Reference for Bava Kamma 169:24
האי מבעי ליה
[are the source] whence it can be derived that authorisation was granted [by God] to the medical man to heal.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is not regarded as 'flying in the face of Heaven'; v. Ber. 60a. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Our Rabbis taught: Whence can we learn that where ulcers have grown on account of the wound and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 486, n. 5. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> the wound breaks open again, the offender would still be liable to heal it and also pay him for [the additional] Loss of Time? Because it says: Only he shall pay for the loss of his time and to heal he shall heal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 19. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> [That being so, I might say] that this is so even where the ulcers were not caused by the wound. It therefore says further 'only'. R. Jose b. Judah, however, said that even where they were caused by the wound he would be exempt, since it says 'only'. Some say that [the view of R. Jose that] 'even where they were caused by the wound he would be exempt' means altogether from any [liability whatsoever],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even from Healing. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> which is also the view of the Rabbis mentioned last. But others say that even where they were caused by the wound he would be exempt means only from paying for additional Loss of Time, though he would be liable for Healing. With whom [would R. Jose b. Judah then be concurring in his statement]? With his own father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Judah who orders payment for Healing but not for Loss of Time. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> The Master stated: '[In that case I might say] that this is so even where the ulcers were not caused by the wound. It therefore says further "only".' But is a text necessary to teach [that there is exemption] in the case where they were caused not by the wound?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why indeed would liability have been suggested? ');"><sup>27</sup></span> — It may be replied that what is meant by 'caused not by the wound' is as taught: 'If the injured person disobeyed his medical advice and ate honey or any other sort of sweet things, though honey and any other sort of sweetness are harmful to a wound, and the wound in consequence became gargutani [scabby], it might have been said that the offender should still be liable to [continue to] heal him. To rule out this idea it says "only".'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that the liability is qualified and thus excepted in such and similar cases. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> What is the meaning of gargutani? — Abaye said: A rough seam.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: 'wild flesh'. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> How can it be cured? — By aloes, wax and resin. If the offender says to the injured person: 'I can personally act as your healer',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And need thus not employ a medical man. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> the other party can retort 'You are in my eyes like a lurking lion.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'I am not prepared to trust you'; cf. B.M. 101; B.B. 168a. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> So also if the offender says to him 'I will bring you a physician who will heal you for nothing', he might object, saying 'A physician who heals for nothing is worth nothing.' Again, if he says to him 'I will bring you a physician from a distance', he might say to him, 'If the physician is a long way off, the eye will be blind [before he arrives].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So S. Strashun; Rashi: 'If the physician is from far he might blind the eye'; others: 'A physician from afar has a blind eye'. i.e., he is little concerned about the fate of his patient.] ');"><sup>32</sup></span> If, on the other hand, the injured person says to the offender, 'Give the money to me personally as I will cure myself', he might retort 'You might neglect yourself and thus get from me too much.' Even if the injured person says to him, 'Make it a fixed and definite sum', he might object and say, 'There is all the more danger that you might neglect yourself [and thus remain a cripple], and I will consequently be called "A harmful ox."' A Tanna taught: 'All [the Four Items]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Pain, Healing, Loss of Time, and Degradation. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> will be paid [even] in the case where Depreciation [is paid independently].' Whence can this ruling be deduced? — Said R. Zebid in the name of Raba: Scripture says: Wound for wound,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 25. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> to indicate the payment of pain even in the case where Depreciation [is paid independently].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 26b. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> But is not this verse required