Commentary for Bava Kamma 169:1
בכלל ופרט המרוחקים זה מזה קמפלגי
they were differing on the question of a generalisation and a specification placed at a distance from each other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as here the term 'hurts' which is a generalisation as it implies all kinds of burning whether with a bruise or without a bruise, and the term 'bruise' which specifies an injury with a bruise, are separated from each other by the intervening clause 'wound for wound'. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
Rashi on Bava Kamma
Permission was given to doctors to heal - and we do not say that God harms and He Himself heals.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
Why is there a need for double language? One might have thought that the verse speaks only of healing from human injury but illness that comes from heaven should not receive medical intervention lest it appear as though one is undermining the decree of the king. The Torah then comes and says it is fine.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Bava Kamma
Kol shekein: [All the more so] is it not good for me like this; as if you will be negligent with yourself, it will be a great disgrace for me - since they will call me an "ox that damages."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy