Bava Kamma 169

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'. ');">¹</span>

רבי סבר אין דנין אותו בכלל ופרט ובן עזאי סבר דנין אותו בכלל ופרט וכי תימא חבורה לרבי למה לי לדמים יתרים:

Rabbi maintaining that in such a case the principle of a generalisation followed by a specification does not apply,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To render the generalisation altogether ineffective; cf supra p. 371. ');">²</span>

אומדין כמה אדם כיוצא בזה רוצה ליטול וכו': צער במקום נזק היכי שיימינן

whereas Ben 'Azzai maintained that the principle of a generalisation followed by a specification does apply.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in such a case. ');">³</span>

אמר אבוה דשמואל אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליטול לקטוע לו ידו לקטוע לו ידו לא צער לחודיה הוא הא כולהו חמשה דברים איכא ועוד בשופטני עסקינן אלא לקטוע ידו הקטועה ידו הקטועה נמי לא צער לחודיה איכא הא צער ובושת איכא דכסיפא ליה מילתא למשקל מבשרו למשדייה לכלבים

And should you ask why, according to Rabbi, was it necessary to insert 'bruise',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the term 'burning' is a generalisation and by itself implies both with a bruise and without a bruise. ');">⁴</span>

אלא אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליטול לקטוע לו ידו המוכתב למלכות בין סם לסייף אמרי הכא נמי לא שקיל ומצער נפשיה

[the answer would be that it was necessary to impose the payment of] additional money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for Depreciation as explained by Rashi, or for the Pain where the burning left a mark and thus aggravated the ill feeling (Tosaf ). ');">⁵</span>

אלא אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן לקטוע לו ידו המוכתב למלכות בין סייף לסם

IT HAS TO BE CALCULATED HOW MUCH A MAN OF EQUAL STANDING WOULD REQUIRE TO BE PAID TO UNDERGO SUCH PAIN. But how is pain calculated in a case where Depreciation [also has to be paid]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as where an arm was cut off and Depreciation had already been paid. ');">⁶</span>

האי ליטול ליתן מבעי ליה אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ליטול זה מזה מה שנתן זה:

— The father of Samuel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abba b. Abba. ');">⁷</span>

רפוי הכהו חייב לרפאותו וכו': [ת"ר] עלו בו צמחים מחמת המכה ונסתרה המכה חייב לרפאותו וחייב ליתן לו דמי שבתו שלא מחמת המכה אינו חייב לרפאותו ואינו חייב ליתן לו דמי שבתו

replied: We have to estimate how much a man would require to be paid to have his arm cut off. To have his arm cut off? Would this involve only Pain and not also all the Five Items?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the problem raised deals with a case where the other items have already been paid for. ');">⁸</span>

ר' יהודה אומר אף מחמת המכה חייב לרפאותו ואינו חייב ליתן לו דמי שבתו וחכמים אומרים שבתו ורפואתו כל שחייב בשבת חייב בריפוי ושאינו חייב בשבת אינו חייב בריפוי

Moreover, are we dealing with fools [who would consent for any amount to have their arm cut off]? — It must therefore refer to the cutting off of a mutilated arm.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is still attached to the body but unable to perform any work. ');">⁹</span>

במאי קא מיפלגי אמר רבה אשכחתינהו לרבנן בבי רב דיתבי וקאמרי הכא במכה ניתנה לאגד קמיפלגי

But even [if the calculation be made on the basis of] a mutilated arm, would it amount only to Pain and not also to Pain plus Degradation, as it is surely a humiliation that a part of the body should be taken away and thrown to dogs? — It must therefore mean that we estimate how much a man whose arm had by a written decree of the Government to be taken off by means of a drug would require that it should be cut off by means of a sword. But I might say that even in such a case no man would take anything [at all] to hurt himself [so much]? — It must therefore mean that we have to estimate how much a man whose arm had by a written decree of the Government to be cut off by means of a sword would be prepared to pay that it might be taken off by means of a drug. But if so, instead of TO BE PAID should it not be written 'to pay'? — Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: It means that payment to the plaintiff will have to be made by the offender to the extent of the amount which the person sentenced would have been prepared to pay.

רבנן סברי מכה ניתנה לאגד ורבי יהודה סבר מכה לא ניתנה לאגד ריפוי דתנא ביה קרא מיחייב שבת דלא תנא ביה קרא לא מיחייב

'HEALING': — IF HE HAS STRUCK HIM HE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY MEDICAL EXPENSES etc. Our Rabbis taught: Should ulcers grow on his body as a result of the wound and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Maim. Yad, Hobel, II, 19 reads 'or'.] ');">¹⁰</span>

ואמינא להו אנא אי מכה לא ניתנה לאגד ריפוי נמי לא מיחייב אלא דכולי עלמא מכה ניתנה לאגד ולא ניתנה לאגד יתירה

the wound break open again, he has still to heal him and is liable to pay him for Loss of Time, but if it was not caused through the wound he has not to heal him and need not pay him for Loss of Time. R. Judah, however, said that even if it was caused through the wound, though he has to heal him, he has not to pay him for Loss of Time. The Sages said: The Loss of Time and Healing [are mentioned together in Scripture:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 19. ');">¹¹</span>

ר' יהודה סבר כיון דלא ניתנה לאגד יתירה ריפוי דתנא ביה קרא מיחייב שבת דלא תנא ביה קרא לא מיחייב ורבנן סברי כיון דתנא ביה קרא בריפוי אשבת נמי מיחייב דאיתקש לריפוי

Wherever there is liability for Loss of Time there is liability for Healing but wherever there is no liability for Loss of Time there is no liability for Healing. In regard to what principle do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Judah and the other Rabbis. ');">¹²</span>

ור' יהודה סבר שבת לא מיחייב דמעטיה רחמנא רק ורבנן רק לשלא מחמת המכה הוא דאתא

differ? — Rabbah said: 'I found the Rabbis at the School of Rab sitting and saying<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the name of Rab; cf. Suk. 17a. ');">¹³</span>

ולרבנן בתראי דאמרי כל שחייב בשבת חייב בריפוי וכל שאינו חייב בשבת אינו חייב בריפוי ריפוי דתנא ביה קרא למה לי מיבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל דתניא דבי ר' ישמעאל אומר (שמות כא, יט) ורפא ירפא מכאן שניתן רשות לרופא לרפאות

that the question whether [or not] a wound may be bandaged<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prevent the cold from penetrating the wound though the bandage may cause swelling through excessive heat. ');">¹⁴</span>

ת"ר מנין שאם עלו בו צמחים מחמת המכה ונסתרה המכה שחייב לרפאותו וחייב ליתן לו שבתו ת"ל רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא יכול אפילו שלא מחמת המכה ת"ל רק ר' יוסי בר יהודה אומר אף מחמת המכה פטור שנאמר רק

[by the injured person] was the point at issue. The Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In opposing R. Judah. ');">¹⁵</span>

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'. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר מר יכול אפילו שלא מחמת המכה ת"ל רק שלא מחמת המכה בעי קרא

that there is liability,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the plaintiff had no right to bandage the wound which caused the ulcers to grow. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמרי מאי שלא מחמת המכה כדתניא הרי שעבר על דברי רופא ואכל דבש או כל מיני מתיקה מפני שדבש וכל מיני מתיקה קשין למכה והעלה מכתו גרגותני יכול יהא חייב לרפאותו ת"ל רק מאי גרגותני אמר אביי נאתא כריכתא מאי אסותיה אהלא וקירא וקלבא

but for Loss of Time of which there is no double mention in Scripture there is no liability. I, however, said to them that if a wound may not be bandaged there would be no liability even for Healing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the plaintiff would be to blame for the ulcer that grew through the bandage if he had no right to put it on. ');">¹⁸</span>

ואי א"ל אסייך אנא א"ל דמית עלי כאריא ארבא ואי א"ל מייתינא אסיא דמגן במגן א"ל אסיא דמגן במגן מגן שוה

We must therefore say that all are agreed that a wound may be bandaged, but not too much; R. Judah held that since it may not be bandaged too much [it is only] for Healing of which there is a double mention in Scripture that there will be liability, but for Loss of Time of which there is no double mention in Scripture there will be no liability, whereas the Rabbis maintained that since Scripture made a double mention of healing there will be liability also for Loss of Time which is compared to Healing. R. Judah, however, maintained that there will be no liability for Loss of Time as Scripture excepted this by [the term] 'only';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 19. ');">¹¹</span>

ואי אמר מייתינא לך אסיא רחיקא אמר ליה אסיא רחיקא עינא עוירא

to which the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first Tanna. ');">¹⁹</span>

ואי א"ל היאך הב לי לדידי ואנא מסינא נפשאי א"ל פשעת בנפשך ושקלת מינאי טפי ואי א"ל קוץ לי מקץ א"ל כל שכן דפשעת בנפשך וקרו לי שור המזיק

might rejoin that 'only' [was intended to exclude the case] where the ulcers that grew were not caused by the wound. But according to the Rabbis mentioned last<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Under the name of Sages. ');">²⁰</span>

תנא וכולן משתלמין במקום נזק מנהני מילי אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא אמר קרא (שמות כא, כה) פצע תחת פצע ליתן צער במקום נזק

who stated that whenever there is liability for Loss of Time there is liability for Healing, whereas where there is no liability for loss of Time there could be no liability for Healing — why do I require the double mention of Healing? — This was necessary for the lesson enunciated by the School of R. Ishmael, as taught: 'The School of R. Ishmael taught: [The words] "And to heal he shall heal"<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 487, n. 6. ');">²¹</span>

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. ');">²²</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. ');">²³</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. ');">²⁴</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. ');">²⁵</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. ');">²⁶</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? ');">²⁷</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. ');">²⁸</span> What is the meaning of gargutani? — Abaye said: A rough seam.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: 'wild flesh'. ');">²⁹</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. ');">³⁰</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. ');">³¹</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.] ');">³²</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. ');">³³</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. ');">³⁴</span> to indicate the payment of pain even in the case where Depreciation [is paid independently].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 26b. ');">³⁵</span> But is not this verse required