monetary loss. But in a matter that is common but does not involve a monetary loss, or in an uncommon matter which does involve a monetary loss, we do not perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, in a case of an injury caused to a person by a person, even though it involves a monetary loss, since it is uncommon, we do not perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael. In a case of humiliation, even though it is common, since it does not involve a monetary loss, we do not perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael.
אֶלָּא כִּי עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ – בְּמִילְּתָא דִשְׁכִיחָא, וְאִית בֵּיהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס; אֲבָל מִילְּתָא דִשְׁכִיחָא וְלֵית בֵּיהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס, אִי נָמֵי מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא וְאִית בֵּיהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס – לָא עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ. הִלְכָּךְ, אָדָם בְּאָדָם – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית בֵּיהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא – לָא עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ; בּוֹשֶׁת – אַף עַל גַּב דִשְׁכִיחָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס – לָא עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara challenges the halakha itself: But is it in fact the case that the courts in Babylonia collect restitution for damage caused to an ox by an ox? But doesn’t Rava say: If an ox caused damage, the courts in Babylonia do not collect the compensation. The Gemara clarifies: To whom did the ox cause damage? If we say that it damaged a person, why did Rava specifically state his halakha in a case where there is an ox that damaged a person? Even in a case of a person who damaged a person, which is more common, the court does not collect the compensation in Babylonia. Rather, it is obvious that Rava meant that the ox damaged an ox. And Rava teaches: The court does not collect the compensation in Babylonia.
וְשׁוֹר בְּשׁוֹר גּוֹבִין בְּבָבֶל? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: שׁוֹר שֶׁהִזִּיק – אֵין גּוֹבִין אוֹתוֹ בְּבָבֶל. דְּאַזֵּיק מַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּאַזֵּיק אָדָם, מַאי אִירְיָא שׁוֹר דְּאַזֵּיק אָדָם? אֲפִילּוּ אָדָם דְּאַזֵּיק אָדָם נָמֵי אֵין גּוֹבִין אוֹתוֹ בְּבָבֶל! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא – דְּאַזֵּיק שׁוֹר, וְקָתָנֵי: אֵין גּוֹבִין אוֹתוֹ בְּבָבֶל!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Sages say in response: There, Rava stated his ruling with regard to an innocuous ox, i.e., an ox that was not forewarned, whose owner pays for the damage as a penalty; and penalties are not collected in Babylonia. Here, Rava states his ruling with regard to a forewarned ox, and payment for damage it causes is not a penalty, but rather serves as compensation. The Gemara challenges: But doesn’t Rava say: There are no forewarned oxen in Babylonia, as an ox can be forewarned only by ordained judges? The Sages say in response: This is a case where an ox was forewarned there, in Eretz Yisrael, and then its owners brought it here, to Babylonia.
אָמְרִי: הָתָם בְּתָם, הָכָא בְּמוּעָד. וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: אֵין מוּעָד בְּבָבֶל! אָמְרִי: דְּאִיַּיעַד הָתָם וְאַיְּיתוּהּ לְהָכָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara objects: But this is an uncommon matter, as forewarned oxen are not frequently transported from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia. And with regard to an uncommon matter, did you not say that we do not perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the Rabbis from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, who are ordained, came and declared this ox forewarned, here, i.e., in Babylonia. The Gemara challenges this interpretation: Ultimately, this is an uncommon matter, and you say that with regard to an uncommon matter that we do not perform the agency of the judges of Eretz Yisrael.
וְהָא מִילְּתָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא הִיא, וּמִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא הָא אָמְרַתְּ דְּלָא עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ! דַּאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן דְּהָתָם, וְיַיעֲדוּהּ הָכָא. סוֹף סוֹף, מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא הִיא, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא לָא (קָא) עָבְדִינַן שְׁלִיחוּתַיְיהוּ!