Reference for Bava Kamma 168:19

אי נמי דכולי עלמא כויה בין דאית בה חבורה בין דלית בה חבורה משמע והכא

in Babylon? — It may, however, be said that where an ox was declared <i>Mu'ad</i> there [in Eretz Yisrael]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the judges are Mumhin and thus qualified to administer also penal justice. ');">¹⁷</span> and brought over here [in Babylon, there could be a case of <i>Mu'ad</i> even in Babylon] — But surely this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to bring over an ox already declared Mu'ad in Eretz Yisrael to Babylon. ');">¹⁸</span> is a matter of no frequent occurrence, and have you not stated that in a matter not of frequent occurrence we cannot act as their agents? — [A case of <i>Mu'ad</i> could arise even in Babylon] where the Rabbis of Eretz Yisrael came to Babylon and declared the ox <i>Mu'ad</i> here. But still, this also is surely a matter of no frequent occurrence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Keth. 110b. ');">¹⁹</span> and have you not stated that in a matter not of frequent occurrence we cannot act as their agents? — Raba must therefore have made his statement [that payment will be collected even in Babylon where chattel was damaged by Cattle] with reference to Tooth and Foot which are <i>Mu'ad ab initio.</i> 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 etc. Would Pain be compensated even in a case where no depreciation was thereby caused? Who was the Tanna [that maintains such a view]? Raba replied: He was Ben 'Azzai, as taught: Rabbi said that 'burning'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 25. ');">²⁰</span> without bruising is mentioned at the outset, whereas Ben 'Azzai said that [it is with] bruising [that it] is mentioned at the outset. What is the point at issue between them? Rabbi holds that as 'burning' implies even without a bruise, the Divine Law had to insert 'bruise',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">²¹</span> to indicate that it is only where the burning caused a bruise that there would be liability,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the payment of Pain. ');">²²</span> but if otherwise this would not be so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Pain would not be compensated since no depreciation was thereby caused. ');">²³</span> whereas Ben 'Azzai maintained that as 'burning' [by itself] implied a bruise, the Divine Law had to insert 'bruise' to indicate that 'burning' meant even without a bruise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pain would therefore even in this case be compensated in accordance with Ben 'Azzai who could thus be considered to have been the Tanna of the Mishnaic ruling. ');">²⁴</span> R. Papa demurred: On the contrary, it is surely the reverse that stands to reason:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Tanna of the Mishnaic ruling was most probably Rabbi and not his opponent, and moreover the statements made by Rabbi and Ben 'Azzai should be taken to give the final implication of the law and not as it would have been on first thoughts. ');">²⁵</span> Rabbi who said that 'burning', [without bruising] is mentioned at the outset holds that as 'burning,' implies also a bruise, the Divine Law inserted 'bruise' to indicate that 'burning,' meant even without a bruise,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that Pain will be paid even in this case according to Rabbi who was the Tanna of the Mishnaic ruling. ');">²⁶</span> whereas Ben 'Azzai who said that [it was] with bruising [that it] was mentioned at the outset maintains that as 'burning' implies even without a bruise, the Divine Law purposely inserted 'bruise' to indicate that it was only where the 'burning' has caused a bruise that there will be liability, but if otherwise this would not be so; for in this way they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rabbi and Ben 'Azzai. ');">²⁷</span> would have referred in their statements to the law as it stands now in its final form. Or, alternatively, it may be said that both held that 'burning' implies both with a bruise and without a bruise, and here

Jastrow