Bava Kamma 85a — the Talmud in English

And here they disagree

over “the generalization” and “the specification” that are distant from one another

—if there is an interruption in the verse between the “generalization” and the “specification,”

they disagree

: Rabbi and Ben Azzai.

Rabbi maintains:

A general statement and a specific statement separated from one another

are not interpreted as a general statement followed by a specific statement.

Therefore, the specific statement does not explain the general statement by saying, “Only what is included in the specific statement is included in the general statement.” It is as though the verse had stated a general statement without a specific statement, and everything is included.

Here too, “burning” is a “generalization,” since everything is implied by it, whether burning that involves a wound or burning that does not involve a wound; and “wound” is a “specification.” If “wound” had been adjacent in the verse to “burning,” we would have said: “Nothing is included in the generalization except what is in the specification.” But since “wound for wound” interrupts between “burning” and “wound,” therefore here we do not apply the rule of “generalization and specification”; rather, it is like a “generalization” alone having been stated, and everything is included.

And Ben Azzai holds

: a generalization and a specification distant from one another

are treated as a generalization and a specification,

therefore the “specification”

“wound” is its explanation of the “generalization,” and there is no payment-liability for burning unless it is accompanied by a wound.

And if you should say

[if you ask]:

“Why do I need ‘wound’ according to Rabbi!?”

For according to your words, it does not come to explain “burning” that was stated first in the verse!?

One may say: “Wound” comes

to

make him liable

for extra payments.

For otherwise you might say: Burning accompanied by a wound is like burning not accompanied by a wound, and he pays only for pain. It teaches us: For burning accompanied by a wound, he pays, in addition to the pain of

the burning,

also for the wound. We learned in the Mishna: “Pain, etc., what is the procedure?”

They assess how much a person of similar standing would wish to receive

in order to suffer pain like this

.”

And we challenge:

Pain

that is

in place of damage,

for example, where he cut off his hand and paid him for the hand according to the decrease in his value as a slave sold in the market,

how do we assess

[how do we evaluate] the pain separately!?

He said

[he explained]:

Shmuel’s father: They assess how much

money

a person would wish to receive

in order that he agree

to have it cut off

—his

hand.

cut off.

And we challenge: If he is willing

to have his hand cut off, it is not pain alone

[only]

that it is,

for

all five matters are present;

if so, you cannot assess the pain by itself!?

Furthermore,

are we dealing

with fools

[fools]

here,

and who would agree to have his hand cut off in exchange for any fortune!?

And we explain:

Rather,

they assess for how much money a person would agree

to have cut off

[to have it cut off for him] his

severed hand

that is still attached by intertwined sinews, and is unfit for work. It follows that there is no “damage” here, but only “pain.”

And we challenge: It is still not satisfactory, for even to cut off

his severed hand, there is not pain alone,

for

there is

also

pain and

also

humiliation, for

it

the matter is embarrassing to him

[he is ashamed of the matter]

[he is ashamed of the matter]

to take

[to receive]

from his flesh in order to throw it

[to cast it]

to the dogs!?

And we explain:

Rather,

this is what Shmuel’s father said:

They assess how much a person would wish to receive to have his hand, which has been sentenced by the kingdom, cut off, with a drug rather than with a sword.

[A person whom the king punished by decreeing that his hand be cut off with a drug, which involves no pain in cutting off the hand: for how much money would he agree that his hand be cut off with a sword?]

The members of the academy said

[they wondered]:

Here

[in this situation]

also he would not take

[he would not accept]

and cause himself pain,

for no person is prepared to cause himself so much pain in exchange for all the money in the world!? Furthermore, it is impossible to claim that the assailant pay such a large sum, since it is impossible to compare the value of pain that has already occurred with the large sum a person would demand in order to agree to suffer . And we conclude:

Rather, they assess how much a person would wish to give to have his hand, which has been sentenced by the kingdom to be cut off with a sword, cut off with a drug instead.

[A person whom the king decreed should have his hand cut off with a sword: how much money is he prepared to pay the king’s agent to have his hand cut off with a drug without pain instead of with a sword.] And we challenge:

This

“to receive” requires “to give”!

That is, why do we say: How much money does a person wish “to receive”? In order to suffer pain like this, according to your words, we assess how much money a person is prepared “to give” in order not to suffer pain!?

He said [he explained]:

[He explained:]

to take this [the injured party]

[the injured party]

from this one [from the one who inflicted the injury]

[the assailant]

what this one gave [what the injured party was prepared to pay the king’s agent, so that he would not suffer].

[what the injured party had been prepared to pay the king’s agent, so that he would not suffer].

We learned in the Mishna:

Medical treatment —

if he struck him, he is obligated to provide him with medical treatment.

If growths appeared on him, if because of the injury, he is obligated; if not because of the injury, he is exempt. If it healed and reopened, it healed and reopened, he is obligated to provide him with medical treatment. If it healed completely, he is not obligated to provide him with medical treatment.

The Sages taught:

if growths appeared on him [blisters, pus], if

because of the injury

they appeared on him, even though the injury healed

and the injury reopened [returned to its former state],

[returning to its previous state],

he is obligated to provide him with medical treatment

and

also

he is obligated to give him

the payment for his unemployment,

if he became bedridden because of the growths.

If growths appeared on him

not because of the injury, he is not obligated to provide him with medical treatment, and he is not obligated to give him the payment for his unemployment,

and later it explains that “not because of the injury” means that he violated the physician’s instructions and because of this growths appeared on him.

Rabbi Judah says: even

if they appeared on him

because of the injury, he is obligated

he

to provide him with medical treatment, but he is not obligated to give him the payment for his unemployment,

and later we explain their dispute.

And the Sages say: his unemployment and his medical treatment

the Torah obligated and juxtaposed them to one another. Therefore,

everyone who is obligated for unemployment is obligated for medical treatment, and one who is not obligated for unemployment is not obligated for medical treatment.

Accordingly, since he is not obligated for unemployment, although they appeared on him because of the injury and in accordance with Rabbi Judah’s opinion, he is likewise not obligated for medical treatment.

The Gemara asks:

with regard to what do they disagree

the first tanna and Rabbi Judah!?

Rabba said: I found the Sages in the study hall sitting and saying [I found students in the study hall who sat and explained the dispute as follows]:

[I found students in the beit-midrash who were explaining the dispute as follows]:

Here, they disagree with regard to whether an injury is given to be bandaged,

whether the injured party is permitted to bandage the injury and wrap it so that he will not suffer from the cold, even though through this bandage the place of the injury becomes heated and because of this “growths” appear on him.

The Sages [the first tanna]

[the first tanna]

hold: an injury is given to be bandaged,

meaning, the injured party has permission to bandage his injury. Therefore, if growths appeared on him as a result of the bandaging, these are growths that come because of the injury, and he is obligated to pay him for his medical treatment and his unemployment.

And Rabbi Judah holds: an injury is not given to be bandaged

and the injured party is not permitted to bandage his injury because of the cold, and nevertheless

medical treatment, for which the verse repeated itself,

[that the Torah repeated itself concerning it] and doubled its wording: “and he shall surely heal,”

he is obligated

to pay him — by decree of the verse.

Unemployment, for which the verse did not repeat itself,

for it is stated: “only his unemployment he shall give,”

he is not obligated.

And according to the Sages: since he is not obligated for unemployment, he is not obligated for medical treatment, and below it explains what they expound from the fact that the verse repeated itself concerning medical treatment.

And I said to them [Rabba said to the Sages who were sitting in the study hall]:

[Rabba said to the Sages who were sitting in the house of study]:

If an injury is not given

at all

to be bandaged, medical treatment also he is not obligated

for it is impossible that the injured party should act in a manner that is entirely unacceptable and be able to claim his medical treatment and his unemployment from the one who inflicted the injury.

Rather,

their dispute should be understood as follows:

everyone

holds:

an injury is given to be bandaged, but it is not given to be excessively bandaged,

[an exceedingly tight bandage], and here, with what are we dealing? When the injured party bandaged the injury with an “excessive bandage” for his comfort, and through this growths appeared on him and he became bedridden.

And in this they disagree:

Rabbi Judah holds: since it is not given to be excessively bandaged,

if so, these growths came through the negligence of the injured party, and logically one should say that the one who inflicted the injury should be liable neither for his medical treatment nor for his unemployment.

Nevertheless,

medical treatment, for which the verse repeated itself —

he is obligated

to pay, but

unemployment, for which the verse did not repeat itself —

he is not obligated.

And the Sages [the first tanna]

[the first tanna]

hold: since the verse repeated itself concerning medical treatment,

and he is obligated to provide him with medical treatment even when he used an excessive bandage, then

for unemployment [for his unemployment]

[for his incapacity]

he is also obligated, for

indeed

it was juxtaposed

unemployment

to medical treatment.

And Rabbi Judah holds:

with regard to

unemployment he is not obligated,

since

the Merciful One excluded it

and said:

“only

his unemployment he shall give,” and this “only” is a limitation — to exempt the one who inflicted the injury from paying the payment for his unemployment if the injured party bandaged himself with an “excessive bandage.”

And the Sages

hold: what the verse said,

“only,”

for growths appeared on him

not because of the injury, that it came

[it came] to teach, but when growths appeared on him because of an excessive bandage, the Merciful One did not exclude him, and he should be obligated through the juxtaposition of medical treatment; and medical treatment — the verse indeed repeated itself concerning it, to obligate him even though he bandaged the injury with an excessive bandage.

And we challenge:

and according to the later Sages [the “Sages” of the beraita]

[the “Sages” of the beraita]

who say:

medical treatment was juxtaposed to unemployment, and

everyone who is obligated for unemployment is obligated for medical treatment, and one who is not obligated for unemployment is not obligated for medical treatment,

and with an excessive bandage he is exempt both from unemployment and from medical treatment,

why do I need medical treatment, for which the verse repeated itself,

since it is not needed for an excessive bandage!?

And we answer:

it is needed

for the doubling of the wording of the verse

for what was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael.

For it was taught

in a beraita:

the school of Rabbi Ishmael says:

Why did the verse repeat itself and say:

“and he shall surely heal”

and was it not enough for it to say, “and he shall heal”?

Rather, one learns

from here that permission was given to a physician to heal,

whether for an injury brought by human hands or for an injury brought by Heaven, and we do not say: if Heaven brought him to illness, it is the decree of the King and it is forbidden for a physician to overturn it; rather, permission was given to heal every illness.

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if growths appeared on him because of the injury,

after the injury healed,

and the injury reopened

[returned to its former state],

that he is obligated

to provide him with medical treatment and is obligated to give him his unemployment?

The verse says: “Only his unemployment he shall give, and he shall surely heal”

and from the fact that the verse doubled its wording, we learn to obligate him, even though the injury had already healed, since the “growths” that came because of the injury caused the injury to return and reopen.

Could

[can you learn from here]:

even

if growths appeared on him

not because of the injury?

The verse says: “only”

it is a limitation, that he is obligated only if they appeared on him because of the injury.

Rabbi Yosei bar Judah says: even

if they appeared

because of the injury, he is exempt

and this matter we learn from what

is stated: “only.”

The amoraim disagreed in explaining the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Judah:

some say

even

if they appeared on him

because of the injury, he is exempt

he is

entirely like

the opinion of

the later Sages

who learned medical treatment from unemployment by juxtaposition: everyone who is exempt from unemployment is exempt from medical treatment.

And some say:

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah did not say:

even because of the injury he is exempt

but

from unemployment,

for it is stated, “only his unemployment he shall give,”

and he is obligated

he

for medical treatment,

for the verse repeated itself concerning it: “and he shall surely heal.”

And

according to whom

does Rabbi Yosei bar Judah hold?

Like his father

[like his father, Rabbi Judah], who said with regard to an excessive bandage: he is obligated for medical treatment but not for unemployment.

The master said

in the above beraita:

Could one

say that he is obligated

even

if growths appeared on him

not because of the injury? The verse says: “only”

his unemployment he shall give. It entered our mind that here, with what are we dealing? When the injury healed completely, and afterward growths came on their own.

And we are astonished:

does “not because of the injury” require a verse!?

It is obvious that the one who inflicted the injury is not obligated to pay for medical treatment and unemployment that did not come as a result of his injury!?

They said

[the members of the academy answered]:

What is “not because of the injury”

for which the verse is needed to exempt him,

as it was taught

in a beraita:

There was one who violated

the injured party

the physician’s instructions,

and ate honey or all kinds of sweets

although this physician had warned him not to eat

because honey and all kinds of sweets are harmful to an injury,

and he caused

his

injury to become a gargutni

because of what he ate.

Could it be that

the one who inflicted the injury

would be obligated to provide him with medical treatment

[for even though the injured party did not take care of himself by refraining from eating sweets, nevertheless this is not complete negligence, and it might enter one’s mind that the one who inflicted the injury would be obligated to provide him with medical treatment]?

The verse says: “only

his unemployment he shall give and he shall surely heal,” the verse excluded him, so that he would not be obligated for his unemployment and his medical treatment even in this slight negligence, that he violated the physician’s instructions.

And

what is “gargutni”

that the beraita said?

He said [he explained]

[he explained:]

Abyei: a coiled growth [“dead flesh” that exists in a living person].

[“dead flesh” present on a living person].

And what is its treatment

[how is it healed] through

ahala

[the name of a herb ]

and kira

[wax]

and kalba

[resin that drips from a tree ].

And if he said to him

the one who inflicted the injury to the injured party: “I do not want you to be healed by another physician who will take a large payment, but

I shall heal you” [I shall heal you],

[I will heal you], he

he can say to him

[the injured party can say to him]:

“You are considered to me like a lurking lion” [like a lion lying in wait], meaning: since you injured me, if you treat me to heal me, it is as though a lion that lies in wait to strike and devour is treating me; and no person is healed in this way, for the sick person must have peace of mind with regard to the physician.

[like a lion lying in ambush]. That is, since you injured me, if you treat me in order to heal me, it is as though a lion lying in ambush to strike and devour me were treating me. A person cannot be healed in such a manner, because the patient must feel at ease with the physician.

And if he said to him

the one who caused the damage:

“I shall bring you a physician who heals for free”

[I shall bring you a relative of mine who will treat and heal you without payment].

He can

say to him

the injured party: “I am not prepared to be healed by him, because

a physician who heals for free, his free treatment is worth nothing.”

[A physician who heals for free — his treatment is “free,” meaning it has no value.] Perhaps he will give him treatments that are ineffective, because his heart and thoughts are not focused on examining the patient’s essential need, since he does not expect to receive payment.

And if he said

the one who caused the damage:

“I shall bring you a distant physician”

[I shall bring you a physician who lives far away] and he will heal you at a lower price than the other physicians.

He can

say to him

the injured party: It is impossible to rely on

a distant physician,

because

the eye is blind,

it is possible that he will blind the eye of the one whom he treats, and he is not concerned, since he is destined to go on his way.

And if he says to him

the injured party: “

Give me

the money for my medical treatment,

and I shall heal myself.”

I shall heal myself.

He can

say to him

the injurer: I do not agree, for I am concerned lest

you were negligent with yourself

and you will not treat your injury properly,

and you will take more from me

you will demand from me a larger payment than another physician would have taken.

And if he says to him

the injured party: “

Cut off for me a fixed amount

let us fix in advance the amount of the healing, and if I am negligent and do not treat myself properly, you will not need to pay the difference.”

He can

say to him

the injurer:

All the more so

on the contrary,

that you were negligent with yourself

because of your desire for the money, and you will not treat yourself properly,

and

then

they will call me

all who see the injury:

“A damaging ox.”

The tanna

in the beraita:

And all of them

the payments for loss of work, medical treatment, humiliation, and pain

are paid

to the injured party even

in a case

where in any event he pays for the

damage

that he caused. The Gemara asks:

From where

is

this matter?

He said

he explained:

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: The verse says

[Exodus 21:25]

“A wound in place of a wound,”

and it is a superfluous verse, to teach us

to give pain

also

in a case of damage.

вылечить потерпевшего, поэтому до тех пор, пока рана не зажила полностью, на нем по-прежнему лежит прежняя обязанность: «пусть непременно вылечит его». А простой — это выплата за ущерб, причиненный тем, что его лишили возможности работать; по закону о выплатах за ущерб он обязан платить только за простой, вызванный самим действием, причинившим телесный ущерб, но не за «простой его простоя», то есть за простой, вызванный последующей задержкой. См. также «Хазон Иш» [Санhedрин 22:4], где написано: даже если рана должна была продлиться определенное время, а затем Небеса сжалились над потерпевшим и он быстро выздоровел, нанесший ущерб не обязан оплачивать лечение за оставшееся время, поскольку в итоге дополнительного ущерба ему причинено не было. Но если его лечение было оценено судом, его решение уже установлено и не меняется ни в сторону облегчения, ни в сторону ужесточения. [Так устраняется доказательство раби Шмуэля из случая, когда его оценили как нуждающегося в пяти днях лечения, ему дали сильнодействующее лекарство и он выздоровел за три дня.] в. Что касается приведенного нами случая с врачом, который лечит бесплатно: если обязанность состоит в оплате лечения, понятно, что он может привести врача, которому не нужно платить; но если это обязанность выплаты, необходимо изучить, каким образом он освобождается от своей обязанности посредством врача, лечащего бесплатно?! И следует сказать: поскольку он может найти врача бесплатно, он никогда не был обязан выплатить ему деньги. [Во всяком случае, доказано, что стоимость лечения не определяется по обычной плате за такое лечение

And we raise an objection:

This

verse, “a wound in place of a wound,”

is needed for him.