Commentary for Bava Kamma 169:17
איכא דאמרי אף מחמת המכה פטור לגמרי כרבנן בתראי ואיכא דאמרי אף מחמת המכה פטור משבת וחייב בריפוי כמאן כאבוה:
maintained that a wound may be bandaged, whereas R. Judah maintained that a wound may not be bandaged, so that [it was only] for Healing of which there is a double mention in Scripture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 19 lit., 'to heal he shall heal'. ');"><sup>16</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