daf bit: Bava Kama 86

[cellio]

A mishna a few pages back taught: one who injures another becomes liable for five items: for depreciation (reduced valuation because of the damage), for pain, for healing, for loss of time, and for degradation. A mishna on today's daf continues on this last theme, saying: one who insults a naked person, or insults a blind person, or insults one who is asleep, is liable for degradation. In the g'mara the Master asks: is somebody who walks around naked capable of being insulted? R' Papa answered: this is talking about a case where a wind suddenly came up and lifted up his clothes, and then someone raised them still higher, putting him to shame. The g'mara then goes on to ask the question: is degradation paid because of the insult to the person, and so maybe we should not owe it if the person cannot be insulted, or is degradation paid because of the act itself regardless of whether the person perceived it? We learn elsewhere that degradation applies to a minor and a deaf-mute but not to an idiot, and from this the g'mara concludes that the payment is due if he is insulted or would be if he learned about it later -- the minor when he is older can understand, or the deaf-mute will feel the insult when somebody tells him about it. (86b)

Comments

[siderea]

Huh. What's the word for "degradation"? In the various discussions of degradation, does the concept of "dignity" show up? (I have a backburner post project on the topic.)

[cellio]

The word translated in my edition as "degradation" (in others "shame" or "humiliation") is boshet (בושת). I haven't learned all of this yet, but this definitely includes affronts that cause no physical damage and yet embarrass the person, like exposing private parts. That sounds like dignity to me, but you probably have something pretty nuanced in mind. Could you say more about these various terms differ to you?

You might find this short section on Wikipedia helpful for examples.

There's a dispute in the g'mara (that's the later commentary; mishna is earlier) about whose standards apply -- is the penalty the same for everybody, or do you, say, pay less for shaming a child than for shaming a great man?

Oh, hey -- I haven't read this yet, but this paper on human dignity in Jewish law seems relevant, particularly if you're looking for a broader study than just this part of the talmud. And here's the Jewish Virtual Libray page.

[siderea]

you probably have something pretty nuanced in mind. Could you say more about these various terms differ to you?

Not yet to either. Right now I'm sort of in the phase of collecting "what they mean to different people, arising out of different cultural traditions", as a bunch of puzzle pieces. I'll have more to say about what picture they make when I put more of them together. I have some lightly held hypotheses, but mostly I was to see what the data say at this point. I'm interested in anything that gets translated as or connected with "dignity" in a rights sense, and any reciprocal concept that's posed as an opposite of or threat to it, such as "degradation". I'm extra interested in such things outside of Christianity.

Those leads look nifty, I'll check them out! Thanks a bunch!

[cellio]

See also: the back-story for the talmud's discussion of the oven of Achnai.

I don't know the source right now, but it's said that embarrassing somebody is akin to murder. Not in the "let's round up a sanhedrin for a capital case" sense, but more philosophically. There is also a positive commandment to judge others favorably, which ties into this I think.

Gotta run for now.

[eub.livejournal.com]

"goes on to ask the question: is degradation paid because of the insult to the person, and so maybe we should not owe it if the person cannot be insulted, or is degradation paid because of the act itself regardless of whether the person perceived it?"

And from the case of the idiot who would not be insulted, it sounds like the former answer was the conclusion?

Reading this I thought of a third reason why we might say it is owed: because of the effects on onlookers and on the community. Might be interesting that this direction wasn't seen here.

[cellio]

The former seems to be the conclusion here. (I'm using weasel words because the g'mara might pick this up again somewhere else and conclude differently; I haven't read every page.)

Effects on onlookers is a good point, and something that is a factor in other areas of Jewish law. There's even a term (marit ayin) for doing something that's really ok but looks like it's not, and because of the appearance we can't do it (or have to take precautions). A modern example of that: yes there are fake, kosher "bacon bits", but you can't serve a dish with them sprinkled on top. Instead, you bring them to the table in their original container. (The example that is used in, I think, a medieval law code is: if you're cooking meat in almond milk (because milk itself is forbidden), you have to be careful to leave some of the almond chunks in it.)