Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) EVALUATION OF PAIN

(a) (Mishnah): We evaluate how much a person like this would want to receive...
(b) Question: How do we evaluate pain when there is also Nezek (he already receives compensation for losing the limb)!
(c) Answer (Shmuel's father): We evaluate how much a person like this would want to receive to have his leg or arm cut off.
(d) Objection #1: That is too much, he would demand money equal to all 5 damages!
(e) Objection #2: A normal person would not agree to have his limb cut off for any sum of money!
(f) Correction: We evaluate how much a person like this would want to receive to have his limb cut off if it was dangling (and useless).
(g) Objection: That is too much, that also entails embarrassment (that his limb will be fed to dogs)!
(h) Correction: We imagine that the king had decreed that his limb must be cut off; we evaluate how much a person would want to receive to have it cut off the way the damager did this, as opposed to through a potion (painlessly).
(i) Objection: A normal person would not agree to cause himself pain on condition to receive money!
(j) Correction: We imagine that the king had decreed that his limb must be cut off; we evaluate how much a person would pay to have it cut off through a potion, as opposed to the way the damager cut it.
(k) Question: But Shmuel's father said we evaluate how much a person like this would want to receive, not to pay!
(l) Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): He means, the victim receives from the damager what a man would pay to the king (to have his limb cut off painlessly).

(a) (Mishnah): Medical expenses - if Reuven hit Shimon, he must cure him...

1. (Beraisa): If sores developed on account of the blow and covered the wound, Reuven must heal him and pay for his unemployment;
2. If the sores are not due to the blow, he is exempt from healing him and unemployment;
3. R. Yehudah says, even if they are due to the blow, he need only heal him, he is exempt from unemployment;
4. Chachamim say, "(Just he will give) his unemployment, and heal, he will heal (him)" - any one liable for 1 of these is liable for both.

(b) Question: On what do they argue?
(c) Answer #1 (Rabanan): Whether Shimon is entitled to wrap up the wound (to avoid pain of the cold, and Reuven remains liable for sores that develop because of this).

1. Chachamim say, he is entitled to wrap up the wound, and Reuven remains fully liable;
2. R. Yehudah says, he is not entitled to wrap up the wound;

i. Still, Reuven must heal him - the double language "Heal, he will heal" teaches this;
ii. He is exempt from unemployment - the Torah did not repeat this.

(d) Objection (Rabah): If he is not entitled to wrap up the wound, Reuven is exempt even from healing him!
(e) Answer #2 (Rabah): All agree, he is entitled to wrap up the wound, but not excessively.

1. R. Yehudah says, since he is not entitled to wrap excessively, Reuven is only liable to heal him (from the double language), not for unemployment;
2. Chachamim say, since the Torah obligates Reuven to heal him, he is also liable for unemployment, for the Torah equates these.
3. R. Yehudah says, the Torah explicitly exempted him from unemployment (in this case) - "Just (he will give his unemployment)".
4. Chachamim say, that excludes if the sores are not due to the wound.

(f) Question: According to the latter Chachamim (in the last clause of the Mishnah), who equate the obligations of healing and unemployment - why did the Torah use a double language of healing?
(g) Answer: To teach as Tana d'vei R. Yishmael.

1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Heal, he will heal" - this teaches that doctors may heal.

(h) (Beraisa) Question: How do we know that If sores developed on account of the blow and covered the wound, he must heal him and pay for his unemployment?
(i) Answer: "Just he will give his unemployment, and heal, he will heal".

1. Suggestion: Perhaps this applies even if the sores are not due to the blow!
2. Rejection: "Just".
3. R. Yosi bar Yehudah says, "Just" teaches that even if they are due to the blow, he is exempt.

i. [Version #1: He is fully exempt, as the latter Chachamim.]
ii. [Version #2: He is only exempt from, as R. Yehudah.]

(j) (Beraisa): Suggestion: Perhaps this applies even if the sores are not due to the blow!
(k) Rejection: "Just".
(l) Question: If the sores are not due to the blow, why must we learn from a verse?!
(m) Answer: Not due to the blow' means as follows.

1. (Beraisa): Shimon (the victim) disobeyed the doctor and ate honey and sweet things, which are bad for a wound, and dead skin arose on it. One might have thought that Reuven (the damager) must heal him - "Just" teaches, he is exempt.
2. If Reuven says 'I will cure you', Shimon can say- 'I fear you, I want someone else'.
3. If Reuven says 'My relative will cure you for free', Shimon can say 'A proper doctor demands wages.'
4. If Reuven says 'I will hire a doctor from afar for you', Shimon can say 'He will return home, perhaps he will not take proper responsibility for my health".
5. If Shimon says 'Give me the wages of a doctor, I will heal myself', Reuven can say 'You will heal improperly, this will result in larger medical expenses'.
6. If Shimon says 'Fix the wages of a doctor, and give this to me to heal myself', Reuven can say 'You will heal improperly, and people will think that I am responsible for your condition.'

(a) (Beraisa): All (other 4 damages) are paid even when Nezek is paid.
(b) Question: How do we know this?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Zvid): "A wound in place of a wound" - this teaches that one pays for pain even when Nezek is paid.

1. Question: But we need that verse to teach that one pays whether he damaged intentionally or unintentionally, whether he was forced or acted willingly!

2. Answer: If it only came for that, it should have said 'A wound for a wound'; by saying "A wound in place of a wound", it teaches both.

(d) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): "Heal, he will heal" - this teaches that one pays for pain even when Nezek is paid.

1. Question: The verse teaches as Tana d'vei R. Yishmael (to permit doctors to heal)!
2. Answer: To teach that, it would have said 'A doctor will heal'; rather, it says "Heal, he will heal", to obligate for pain when Nezek is paid.
3. Question: We used the double language above (to obligate for sores)!
4. Answer: Had the Torah doubled the same word twice, we would only lean as above; by using a different word, the Torah also obligates for pain when Nezek is paid.

(e) Question: It follows that the other damages can apply even when there is no Nezek - what is the case?
(f) Answer: Pain - as the Mishnah says - he burned him with a spit or nail, even on his fingernail, where no wound will result;

1. Healing - he had a wound that was healing, and a potent potion changed his skin to the color of Tzara'as, and another potion is needed to restore the color;
2. Unemployment - he took him to a room and locked him in;
3. Embarrassment - he spit in his face.

(g) (Mishnah): Unemployment - we view what he would earn as one who guards gourds...
(h) (Beraisa): Unemployment - we view what he would earn as one who guards gourds;

1. Question: This is unfair, when he recovers, he will have a better job, such as drawing water or running errands!
2. No, it is fair - when he recovers, he is only fit to guard gourds (e.g. a limb was cut off), he already received compensation for the limb.

(i) (Rava): If Reuven cut off Shimon's hand, he pays for the hand; regarding unemployment, we view Shimon as one who guards gourds;

1. If he broke Shimon's leg, he pays for the leg; regarding unemployment, we view Shimon as one who guards the door;
2. If he blinded Shimon's eye, he pays for the eye; regarding unemployment, we view Shimon as one who grinds;
3. If he deafened Shimon's, he pays Shimon's full value (for he cannot work any more).

(j) Question #1 (Rava): Reuven cut off Shimon's hand, broke his leg, blinded his eye, and deafened him; no assessment of Shimon's value was made in between - what is the law?

1. Do we say, it suffices to make 1 assessment?
2. Or - do we make a separate assessment for each damage?
3. Question: What difference does it make?
4. Answer: Whether he must pay the pain and embarrassment of each damage.

i. Granted, he need not pay the Nezek, healing and unemployment of each - he already pays for his full working value as if he killed him (and he pays the medical expenses until he is healed from everything);
ii. However, there was pain and embarrassment by each damage, (perhaps) he must pay each.

(k) Question #2 (Rava): If you will say that we make only 1 assessment - what if assessments of Shimon's value were made in between the damages?

1. Since individual assessments were made, he must pay for each?
2. Or - since he did not yet pay, he only pays once for all the damages?

i. This question is unsettled.