מתני׳ <big><strong>החובל</strong></big> בחבירו חייב עליו משום חמשה דברים בנזק בצער בריפוי בשבת ובושת:
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE WHO INJURES A FELLOW MAN BECOMES LIABLE TO HIM FOR FIVE ITEMS: FOR DEPRECIATION, FOR PAIN, FOR HEALING, FOR LOSS OF TIME AND FOR DEGRADATION. HOW IS IT WITH 'DEPRECIATION'? IF HE PUT OUT HIS EYE, CUT OFF HIS ARM OR BROKE HIS LEG, THE INJURED PERSON IS CONSIDERED AS IF HE WERE A SLAVE BEING SOLD IN THE MARKET PLACE, AND A VALUATION IS MADE AS TO HOW MUCH HE WAS WORTH [PREVIOUSLY]. AND HOW MUCH HE IS WORTH [NOW]. 'PAIN' — IF HE BURNT HIM EITHER WITH A SPIT OR WITH A NAIL, EVEN THOUGH ON HIS [FINGER] NAIL WHICH IS A PLACE WHERE NO BRUISE COULD BE MADE, IT HAS TO BE CALCULATED HOW MUCH A MAN OF EQUAL STANDING WOULD REQUIRE TO BE PAID TO UNDERGO SUCH PAIN. 'HEALING' — IF HE HAS STRUCK HIM, HE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY MEDICAL EXPENSES. SHOULD ULCERS [MEANWHILE] ARISE ON HIS BODY, IF AS A RESULT OF THE WOUND, THE OFFENDER WOULD BE LIABLE, BUT IF NOT AS A RESULT OF THE WOUND, HE WOULD BE EXEMPT. WHERE THE WOUND WAS HEALED BUT REOPENED, HEALED AGAIN BUT REOPENED, HE WOULD STILL BE UNDER OBLIGATION TO HEAL HIM. IF, HOWEVER, IT HAD COMPLETELY HEALED [BUT HAD SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED] HE WOULD NO MORE BE UNDER OBLIGATION TO HEAL HIM. 'LOSS OF TIME' — THE INJURED PERSON IS CONSIDERED AS IF HE WERE A WATCHMAN OF CUCUMBER BEDS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As even a lame or one-armed person could be employed in this capacity.
');"><sup>1</sup></span>
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
Our mishna - One who injures: "The one who strikes an animal... shall pay for it..." - juxtaposed to it is "If a man gives.": It appears to Rabbi Yitzchak that we do not include [the words], "juxtaposed to it is" - since, behold, it did not expound on the basis of juxtaposed phrases (smukhin), but [rather] on the basis of a textual connection (gezera shava), as it says later, "we are saying [a scriptural connection between] "strike" and "strike." And it also states later, "And since it is written, 'You shall not take ransom,' why do I need [the (scriptural) connection between] 'strike' and 'strike?'" [From this,] it is implied that it is a scriptural connection and not juxtaposed phrases. And also when it challenges nearby, "Why did you see to learn it from, 'Whoever strikes an animal;' let it be learned from, 'Whoever strikes a man'" - [if the teaching was really based upon juxtaposition,] what is the difficulty; is it not based upon juxtaposed phrases, and "Whoever strikes a man" is not juxtaposed to "If a man gives!" And if you will ask, and since it learned it from a scriptural connection [and not from] juxtaposed phrases, why was it forced to bring the verse of "The one who mortally strikes an animal shall make it good," and discard the verse of "Whoever strikes an animal" that it brought above; one can answer that "Whoever strikes an animal" was needed for the teacher of the House of Hezkiah - and for the one that does not [agree with that teacher], he expounds [it] in the beginning of [the chapter called] Hanechenakin (Sanhedrin 84b), "Just like 'Whoever strikes an animal' for medicinal purposes is exempt, etc." And also (another answer) is that once it retracted "Whoever strikes a man," which is with the death penalty, it retracted it completely. And [instead] it took this verse of "The one who mortally strikes an animal" which is juxtaposed to ""If a man gives a blemish." And according to this, we are able to include [the words], "juxtaposed to it is" - since because it is juxtaposed to [the other verse], it took this verse, but not because of [the exegetical tool of] juxtaposed phrases.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Bava Kamma
We are learning [a scriptural connection between] "strike" and "strike": Even though the verses are not similar, we are learning a scriptural connection (gezera shava), as was taught in the House of Rabbi Yishmael (Eruvin 51a), "and the Priest came and the Priest left" [wherein the connection is made even though the two phrases are dissimilar]. And [the phrase], "whoever strikes a man," that we learned here, it is [just the word (or concept)] "strike" that was meant, and it was learned from [the verse], "If a man injures his neighbor," since an injury comes from a strike.
