Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 26, 2024 | ื˜ืดื– ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 85

Two different suggestions are offered to explain according to which opinion the Mishna accords when it rules that there is payment for pain even when there is no financial damage. It depends on how a debate between Rebbi and Ben Azai about Shmot 21:25 is understood. How is pain assessed when there is financial damage? There are three different opinions regarding payments for growths that developed on account of the injury – does one pay only medical bills, also loss of employment, or both? The Gemara discusses the specific case in which they argue. Part of the debate between them centers around the double language used in the verse – vโ€™rapo yerapei – which could be understood as including an additional case where medical costs are paid or perhaps coming to teach the doctors have a right to practice medicine and it does not conflict with our belief in God. When compensating for medical costs, the one who cause the injury cannot insist that he/she heal the injured or a doctor from afar or one who will provide services for free. The one who caused the injury can insist that the one injured use a doctor, as further complications may arise and then the injured person will demand more money in damages. Also, the one who was injured cannot insist on a set price, as they may save the money and not use it for healing, making the one who caused the damage look bad. From where do we derive that all four payments are relevant also when there are damages to pay as well? What are examples of cases where each of the four payments would be paid even if there was no financial compensation? Why is the loss of wages for one who cuts off a hand paid as if they were a cucumber watcher – what if the person had a higher-paying job? The loss of wage payment depends on what damage was done and what work the person is now capable of doing.

ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื”ืžืจื•ื—ืงื™ื ื–ื” ืžื–ื” ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and ben Azzai disagree over whether the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail is applied with regard to a generalization and a detail that are distant from each other. When a generalization is followed by a detail, the halakha applies only in the case specified in the detail. The verse states: โ€œKeviyya for keviyya, a wound for a wound, แธฅabura for แธฅaburaโ€ (Exodus 21:25). The word โ€œkeviyya,โ€ as stated in the beginning of the verse, is a generalization that includes burns not accompanied by bruises as well as burns accompanied by bruises. โ€œแธคabura,โ€ as stated at the end of the verse, is a detail of a burn that is accompanied by a bruise. The Torah distances the detail, โ€œแธฅabura,โ€ from the generalization, โ€œkeviyya,โ€ by stating the halakha of: โ€œA wound for a woundโ€ between them.


ืจื‘ื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื—ื‘ื•ืจื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœื“ืžื™ื ื™ืชืจื™ื


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that since there is an intervening phrase between the generalization and the detail, one does not derive the halakha from the verse concerning burns and bruises by employing the principle of a generalization and a detail. Therefore, the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation for pain in all cases of burns, even those that are not accompanied by bruises. And ben Azzai holds that one does derive the halakha from the verse concerning burns and bruises by employing the principle of a generalization and a detail, and therefore the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation for pain only if the burn is accompanied by a bruise. And if you would say: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, why do I need the Torah to state the halakha of โ€œแธฅabura for แธฅabura,โ€ as that is included as a subset of โ€œkeviyyaโ€? The phrase mentioning โ€œแธฅaburaโ€ is necessary to teach the halakha of additional money, i.e., in a case where someone caused a burn with a bruise, he pays additional compensation for the bruise beyond that for the burn.


ืื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืื“ื ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื–ื” ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืฆืขืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ


ยง The mishna teaches: How is the payment for pain assessed? The court evaluates how much money a person with a similar threshold for pain as the victim is willing to take in order to be made to suffer in this way. The one who burned the victim must then pay this amount. The Gemara asks: How do we appraise pain in a case where the injured party also suffered personal injury?


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืื“ื ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืœืงื˜ื•ืข ืœื• ื™ื“ื• ืœืงื˜ื•ืข ืœื• ื™ื“ื• ืœื ืฆืขืจ ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื”ื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื™ื›ื ื•ืขื•ื“ ื‘ืฉื•ืคื˜ื ื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ืœืงื˜ื•ืข ื™ื“ื• ื”ืงื˜ื•ืขื” ื™ื“ื• ื”ืงื˜ื•ืขื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืฆืขืจ ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืื™ื›ื ื”ื ืฆืขืจ ื•ื‘ื•ืฉืช ืื™ื›ื ื“ื›ืกื™ืคื ืœื™ื” ืžื™ืœืชื ืœืžืฉืงืœ ืžื‘ืฉืจื• ืœืžืฉื“ื™ื™ื” ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ื


Shmuelโ€™s father says: The court evaluates how much money a person is willing to take to allow someone to sever his hand. The Gemara objects: Do you really mean to sever his hand? Wouldnโ€™t this evaluation be not just for pain, but to include all five types of indemnity? Moreover, are we dealing with fools, who would accept money to have their hands severed? The Gemara answers: Rather, the court evaluates how much money a person would accept to allow someone to sever his already severed hand, which is of no use. The Gemara objects: In the case of his severed hand also, there is not pain alone, but there is both pain and humiliation, because it is an embarrassing matter for him if someone were to take a part of his flesh to throw it to dogs.


ืืœื ืื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืื“ื ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืœืงื˜ื•ืข ืœื• ื™ื“ื• ื”ืžื•ื›ืชื‘ ืœืžืœื›ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกื ืœืกื™ื™ืฃ ืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืฉืงื™ืœ ื•ืžืฆืขืจ ื ืคืฉื™ื”


The Gemara answers: Rather, the court evaluates how much a person is willing to take to allow someone to sever his hand, which is already condemned by a written decree from the government to be severed, changing the decree from having it severed by means of a drug, which is not accompanied by pain, to having it severed by means of a sword, which is accompanied by pain. The amount of money he would accept to have his hand severed by a sword instead of by the drug is his compensation. The Sages say in objection: Here too, one would not take money and cause himself pain in this way, so there is no indemnity to evaluate.


ืืœื ืื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืื“ื ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœืงื˜ื•ืข ืœื• ื™ื“ื• ื”ืžื•ื›ืชื‘ ืœืžืœื›ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกื™ื™ืฃ ืœืกื


The Gemara answers: Rather, the court evaluates how much a person would give to have someone sever his hand, which is already condemned by a written decree from the government to be severed, changing the decree from having it be severed by means of a sword, which is accompanied by pain, to having it be severed by means of a drug, which is not accompanied by pain.


ื”ืื™ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื–ื” ืžื–ื” ืžื” ืฉื ืชืŸ ื–ื”


The Gemara objects: If this is the case, then this wording of the mishna: To take, is imprecise; it should have said: To give. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The mishna means that the court evaluates how much this one, the injured party, will take from that one, i.e., the one who caused the injury, based on what this man, the injured party, would have given to the government to have his hand severed by a drug rather than with a sword.


ืจืคื•ื™ ื”ื›ื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ [ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ] ืขืœื• ื‘ื• ืฆืžื—ื™ื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื•ื ืกืชืจื” ื”ืžื›ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืชื• ืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืชื•


ยง The mishna teaches: How is payment for medical costs assessed? If one struck another, then he is liable to heal him by paying for his medical costs. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:4): If growths appeared on the injured area due to the injury, and the wound reopened, then the one who caused the injury is again liable to heal him by covering his medical costs, and is liable to give him the value of his loss of livelihood while he recovers from the reopened wound. But if the growths that appeared are not due to the injury, he is not liable to heal him by covering his medical costs, and he is not liable to give him the value of his loss of livelihood.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืชื• ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื• ื•ืจืคื•ืืชื• ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™


The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that even if the growths appeared due to the injury, he is liable to heal him by covering his medical costs, but he is not liable to give him the value of his loss of livelihood. And the Rabbis say: The one who caused the injury is not liable at all, because the Torah states the halakhot of compensation for his loss of livelihood and his medical costs together. This teaches that anyone who is liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood is also liable to pay compensation for medical costs, and anyone who is not liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood is also not liable to pay compensation for medical costs.


ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืืฉื›ื—ืชื™ื ื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืงืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื›ื” ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™


The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabba said: I found the Sages in the study hall of Rav when they were sitting and were stating an explanation: Here, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree about whether a wound may be wrapped in a bandage, i.e., whether one is permitted to bandage his wound to lessen the pain, at the risk of causing damaging side effects.


ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืžื›ื” ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžื›ื” ืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ื“ืœื ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘


Rabba explains: The Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna in the baraita, hold that a wound may be wrapped in a bandage. Consequently, if the bandage causes side effects which lead the injured party to incur additional medical expenses, those expenses are considered to have resulted from the original injury. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that a wound may not be wrapped in a bandage. Therefore, with regard to medical costs, about which the verse repeated the obligation to pay them, by stating: โ€œAnd shall cause him to be thoroughly healed [verappo yerappe]โ€ (Exodus 21:19), the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation. But for loss of livelihood, about which the verse did not repeat the obligation to pay it, the one who caused the injury is not liable to pay compensation.


ื•ืืžื™ื ื ืœื”ื• ืื ื ืื™ ืžื›ื” ืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžื›ื” ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ื•ืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ื™ืชื™ืจื”


Rabba continues: And I said to them that if Rabbi Yehuda were to hold that a wound may not be wrapped in a bandage, then the one who caused the injury should also not be liable to pay compensation for medical costs, as he is not liable to compensate the injured party for damage resulting from his own irresponsible behavior. Rather, the disagreement is as follows: Everyone agrees that a wound may be wrapped in a bandage, but may not be wrapped in an excessive bandage.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ื™ืชื™ืจื” ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ื“ืœื ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ืืฉื‘ืช ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืœืจื™ืคื•ื™


He explains the dispute: Rabbi Yehuda holds that since a wound may not be wrapped in an excessive bandage, then with regard to medical costs, about which the verse repeated the obligation to pay them, by stating: โ€œVerappo yerappeโ€ (Exodus 21:19), the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation. But for loss of livelihood, about which the verse did not repeat the obligation to pay, the one who caused the injury is not liable to pay compensation. And the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna in the baraita, hold: Since the verse repeated the obligation to pay compensation for medical costs, one is also liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood, which is juxtaposed to the obligation to pay for medical costs, as the verse states: โ€œOnly he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.โ€


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืช ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืžืขื˜ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืจืง ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืง ืœืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื


The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yehuda holds that even though medical costs and loss of livelihood are juxtaposed, the one who caused the injury is not liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood in this case, because the Merciful One restricted it in the Torah, as the verse states: โ€œOnly he shall pay for his loss of livelihood, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healedโ€ (Exodus 21:19). โ€œOnlyโ€ is a restricting term. And the Rabbis, who hold that one must pay for loss of livelihood in this case as well, hold that the word โ€œonlyโ€ is coming to exclude growths that were not due to the injury, with regard to which the one who caused the injury is exempt from liability.


ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจืื™ ื“ืืžืจื™ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉื ื™ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืจื•ืคื ืœืจืคืื•ืช


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the latter Rabbis in the baraita, who say: Anyone who is liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood is liable to pay compensation for medical costs, and anyone who is not liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood is not liable to pay compensation for medical costs, why do I need, i.e., how do I account for, the fact that the verse repeated the obligation to pay medical costs? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As it is taught in a baraita that the school of Rabbi Yishmael says: When the verse states: โ€œAnd shall cause him to be thoroughly healed [verappo yerappe]โ€ (Exodus 21:19), it is derived from here that permission is granted to a doctor to heal, and it is not considered to be an intervention counter to the will of God.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื ืขืœื• ื‘ื• ืฆืžื—ื™ื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื•ื ืกืชืจื” ื”ืžื›ื” ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ืฉื‘ืชื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืง ืฉื‘ืชื• ื™ืชืŸ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืง ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืจืง


ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that if growths appeared due to the injury, and the wound reopened, then the one who caused the injury is again liable to heal him by covering his medical costs, and is liable to give him the value of his loss of livelihood while he recovers from the reopened wound? The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall cause him to be thoroughly healedโ€ (Exodus 21:19). One might have thought that this is the halakha even if the growths were not due to the injury. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œOnly he shall pay for his loss of livelihood,โ€ in order to exclude this case. This is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the previous baraita. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Even if the growths appeared due to the injury, the one who caused the injury is exempt, as it is stated: โ€œOnly.โ€


ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืฃ ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืœื’ืžืจื™ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจืื™ ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืฃ ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉื‘ืช ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืื‘ื•ื”


There are those who say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Even if the growths appeared due to the injury, the one who caused the injury is completely exempt from paying compensation, both for medical costs and loss of livelihood. And this is in accordance with the opinion of the latter Rabbis in the previous baraita. And there are those who say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Even if the growths appeared due to the injury, the one who caused the injury is exempt from paying compensation for loss of livelihood, but is liable to pay compensation for medical costs. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Yehuda.


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืง ืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื‘ืขื™ ืงืจื


The Gemara analyzes the statement of the baraita: The Master said: One might have thought that this is the halakha even if the growths were not due to the injury. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œOnly he shall pay for his loss of livelihood,โ€ to teach that he is exempt in this case. The Gemara asks: Is there a need for the verse to teach that he is exempt in the case of growths that were not due to the injury?


ืืžืจื™ ืžืื™ ืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื•ืคื ื•ืื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืฉ ืื• ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื™ืงื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื™ืงื” ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืœืžื›ื” ื•ื”ืขืœื” ืžื›ืชื• ื’ืจื’ื•ืชื ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืง ืžืื™ ื’ืจื’ื•ืชื ื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื ืืชื ื›ืจื™ื›ืชื ืžืื™ ืืกื•ืชื™ื” ืื”ืœื ื•ืงื™ืจื ื•ืงืœื‘ื


The Sages say: What did the baraita mean when it said that the growths were not due to the injury? As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who violated his doctorโ€™s instructions and ate honey or any type of sweet food, which the doctor had instructed him not to eat because of the fact that honey or any type of sweet foods are detrimental to the recovery from the injury; and his injury developed garguteni; one might have thought that the one who caused the injury should be liable to heal him by covering his medical costs. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œOnly,โ€ to teach that he is exempt in this case. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of garguteni? Abaye said: Necrosis. What is its remedy? Crystalline ice plant, and wax, and wine dregs.


ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืกื™ื™ืš ืื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ืช ืขืœื™ ื›ืืจื™ื ืืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ื ื ืืกื™ื ื“ืžื’ืŸ ื‘ืžื’ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืกื™ื ื“ืžื’ืŸ ื‘ืžื’ืŸ ืžื’ืŸ ืฉื•ื”


ยง The Gemara presents several halakhot concerning compensation for medical costs: And if the one who caused the injury says to the injured party: I will heal you myself, as I am a doctor; the injured party may say to him: You are to me as a predatory lion, in that I fear you and do not trust you to heal me. And if the one who caused the injury says to the injured party: I will bring a doctor who heals for no cost, so that I will not need to pay for your medical costs; the injured party may say to him: A doctor who heals for no cost is worth nothing.


ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ื ื ืœืš ืืกื™ื ืจื—ื™ืงื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืกื™ื ืจื—ื™ืงื ืขื™ื ื ืขื•ื™ืจื


And if the one who caused the injury says to the injured party: I will bring you a doctor from a distant place, the injured party may say to him: A doctor from a distant place blinds the eye. A local doctor has an incentive to ensure that the patient fully heals, while a doctor from a distant place has no incentive to monitor the patient once he has received his fee.


ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ืืš ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื ื ืžืกื™ื ื ื ืคืฉืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืฉืขืช ื‘ื ืคืฉืš ื•ืฉืงืœืช ืžื™ื ืื™ ื˜ืคื™ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืงื•ืฅ ืœื™ ืžืงืฅ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืคืฉืขืช ื‘ื ืคืฉืš ื•ืงืจื• ืœื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืžื–ื™ืง


And if that one, the injured party, says to the one who caused him injury: Give the money to me and I will take responsibility for healing myself; the one who caused him the injury may say to him: You will be negligent with yourself and you will take more from me than was originally necessary. And if the injured party says to the one who caused him injury: Settle a fixed sum for me to cover my medical costs, and I will take care of my own recovery; the one who caused him the injury may say to him: All the more so with this proposal is there a concern that you will be negligent with yourself, as you will wish to profit and you will not spend the money on your recovery, and people will call me: An ox that causes damage, because I caused an injury from which you did not recover.


ืชื ื ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืžืฉืชืœืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืคืฆืข ืชื—ืช ืคืฆืข ืœื™ืชืŸ ืฆืขืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง


ยง With regard to compensation for pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation, the Sages taught in a baraita: And all of these types of indemnity are paid in a case where the one who caused injury must also pay compensation for damage. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: The verse states: โ€œA wound for a woundโ€ (Exodus 21:25), to teach that the one who caused injury is liable to give compensation for pain in a case of damage.


ื”ืื™ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”


The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t this verse necessary to teach an additional halakha:


ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื›ืžื–ื™ื“ ื•ืื•ื ืก ื›ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืคืฆืข ื‘ืคืฆืข ืžืื™ ืคืฆืข ืชื—ืช ืคืฆืข ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™


This serves to include in the category of those liable to pay compensation one who causes injury unwittingly just as one who causes injury intentionally is liable, and one who causes injury due to circumstances beyond his control just as one who causes injury willingly. The Gemara answers: If so, and the verse teaches only this, let the verse write the more succinct phrase: A wound [petza] for a wound [befatza]; what is taught by the expanded phrase: โ€œA wound [petza] for a wound [taแธฅat patza]โ€? Conclude two conclusions from the verse, that the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation regardless of how he caused the injury, and that he must pay compensation for pain in addition to compensation for damage.


ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ืœื™ืชืŸ ืจืคื•ืื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง


With regard to compensation for medical costs in a case where one pays compensation for damage, Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava that the verse states: โ€œHe shall cause him to be thoroughly healed [verappo yerappe]โ€ (Exodus 21:19), and the doubled term teaches that the one who caused the injury is liable to give monetary compensation for medical costs in a case of compensation for damage.


ื”ืื™ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉื ื™ืชื ื” ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืจื•ืคื ืœืจืคืื•ืช ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ื•ืจื•ืคื ื™ืจืคื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ืจืคื•ืื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง


The Gemara challenges: This verse is necessary for teaching a different halakha, that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: When the verse states: โ€œVerappo yerappe,โ€ from here it is derived that permission is granted to a doctor to heal. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write: Verofeh yerappe, meaning: And a doctor shall heal. Learn from the phrase employed that the one who caused the injury is liable to give monetary compensation for medical costs in a case of damage.


ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืืžืจืŸ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืื• ืจืคื ืจืคื ืื• ื™ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ืžืื™ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ืจืคื•ืื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง


The Gemara challenges: But it is still necessary for the halakhot that we stated previously, i.e., it was necessary for the verse to repeat the language of healing, as the Gemara explained. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse say one of the two words twice, either: Rappo rappo, or: Yerappe yerappe. What is taught by repeating the language with a change: โ€œVerappo yerappeโ€? Learn from this wording that the one who caused the injury is liable to give monetary compensation for medical costs in a case of damage.


ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื”ื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื”ื•


The baraita stated that compensation for pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation are paid even where the one who caused the injury pays compensation for damage. The Gemara notes: By inference, it must be that you find these examples of cases where the one who caused an injury must pay compensation for these indemnities that are not in a case of damage. The Gemara asks: How would you find examples of these cases that are not in a case of damage?


ืฆืขืจ ื›ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฆืขืจ ื›ื•ื•ืื• ื‘ืฉืคื•ื“ ืื• ื‘ืžืกืžืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืขืœ ืฆืคื•ืจื ื• ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื‘ื•ืจื” ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ื›ืื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ืกืœื™ืง ื•ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื” ืกืžื ื—ืจื™ืคื ื•ืื—ื•ื•ืจื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ืฉืจื™ื” ื“ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืื•ืชื‘ื™ ืœื™ื” ืกืžื ืœืื ืงื•ื˜ื™ื” ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื“ื‘ื™ืฉืจื™ื”


The Gemara answers: An example of a case where one must pay compensation for pain alone is as that which the mishna teaches explicitly: How is payment for pain assessed? If he burned another with a skewer or with a hot nail, or even if he burned him on his fingernail, which is a place where he does not cause a bruise, i.e., there was no personal injury, only pain, the court evaluates the monetary value of the pain. An example of a case where one must pay compensation for medical costs alone is where some body part was hurting and another came and brought him a strong drug, and it whitened his flesh; the halakha is that the second person must give him another drug to restore the color to his flesh, even though he caused no damage, i.e., loss of function.


ืฉื‘ืช ื“ื”ื“ืงื™ื” ื‘ืื™ื ื“ืจื•ื ื ื•ื‘ื˜ืœื™ื” ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื“ืจืง ืœื™ื” ื‘ืืคื™ื”


An example of a case where one must pay compensation for loss of livelihood alone is a case of one who locked another in a room [beโ€™inderona] and forced him to be idle, but did not cause him any personal injury. An example of a case where one must pay compensation for humiliation alone is a case of one who spit in the face of another, without causing any personal injury.


ืฉื‘ืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืžืจ ืงื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืžืจ ืงื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ ืœืงืชื” ืžื“ืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ ืžื™ืชืคื— ื”ืื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืœืื• ืื’ืจื ื“ืฉื•ืžืจ ืงื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืฉืงื™ืœ ืืœื ื“ืœื™ ื“ื•ื•ืœื ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืื’ืจื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืื’ืจื


ยง The mishna teaches: How is payment for loss of livelihood assessed? The court views the injured party as though he were a watchman of cucumbers. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:2): How is payment for loss of livelihood assessed? The court views the injured party as though he were a watchman of cucumbers. And if you say: But the standard of justice was compromised. The Gemara interjects to clarify this statement of the baraita: It appears to be compromised, as when this man will recover, he will not collect the wage of a watchman of cucumbers, but rather he will carry buckets and collect a higher wage, or he will travel as an agent and collect an even higher wage. The assessment of loss of livelihood should also account for one of these types of labor.


ืžื“ืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืœืงืชื” ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื™ื“ื• ื•ื“ืžื™ ืจื’ืœื•


The Gemara returns to quoting the baraita: The standard of justice was not compromised, because the one who caused him injury already gave him the value of his hand or the value of his leg, and that compensation took into account the professional opportunities he lost due to the injury.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืงื˜ืข ืืช ื™ื“ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืžืจ ืงื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื‘ืจ ืืช ืจื’ืœื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ืจื’ืœื• ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืžืจ ืืช ื”ืคืชื—


Rava says: If one severed the hand of another, he gives him the value of his hand as compensation for damage, and for loss of livelihood the court views the injured party as though he were a watchman of cucumbers. If one broke the leg of another, he gives him the value of his leg as compensation for damage. And for loss of livelihood the court views the injured party as though he were a watchman at the opening to a courtyard, because he cannot work even as a watchman of cucumbers, as that requires walking around the cucumber field.


ืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ื ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ืขื™ื ื• ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื˜ื—ื™ื ื• ื‘ืจื™ื—ื™ื ื—ื™ืจืฉื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื•


Rava continues: If one blinded the eye of another, he gives him the value of his eye as compensation for damage; and as for loss of livelihood, the court views the injured party as though the one who caused the injury caused him to grind with a mill, as even a blind person can do this. If one deafened another, he gives him his entire value as compensation for damage, because one lacking the ability to hear is not fit for any form of employment.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืงื˜ืข ืืช ื™ื“ื• ื•ืœื ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ืฉื™ื‘ืจ ืืช ืจื’ืœื• ื•ืœื ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ื ื• ื•ืœื ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื—ื™ืจืฉื• ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ื‘ื—ื“ ืื•ืžื“ื ื ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื—ื“ื ื—ื“ื ืืžื“ื™ื ืŸ ื•ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื”


ยง Rava raises a dilemma: If one severed the hand of another, and the court did not yet evaluate him to determine the compensation, and then he broke his leg, and the court did not yet evaluate him for this additional injury, and then he blinded his eye, and the court did not yet evaluate him for this further injury; and ultimately he deafened him, what is the halakha? Do we say: Since the court did not evaluate him each time, one evaluation is sufficient for the court to determine his compensation, and the one who caused him injury must give him his entire value at once, as that is the compensation for deafening him? Or perhaps we say: We evaluate each injury one by one, and we obligate the one who caused him injury to give him compensation for each.


ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ ืœื™ื” ืฆืขืจ ื•ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื“ื›ืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ื—ื“ื ื ื”ื™ ื“ื ื–ืง ื•ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื“ื›ืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ื—ื“ื ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื•ื”ื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืฆืขืจ ื•ื‘ื•ืฉืช ืžื™ื”ืช ื“ื›ืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ื—ื“ื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ื“ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืฆืขืจ ื•ื‘ื•ืฉืช


Rava explains the dilemma: The difference is with regard to whether the one who caused the injury must give him monetary compensation for pain and humiliation for each and every one of the injuries. Although he does not give him monetary compensation for damage, medical costs, and loss of livelihood for each and every one of the injuries, since, ultimately, he is giving him his entire value after deafening him, he is like someone who killed him, and therefore he gives him his entire value and no more; in any event, must he give compensation for pain and humiliation for each and every one of the injuries, as the injured party had pain and humiliation each time?


ื•ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ืงื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ื—ื“ื ื—ื“ื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ ืœื™ื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืฉืœื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืชื™ืงื•


Rava continues: And if you say as a resolution to this dilemma that since the fact is that the court had not evaluated him after each injury, the one who caused him injury pays him his entire value all together, then there is another dilemma: If the court had evaluated him after each injury but the one who caused the injury had not paid the compensation before he deafened him, what is the halakha? Do we say: Since it is so that the court evaluated him, the one who caused him injury is required to give him the compensation for each and every one of the injuries? Or perhaps, since the one who caused him injury had not yet paid those compensations before deafening him, he must give him his entire value. The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื” ืฉื‘ืช ื”ืคื•ื—ืชืชื• ื‘ื“ืžื™ื ืžื”ื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื›ื”ื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืฆืžืชื” ื™ื“ื• ื•ืกื•ืคื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืกื•ืคื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื”ืช ืืคื—ืชื™ื”


Rabba raises a dilemma: If one injured another, causing him loss of livelihood that diminishes his monetary value, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of this case? For example, in a case where he struck him on his hand and his hand became weakened so that he could not work, but his hand will ultimately return to its original health, what is the halakha? Should one say: Since his hand will ultimately return to its original health, he does not need to give him any compensation whatsoever for the damage? Or perhaps, in any event, he has diminished his value for now.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื›ื” ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ื•ืœื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ื—ื‘ื•ืจื” ื•ื”ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a mishna (87a): One who strikes his father or his mother and did not cause them to have a bruise, and who therefore is not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, which is the penalty for one who causes his parent a bruise, and one who injures another on Yom Kippur, and therefore is liable for excision from the World-to-Come [karet] and not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment,


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma: Daf 84-90 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we continue discussing the 5 payments a person makes if he injured another person. One needs to pay...

Bava Kamma 85

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 85

ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื”ืžืจื•ื—ืงื™ื ื–ื” ืžื–ื” ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and ben Azzai disagree over whether the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail is applied with regard to a generalization and a detail that are distant from each other. When a generalization is followed by a detail, the halakha applies only in the case specified in the detail. The verse states: โ€œKeviyya for keviyya, a wound for a wound, แธฅabura for แธฅaburaโ€ (Exodus 21:25). The word โ€œkeviyya,โ€ as stated in the beginning of the verse, is a generalization that includes burns not accompanied by bruises as well as burns accompanied by bruises. โ€œแธคabura,โ€ as stated at the end of the verse, is a detail of a burn that is accompanied by a bruise. The Torah distances the detail, โ€œแธฅabura,โ€ from the generalization, โ€œkeviyya,โ€ by stating the halakha of: โ€œA wound for a woundโ€ between them.


ืจื‘ื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืกื‘ืจ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื—ื‘ื•ืจื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœื“ืžื™ื ื™ืชืจื™ื


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that since there is an intervening phrase between the generalization and the detail, one does not derive the halakha from the verse concerning burns and bruises by employing the principle of a generalization and a detail. Therefore, the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation for pain in all cases of burns, even those that are not accompanied by bruises. And ben Azzai holds that one does derive the halakha from the verse concerning burns and bruises by employing the principle of a generalization and a detail, and therefore the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation for pain only if the burn is accompanied by a bruise. And if you would say: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, why do I need the Torah to state the halakha of โ€œแธฅabura for แธฅabura,โ€ as that is included as a subset of โ€œkeviyyaโ€? The phrase mentioning โ€œแธฅaburaโ€ is necessary to teach the halakha of additional money, i.e., in a case where someone caused a burn with a bruise, he pays additional compensation for the bruise beyond that for the burn.


ืื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืื“ื ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื–ื” ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืฆืขืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ


ยง The mishna teaches: How is the payment for pain assessed? The court evaluates how much money a person with a similar threshold for pain as the victim is willing to take in order to be made to suffer in this way. The one who burned the victim must then pay this amount. The Gemara asks: How do we appraise pain in a case where the injured party also suffered personal injury?


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืื“ื ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืœืงื˜ื•ืข ืœื• ื™ื“ื• ืœืงื˜ื•ืข ืœื• ื™ื“ื• ืœื ืฆืขืจ ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื”ื ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื™ื›ื ื•ืขื•ื“ ื‘ืฉื•ืคื˜ื ื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ืœืงื˜ื•ืข ื™ื“ื• ื”ืงื˜ื•ืขื” ื™ื“ื• ื”ืงื˜ื•ืขื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืฆืขืจ ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืื™ื›ื ื”ื ืฆืขืจ ื•ื‘ื•ืฉืช ืื™ื›ื ื“ื›ืกื™ืคื ืœื™ื” ืžื™ืœืชื ืœืžืฉืงืœ ืžื‘ืฉืจื• ืœืžืฉื“ื™ื™ื” ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ื


Shmuelโ€™s father says: The court evaluates how much money a person is willing to take to allow someone to sever his hand. The Gemara objects: Do you really mean to sever his hand? Wouldnโ€™t this evaluation be not just for pain, but to include all five types of indemnity? Moreover, are we dealing with fools, who would accept money to have their hands severed? The Gemara answers: Rather, the court evaluates how much money a person would accept to allow someone to sever his already severed hand, which is of no use. The Gemara objects: In the case of his severed hand also, there is not pain alone, but there is both pain and humiliation, because it is an embarrassing matter for him if someone were to take a part of his flesh to throw it to dogs.


ืืœื ืื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืื“ื ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืœืงื˜ื•ืข ืœื• ื™ื“ื• ื”ืžื•ื›ืชื‘ ืœืžืœื›ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกื ืœืกื™ื™ืฃ ืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืฉืงื™ืœ ื•ืžืฆืขืจ ื ืคืฉื™ื”


The Gemara answers: Rather, the court evaluates how much a person is willing to take to allow someone to sever his hand, which is already condemned by a written decree from the government to be severed, changing the decree from having it severed by means of a drug, which is not accompanied by pain, to having it severed by means of a sword, which is accompanied by pain. The amount of money he would accept to have his hand severed by a sword instead of by the drug is his compensation. The Sages say in objection: Here too, one would not take money and cause himself pain in this way, so there is no indemnity to evaluate.


ืืœื ืื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืื“ื ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœืงื˜ื•ืข ืœื• ื™ื“ื• ื”ืžื•ื›ืชื‘ ืœืžืœื›ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกื™ื™ืฃ ืœืกื


The Gemara answers: Rather, the court evaluates how much a person would give to have someone sever his hand, which is already condemned by a written decree from the government to be severed, changing the decree from having it be severed by means of a sword, which is accompanied by pain, to having it be severed by means of a drug, which is not accompanied by pain.


ื”ืื™ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื–ื” ืžื–ื” ืžื” ืฉื ืชืŸ ื–ื”


The Gemara objects: If this is the case, then this wording of the mishna: To take, is imprecise; it should have said: To give. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The mishna means that the court evaluates how much this one, the injured party, will take from that one, i.e., the one who caused the injury, based on what this man, the injured party, would have given to the government to have his hand severed by a drug rather than with a sword.


ืจืคื•ื™ ื”ื›ื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ [ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ] ืขืœื• ื‘ื• ืฆืžื—ื™ื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื•ื ืกืชืจื” ื”ืžื›ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืชื• ืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืชื•


ยง The mishna teaches: How is payment for medical costs assessed? If one struck another, then he is liable to heal him by paying for his medical costs. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:4): If growths appeared on the injured area due to the injury, and the wound reopened, then the one who caused the injury is again liable to heal him by covering his medical costs, and is liable to give him the value of his loss of livelihood while he recovers from the reopened wound. But if the growths that appeared are not due to the injury, he is not liable to heal him by covering his medical costs, and he is not liable to give him the value of his loss of livelihood.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ืฉื‘ืชื• ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื• ื•ืจืคื•ืืชื• ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™


The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that even if the growths appeared due to the injury, he is liable to heal him by covering his medical costs, but he is not liable to give him the value of his loss of livelihood. And the Rabbis say: The one who caused the injury is not liable at all, because the Torah states the halakhot of compensation for his loss of livelihood and his medical costs together. This teaches that anyone who is liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood is also liable to pay compensation for medical costs, and anyone who is not liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood is also not liable to pay compensation for medical costs.


ื‘ืžืื™ ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืืฉื›ื—ืชื™ื ื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืงืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื›ื” ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™


The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? Rabba said: I found the Sages in the study hall of Rav when they were sitting and were stating an explanation: Here, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree about whether a wound may be wrapped in a bandage, i.e., whether one is permitted to bandage his wound to lessen the pain, at the risk of causing damaging side effects.


ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืžื›ื” ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžื›ื” ืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ื“ืœื ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘


Rabba explains: The Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna in the baraita, hold that a wound may be wrapped in a bandage. Consequently, if the bandage causes side effects which lead the injured party to incur additional medical expenses, those expenses are considered to have resulted from the original injury. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that a wound may not be wrapped in a bandage. Therefore, with regard to medical costs, about which the verse repeated the obligation to pay them, by stating: โ€œAnd shall cause him to be thoroughly healed [verappo yerappe]โ€ (Exodus 21:19), the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation. But for loss of livelihood, about which the verse did not repeat the obligation to pay it, the one who caused the injury is not liable to pay compensation.


ื•ืืžื™ื ื ืœื”ื• ืื ื ืื™ ืžื›ื” ืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžื›ื” ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ื•ืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ื™ืชื™ืจื”


Rabba continues: And I said to them that if Rabbi Yehuda were to hold that a wound may not be wrapped in a bandage, then the one who caused the injury should also not be liable to pay compensation for medical costs, as he is not liable to compensate the injured party for damage resulting from his own irresponsible behavior. Rather, the disagreement is as follows: Everyone agrees that a wound may be wrapped in a bandage, but may not be wrapped in an excessive bandage.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ืœืื’ื“ ื™ืชื™ืจื” ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ื“ืœื ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ืืฉื‘ืช ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืื™ืชืงืฉ ืœืจื™ืคื•ื™


He explains the dispute: Rabbi Yehuda holds that since a wound may not be wrapped in an excessive bandage, then with regard to medical costs, about which the verse repeated the obligation to pay them, by stating: โ€œVerappo yerappeโ€ (Exodus 21:19), the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation. But for loss of livelihood, about which the verse did not repeat the obligation to pay, the one who caused the injury is not liable to pay compensation. And the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna in the baraita, hold: Since the verse repeated the obligation to pay compensation for medical costs, one is also liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood, which is juxtaposed to the obligation to pay for medical costs, as the verse states: โ€œOnly he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.โ€


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืช ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืžืขื˜ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืจืง ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืง ืœืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื


The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yehuda holds that even though medical costs and loss of livelihood are juxtaposed, the one who caused the injury is not liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood in this case, because the Merciful One restricted it in the Torah, as the verse states: โ€œOnly he shall pay for his loss of livelihood, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healedโ€ (Exodus 21:19). โ€œOnlyโ€ is a restricting term. And the Rabbis, who hold that one must pay for loss of livelihood in this case as well, hold that the word โ€œonlyโ€ is coming to exclude growths that were not due to the injury, with regard to which the one who caused the injury is exempt from liability.


ื•ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจืื™ ื“ืืžืจื™ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉื ื™ืชืŸ ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืจื•ืคื ืœืจืคืื•ืช


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the latter Rabbis in the baraita, who say: Anyone who is liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood is liable to pay compensation for medical costs, and anyone who is not liable to pay compensation for loss of livelihood is not liable to pay compensation for medical costs, why do I need, i.e., how do I account for, the fact that the verse repeated the obligation to pay medical costs? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As it is taught in a baraita that the school of Rabbi Yishmael says: When the verse states: โ€œAnd shall cause him to be thoroughly healed [verappo yerappe]โ€ (Exodus 21:19), it is derived from here that permission is granted to a doctor to heal, and it is not considered to be an intervention counter to the will of God.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื ืขืœื• ื‘ื• ืฆืžื—ื™ื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื•ื ืกืชืจื” ื”ืžื›ื” ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ืฉื‘ืชื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืง ืฉื‘ืชื• ื™ืชืŸ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืง ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืจืง


ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that if growths appeared due to the injury, and the wound reopened, then the one who caused the injury is again liable to heal him by covering his medical costs, and is liable to give him the value of his loss of livelihood while he recovers from the reopened wound? The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall cause him to be thoroughly healedโ€ (Exodus 21:19). One might have thought that this is the halakha even if the growths were not due to the injury. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œOnly he shall pay for his loss of livelihood,โ€ in order to exclude this case. This is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna in the previous baraita. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Even if the growths appeared due to the injury, the one who caused the injury is exempt, as it is stated: โ€œOnly.โ€


ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืฃ ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืœื’ืžืจื™ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืชืจืื™ ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืฃ ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืฉื‘ืช ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืื‘ื•ื”


There are those who say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Even if the growths appeared due to the injury, the one who caused the injury is completely exempt from paying compensation, both for medical costs and loss of livelihood. And this is in accordance with the opinion of the latter Rabbis in the previous baraita. And there are those who say that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Even if the growths appeared due to the injury, the one who caused the injury is exempt from paying compensation for loss of livelihood, but is liable to pay compensation for medical costs. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Yehuda.


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืง ืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื‘ืขื™ ืงืจื


The Gemara analyzes the statement of the baraita: The Master said: One might have thought that this is the halakha even if the growths were not due to the injury. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œOnly he shall pay for his loss of livelihood,โ€ to teach that he is exempt in this case. The Gemara asks: Is there a need for the verse to teach that he is exempt in the case of growths that were not due to the injury?


ืืžืจื™ ืžืื™ ืฉืœื ืžื—ืžืช ื”ืžื›ื” ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื•ืคื ื•ืื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืฉ ืื• ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื™ืงื” ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื™ืงื” ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืœืžื›ื” ื•ื”ืขืœื” ืžื›ืชื• ื’ืจื’ื•ืชื ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืจืคืื•ืชื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืจืง ืžืื™ ื’ืจื’ื•ืชื ื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื ืืชื ื›ืจื™ื›ืชื ืžืื™ ืืกื•ืชื™ื” ืื”ืœื ื•ืงื™ืจื ื•ืงืœื‘ื


The Sages say: What did the baraita mean when it said that the growths were not due to the injury? As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who violated his doctorโ€™s instructions and ate honey or any type of sweet food, which the doctor had instructed him not to eat because of the fact that honey or any type of sweet foods are detrimental to the recovery from the injury; and his injury developed garguteni; one might have thought that the one who caused the injury should be liable to heal him by covering his medical costs. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œOnly,โ€ to teach that he is exempt in this case. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of garguteni? Abaye said: Necrosis. What is its remedy? Crystalline ice plant, and wax, and wine dregs.


ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืกื™ื™ืš ืื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ืช ืขืœื™ ื›ืืจื™ื ืืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ื ื ืืกื™ื ื“ืžื’ืŸ ื‘ืžื’ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืกื™ื ื“ืžื’ืŸ ื‘ืžื’ืŸ ืžื’ืŸ ืฉื•ื”


ยง The Gemara presents several halakhot concerning compensation for medical costs: And if the one who caused the injury says to the injured party: I will heal you myself, as I am a doctor; the injured party may say to him: You are to me as a predatory lion, in that I fear you and do not trust you to heal me. And if the one who caused the injury says to the injured party: I will bring a doctor who heals for no cost, so that I will not need to pay for your medical costs; the injured party may say to him: A doctor who heals for no cost is worth nothing.


ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ื ื ืœืš ืืกื™ื ืจื—ื™ืงื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืกื™ื ืจื—ื™ืงื ืขื™ื ื ืขื•ื™ืจื


And if the one who caused the injury says to the injured party: I will bring you a doctor from a distant place, the injured party may say to him: A doctor from a distant place blinds the eye. A local doctor has an incentive to ensure that the patient fully heals, while a doctor from a distant place has no incentive to monitor the patient once he has received his fee.


ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ืืš ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื ื ืžืกื™ื ื ื ืคืฉืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืฉืขืช ื‘ื ืคืฉืš ื•ืฉืงืœืช ืžื™ื ืื™ ื˜ืคื™ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืงื•ืฅ ืœื™ ืžืงืฅ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืคืฉืขืช ื‘ื ืคืฉืš ื•ืงืจื• ืœื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื”ืžื–ื™ืง


And if that one, the injured party, says to the one who caused him injury: Give the money to me and I will take responsibility for healing myself; the one who caused him the injury may say to him: You will be negligent with yourself and you will take more from me than was originally necessary. And if the injured party says to the one who caused him injury: Settle a fixed sum for me to cover my medical costs, and I will take care of my own recovery; the one who caused him the injury may say to him: All the more so with this proposal is there a concern that you will be negligent with yourself, as you will wish to profit and you will not spend the money on your recovery, and people will call me: An ox that causes damage, because I caused an injury from which you did not recover.


ืชื ื ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืžืฉืชืœืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืคืฆืข ืชื—ืช ืคืฆืข ืœื™ืชืŸ ืฆืขืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง


ยง With regard to compensation for pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation, the Sages taught in a baraita: And all of these types of indemnity are paid in a case where the one who caused injury must also pay compensation for damage. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: The verse states: โ€œA wound for a woundโ€ (Exodus 21:25), to teach that the one who caused injury is liable to give compensation for pain in a case of damage.


ื”ืื™ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”


The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t this verse necessary to teach an additional halakha:


ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื›ืžื–ื™ื“ ื•ืื•ื ืก ื›ืจืฆื•ืŸ ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืคืฆืข ื‘ืคืฆืข ืžืื™ ืคืฆืข ืชื—ืช ืคืฆืข ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™


This serves to include in the category of those liable to pay compensation one who causes injury unwittingly just as one who causes injury intentionally is liable, and one who causes injury due to circumstances beyond his control just as one who causes injury willingly. The Gemara answers: If so, and the verse teaches only this, let the verse write the more succinct phrase: A wound [petza] for a wound [befatza]; what is taught by the expanded phrase: โ€œA wound [petza] for a wound [taแธฅat patza]โ€? Conclude two conclusions from the verse, that the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation regardless of how he caused the injury, and that he must pay compensation for pain in addition to compensation for damage.


ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ืœื™ืชืŸ ืจืคื•ืื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง


With regard to compensation for medical costs in a case where one pays compensation for damage, Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava that the verse states: โ€œHe shall cause him to be thoroughly healed [verappo yerappe]โ€ (Exodus 21:19), and the doubled term teaches that the one who caused the injury is liable to give monetary compensation for medical costs in a case of compensation for damage.


ื”ืื™ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉื ื™ืชื ื” ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืจื•ืคื ืœืจืคืื•ืช ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ื•ืจื•ืคื ื™ืจืคื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ืจืคื•ืื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง


The Gemara challenges: This verse is necessary for teaching a different halakha, that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: When the verse states: โ€œVerappo yerappe,โ€ from here it is derived that permission is granted to a doctor to heal. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write: Verofeh yerappe, meaning: And a doctor shall heal. Learn from the phrase employed that the one who caused the injury is liable to give monetary compensation for medical costs in a case of damage.


ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืืžืจืŸ ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืงืจื ื‘ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ืื• ืจืคื ืจืคื ืื• ื™ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ืžืื™ ื•ืจืคื ื™ืจืคื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื™ืชืŸ ืจืคื•ืื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง


The Gemara challenges: But it is still necessary for the halakhot that we stated previously, i.e., it was necessary for the verse to repeat the language of healing, as the Gemara explained. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse say one of the two words twice, either: Rappo rappo, or: Yerappe yerappe. What is taught by repeating the language with a change: โ€œVerappo yerappeโ€? Learn from this wording that the one who caused the injury is liable to give monetary compensation for medical costs in a case of damage.


ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื”ื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ื–ืง ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื”ื•


The baraita stated that compensation for pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation are paid even where the one who caused the injury pays compensation for damage. The Gemara notes: By inference, it must be that you find these examples of cases where the one who caused an injury must pay compensation for these indemnities that are not in a case of damage. The Gemara asks: How would you find examples of these cases that are not in a case of damage?


ืฆืขืจ ื›ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืฆืขืจ ื›ื•ื•ืื• ื‘ืฉืคื•ื“ ืื• ื‘ืžืกืžืจ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืขืœ ืฆืคื•ืจื ื• ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขื•ืฉื” ื—ื‘ื•ืจื” ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื” ื›ืื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ืกืœื™ืง ื•ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื” ืกืžื ื—ืจื™ืคื ื•ืื—ื•ื•ืจื™ื” ืœื‘ื™ืฉืจื™ื” ื“ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืื•ืชื‘ื™ ืœื™ื” ืกืžื ืœืื ืงื•ื˜ื™ื” ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื“ื‘ื™ืฉืจื™ื”


The Gemara answers: An example of a case where one must pay compensation for pain alone is as that which the mishna teaches explicitly: How is payment for pain assessed? If he burned another with a skewer or with a hot nail, or even if he burned him on his fingernail, which is a place where he does not cause a bruise, i.e., there was no personal injury, only pain, the court evaluates the monetary value of the pain. An example of a case where one must pay compensation for medical costs alone is where some body part was hurting and another came and brought him a strong drug, and it whitened his flesh; the halakha is that the second person must give him another drug to restore the color to his flesh, even though he caused no damage, i.e., loss of function.


ืฉื‘ืช ื“ื”ื“ืงื™ื” ื‘ืื™ื ื“ืจื•ื ื ื•ื‘ื˜ืœื™ื” ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื“ืจืง ืœื™ื” ื‘ืืคื™ื”


An example of a case where one must pay compensation for loss of livelihood alone is a case of one who locked another in a room [beโ€™inderona] and forced him to be idle, but did not cause him any personal injury. An example of a case where one must pay compensation for humiliation alone is a case of one who spit in the face of another, without causing any personal injury.


ืฉื‘ืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืžืจ ืงื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืฉื‘ืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืžืจ ืงื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ ืœืงืชื” ืžื“ืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ ืžื™ืชืคื— ื”ืื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืœืื• ืื’ืจื ื“ืฉื•ืžืจ ืงื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืฉืงื™ืœ ืืœื ื“ืœื™ ื“ื•ื•ืœื ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืื’ืจื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืฉืงื™ืœ ืื’ืจื


ยง The mishna teaches: How is payment for loss of livelihood assessed? The court views the injured party as though he were a watchman of cucumbers. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:2): How is payment for loss of livelihood assessed? The court views the injured party as though he were a watchman of cucumbers. And if you say: But the standard of justice was compromised. The Gemara interjects to clarify this statement of the baraita: It appears to be compromised, as when this man will recover, he will not collect the wage of a watchman of cucumbers, but rather he will carry buckets and collect a higher wage, or he will travel as an agent and collect an even higher wage. The assessment of loss of livelihood should also account for one of these types of labor.


ืžื“ืช ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืœืงืชื” ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื™ื“ื• ื•ื“ืžื™ ืจื’ืœื•


The Gemara returns to quoting the baraita: The standard of justice was not compromised, because the one who caused him injury already gave him the value of his hand or the value of his leg, and that compensation took into account the professional opportunities he lost due to the injury.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืงื˜ืข ืืช ื™ื“ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืžืจ ืงื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื‘ืจ ืืช ืจื’ืœื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ืจื’ืœื• ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืžืจ ืืช ื”ืคืชื—


Rava says: If one severed the hand of another, he gives him the value of his hand as compensation for damage, and for loss of livelihood the court views the injured party as though he were a watchman of cucumbers. If one broke the leg of another, he gives him the value of his leg as compensation for damage. And for loss of livelihood the court views the injured party as though he were a watchman at the opening to a courtyard, because he cannot work even as a watchman of cucumbers, as that requires walking around the cucumber field.


ืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ื ื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ืขื™ื ื• ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžื˜ื—ื™ื ื• ื‘ืจื™ื—ื™ื ื—ื™ืจืฉื• ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื•


Rava continues: If one blinded the eye of another, he gives him the value of his eye as compensation for damage; and as for loss of livelihood, the court views the injured party as though the one who caused the injury caused him to grind with a mill, as even a blind person can do this. If one deafened another, he gives him his entire value as compensation for damage, because one lacking the ability to hear is not fit for any form of employment.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืงื˜ืข ืืช ื™ื“ื• ื•ืœื ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ืฉื™ื‘ืจ ืืช ืจื’ืœื• ื•ืœื ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ืกื™ืžื ืืช ืขื™ื ื• ื•ืœื ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื—ื™ืจืฉื• ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ื‘ื—ื“ ืื•ืžื“ื ื ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื—ื“ื ื—ื“ื ืืžื“ื™ื ืŸ ื•ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื”


ยง Rava raises a dilemma: If one severed the hand of another, and the court did not yet evaluate him to determine the compensation, and then he broke his leg, and the court did not yet evaluate him for this additional injury, and then he blinded his eye, and the court did not yet evaluate him for this further injury; and ultimately he deafened him, what is the halakha? Do we say: Since the court did not evaluate him each time, one evaluation is sufficient for the court to determine his compensation, and the one who caused him injury must give him his entire value at once, as that is the compensation for deafening him? Or perhaps we say: We evaluate each injury one by one, and we obligate the one who caused him injury to give him compensation for each.


ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ ืœื™ื” ืฆืขืจ ื•ื‘ื•ืฉืช ื“ื›ืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ื—ื“ื ื ื”ื™ ื“ื ื–ืง ื•ืจื™ืคื•ื™ ื•ืฉื‘ืช ื“ื›ืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ื—ื“ื ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื•ื”ื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืฆืขืจ ื•ื‘ื•ืฉืช ืžื™ื”ืช ื“ื›ืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ื—ื“ื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ื“ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืฆืขืจ ื•ื‘ื•ืฉืช


Rava explains the dilemma: The difference is with regard to whether the one who caused the injury must give him monetary compensation for pain and humiliation for each and every one of the injuries. Although he does not give him monetary compensation for damage, medical costs, and loss of livelihood for each and every one of the injuries, since, ultimately, he is giving him his entire value after deafening him, he is like someone who killed him, and therefore he gives him his entire value and no more; in any event, must he give compensation for pain and humiliation for each and every one of the injuries, as the injured party had pain and humiliation each time?


ื•ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ืงื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ื—ื“ื ื—ื“ื ื‘ืขื™ ืœืžื™ืชื‘ ืœื™ื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืฉืœื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืชื™ืงื•


Rava continues: And if you say as a resolution to this dilemma that since the fact is that the court had not evaluated him after each injury, the one who caused him injury pays him his entire value all together, then there is another dilemma: If the court had evaluated him after each injury but the one who caused the injury had not paid the compensation before he deafened him, what is the halakha? Do we say: Since it is so that the court evaluated him, the one who caused him injury is required to give him the compensation for each and every one of the injuries? Or perhaps, since the one who caused him injury had not yet paid those compensations before deafening him, he must give him his entire value. The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื” ืฉื‘ืช ื”ืคื•ื—ืชืชื• ื‘ื“ืžื™ื ืžื”ื• ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื›ื”ื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื• ื•ืฆืžืชื” ื™ื“ื• ื•ืกื•ืคื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืกื•ืคื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื”ืช ืืคื—ืชื™ื”


Rabba raises a dilemma: If one injured another, causing him loss of livelihood that diminishes his monetary value, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains: What are the circumstances of this case? For example, in a case where he struck him on his hand and his hand became weakened so that he could not work, but his hand will ultimately return to its original health, what is the halakha? Should one say: Since his hand will ultimately return to its original health, he does not need to give him any compensation whatsoever for the damage? Or perhaps, in any event, he has diminished his value for now.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืžื›ื” ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืืžื• ื•ืœื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ื—ื‘ื•ืจื” ื•ื”ื—ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื


Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a mishna (87a): One who strikes his father or his mother and did not cause them to have a bruise, and who therefore is not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, which is the penalty for one who causes his parent a bruise, and one who injures another on Yom Kippur, and therefore is liable for excision from the World-to-Come [karet] and not liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment,


Scroll To Top