Bava Kamma 86: Injuring One’s Parents; Who Feels Humiliation?

The Gemara walks us though a number of examples of one who injures his father.  Does he just hit his father’s ear?  That would not incur karet, necessarily, but deafening his father through that violent act would certainly involve bleeding of some sort within the ear canal.  That act would be punishable by karet, for deafening a person is more serious that other crimes.  One must be liable for the full value of that person’s life.  Plus it was one’s father who was hurt…

A small note –balding one’s father through applying a depilatory cream would result in an additional payment for humiliation.  The rabbis argue that losing one’s hair is the greatest humiliation.  Tell that to the woman who was raped and left to marry the rapist.

The rabbis consider daily payment of loss of livelihood versus one payment for that income deficit. 

The Gemara then discusses slaves who are injured.  Who should receive the payments, the slave? Or his owner?  What if the injury affects his value in the future?  What if his injury is minor and does not affect his work (other than immediately), like losing the tip of his nose, cutting the edge or his nostril or his ear?

The rabbis consider who does not feel humiliation.  They seem to concur that humiliation is greatest for those in positions of honour - namely themselves.  After deciding that minors do not feel humiliation, the rabbis remember that Rav Pappa suggests the potential feeling of humiliation in a child.   They agree that a child who is developmentally able to feel humiliation should be compensated for that loss.  This exception is likely due to the fact that some rabbis could remember feeling humiliation as children.  And what about blind people? Or ‘imbeciles’? Or slaves?  Do they feel humiliation?

It becomes clear that the actual, lived experience of humiliation is important in order to accurately assess damages owed to the injured party.  If a person feels no humiliation because of the injury (because of age, status, place, etc.) then they should not receive compensation for damages in the category of humiliation. 

A new Mishna tells us that people are liable to pay damages for humiliation if they injure a naked person, a blind person, or a person who is sleeping.  A sleeping person is not responsible for his/her actions, and so s/he is not liable for damages for humiliation.  The Mishna uses the example of one who falls off of a roof and injures another person to explain that forewarning and intentionality are both required when assessing for humiliation.

First the Gemara discusses nakedness.  Why is one naked?  Where are these people?  Are we discussing a bathhouse or someone whose shirt is lifted further than the wind has taken it?  Context determines humiliation in these cases.

The Gemara continues with a discussion about the nature of humiliation.  Is humiliation a sub-category of embarrassment?  How might this inform us when considering a person who was asleep, humiliated, and then died?  How does one’s family’s embarrassment or humiliation play into this? What about those who are called ‘deaf-mutes”, “imbeciles” or “minors”?  The rabbis suggest that there is “no greater humiliation” than to be an imbecile.

I would take offence to that comment but for two factors.  First, it teaches us about these rabbis and their values.  Clearly the ability to present oneself as independent, competent, and intelligent was thought to be of utmost importance.  Second, yesterday’s daf taught us that being bald was the most profound humiliation.  Both cannot be the most humiliating experience.  Further, we can turn to our first point and remember that we can learn something about a society that shuns baldness.  Was it idealizing youth?  Was it critical of the male sex drive in older years?

Some rabbis argue that all people experience the feeling of humiliation.  However, there is a larger argument regarding people who are blind.  Many Torah proofs use the word “see” to mean to visually see, to know, to understand, etc.  As well, people must have seen the people that they murder to be liable for the death penalty.  Alternatively, if people who are blind are exempt from the death penalty, are they also exempt from all other forms of judgement?