Bava Kamma

they were differing on the question of a generalisation and a specification placed at a distance from each other,  Rabbi maintaining that in such a case the principle of a generalisation followed by a specification does not apply,  whereas Ben 'Azzai maintained that the principle of a generalisation followed by a specification does apply.  And should you ask why, according to Rabbi, was it necessary to insert 'bruise',  [the answer would be that it was necessary to impose the payment of] additional money. 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]?  — The father of Samuel  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?  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.  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. '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  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:]  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  differ? — Rabbah said: 'I found the Rabbis at the School of Rab sitting and saying  that the question whether [or not] a wound may be bandaged  [by the injured person] was the point at issue. The Rabbis  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  that there is liability,  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.  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';  to which the Rabbis  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  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"  [are the source] whence it can be derived that authorisation was granted [by God] to the medical man to heal.' Our Rabbis taught: Whence can we learn that where ulcers have grown on account of the wound and  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.  [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],  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. 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?  — 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".'  What is the meaning of gargutani? — Abaye said: A rough seam.  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',  the other party can retort 'You are in my eyes like a lurking lion.'  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].'  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]  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,  to indicate the payment of pain even in the case where Depreciation [is paid independently].  But is not this verse required