Bava Kamma

to extend liability [for Depreciation] to the case of inadvertence equally with that of willfulness, and to the case of compulsion equally with that of willingness? — If so [that it was required only for such a rule] Scripture would have said 'Wound in the case of wound'; why [say] '… for wound', unless to indicate that both inferences are to be made from it?  R. Papa said in the name of Raba: Scripture says And to heal shall he heal,  [thus enjoining] payment for Healing even in the case where Depreciation is paid independently. But is not that verse required for the lesson taught at the School of R. Ishmael for it was indeed taught at the School of R. Ishmael that [the text] 'And to heal he shall heal' [is the source] whence it is derived that authorisation was granted [by God] to the medical man to heal?  — If so [that it was to be utilised solely for that implication] Scripture would have said, 'Let the physician cause him to be healed' — This shows that payment for Healing should be made even in the case where Depreciation [is paid independently]. But still, is not the text required as said above to provide a double mention in respect of Healing? — If so, Scripture should have said either 'to cause to heal [and] to cause to heal'  or 'he shall cause to heal [and] he shall cause to heal.  Why say 'and to heal he shall heal'  unless to prove that payment should be made for Healing even in the case where Deprecation [is paid independently]. From this discussion it would appear that a case could arise where the Four Items would be paid even where no Depreciation was caused. But how could such a case be found where no Depreciation was caused? — Regarding Pain it was stated: 'PAIN': — IF HE BURNT HIM EITHER WITH A SPIT OR WITH A NAIL, EVEN ON HIS [FINGER] NAIL WHICH IS A PLACE WHERE NO BRUISE COULD BE MADE, Healing could apply in a case where one had been suffering from some wound which was being healed up, but the offender put on the wound a very strong ointment which made the skin look white [like that of a leper] so that other ointments have to be put on to enable him to regain the natural colour of the skin — Loss of Time [without Depreciation could occur] where the offender [wrongfully] locked him up in a room and thus kept him idle. Degradation [could apply] where he spat on his face. 'LOSS OF TIME': — THE INJURED PERSON IS CONSIDERED AS IF HE WERE A WATCHMAN OF CUCUMBER BEDS. Our Rabbis taught: '[In the case of assessing] Loss of Time, the injured person is considered as if he would have been a watchman of cucumbers. You might say that the requirements of justice suffer thereby, since when he was well  he would surely not necessarily have worked for the wages of a watchman of cucumber beds but might have carried buckets of water and been paid accordingly, or have acted as a messenger and been paid accordingly.  But in truth the requirements of justice do not suffer, for he has already been paid for the value of his hand or for the value of his leg. Raba said: If he cut off [another's] arm he must pay him for the value of the arm, and as to Loss of Time,  the injured person is to be considered as if he were a watchman of cucumber beds; so also if he broke [the other's] leg, he must pay him for the value of the leg, and as to Loss of Time the injured person is to be considered as if he were a door-keeper; if he put out [another's] eye he must pay him for the value of his eye, and as to Loss of Time the injured person is to be considered as if he were grinding in the mill; but if he made [the other] deaf, he must pay for the value of the whole of him. Raba asked: If he had cut off [another man's] arm and before any appraisement had been made he also broke his leg, and again before any appraisement had been made he put out his eye, and again before any appraisement had been made he made him at last deaf, what would be the law? Shall we say that since no valuation has yet been made one valuation would be enough, so that he would have to pay him altogether for the value of the whole of him, or shall perhaps each occurrence be appraised by itself and paid for accordingly? The practical difference would be whether he would have to pay for Pain and Degradation of each occurrence separately. It is true that he would not have to pay for Depreciation, Healing and Loss of Time regarding each occurrence separately, the reason being that since he has to pay him for the whole of him the injured person is considered as if killed altogether, and there could surely be made no more payment than for the value of the whole of him; but in respect of Pain and Degradation the payment should be made for each occurrence separately, as he surely suffered pain and degradation on each occasion separately. If, however, you find it [more correct] to say that since no appraisement had been yet made he can pay him for the value of the whole of him altogether, what would be the law where separate appraisements were made? Shall we say that since separate valuations were made the payment should be for each occurrence by itself, or since the payment had not yet been made he has perhaps to pay him for the value of the whole of him? This must remain undecided. Rabbah asked: What would be the law regarding Loss of Time that renders the injured person of less value [for the time being]. How could we give an example? For instance, where he struck him on his arm and the arm was broken but will ultimately recover fully.  What would be the legal position?  [Shall we say that] since it will ultimately recover fully he need not pay him [for the value of the arm], or perhaps [not so], since for the time being he diminished his value? — Come and hear:  If one strikes his father and his mother without making on them a bruise,  or injures another man on the Day of Atonement,