About this episode
Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island "as we share the simcha of our friend and co-learner Shoshana Shur and her family upon the engagement of her son Eli to Rochel Markel. May the joy of this new couple spread to encompass all of klal Yisrael - and may we all continue to share smachot!" After rejecting the suggestion that the tanaim debate whether or not there was a takana in Usha for the usufruct property of a married woman, the Gemara suggests three other explanations for the tanaitic debate regarding a slave who is usufruct property of the woman - does he go free if the woman knocks out his eye or does he never go free from this type of situation? The third explanation is that the debate is about whether one who has access to the proceeds, does that mean they are also like the owner of the principal or not. A similar debate is mentioned regarding a slave who is hit by his owner but dies more than twenty-four hours later. If that slave was sold but kept by the original owner to still work for him for thirty days, and that owner killed him, is the original owner considered the actual owner since the slave is working for that master, however, they only have rights to the slave's work, not his body. There are four opinions given, two of which match the previous debate. Rabbi Elazar is the author of the fourth opinion and two other braitot on related issues are brought and attributed to Rabbi Elazar. The Mishna deals with humiliation payments and sets the amount for certain actions that cause humiliation only, such as pulling one's hair, spitting in one's face, and uncovering a woman's hair in the marketplace. A story is told of one who did the latter infringement and tried to get out of it by tricking the woman into uncovering her hair and then trying to prove that she doesn't care about having her hair uncovered in public. However, Rabbi Akiva did not accept this as there is a difference between one deciding to uncover one's hair and someone else doing it. Are the amounts mentioned in the Mishna for humiliation payment in the Tzuri or medina currency (valued at 1/8 of the Tzuri)? Based on a story with Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, it is Tzuri currency. Once the story was brought up, the Gemara grapples to understand Rabbi Yehuda's ruling in the story when he said, "This is me and this is Rabbi Yosi haGelili who held 100 Tzuri coins. When he said "This is me," did he mean, I saw it with my own eyes, thereby implying that a witness can also be a judge, as he ruled in the case? This would be difficult as Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva both hold that a witness cannot be a judge. There are two possible resolutions. Did Rabbi Akiva really hold that a witness cannot be a judge? A source seems to indicate otherwise. However, this is resolved.