ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 85
BAVA KAMA 85 (3 Cheshvan) - dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Malka bas Menashe (and
Golda) Krause, by her daughter, Gitle Bekelnitzky. Under both material and
spiritual duress, she and her husband raised their children in the spirit of
our fathers, imbuing them with a love for Torah and Yiddishkeit. Her home
was always open to the needy, even when her family did not have enough to
(a) We reject Shmuel's father's interpretation of Tza'ar be'Makom Nezek (how
much the Nizak would accept to have his hand cut off) on two scores, one of
them, because that would incorporate all five things (and not just Tza'ar).
The other is - because nobody would agree to suffer pain, even for money.
(b) The initial problem with assessing Tza'ar is - that having paid the
Nizak for the Nezek, the arm is now the Mazik's to remove, so why should he
have to pay again?
(c) We object to the suggestion that he pays the amount that a person would
1. ... to sever an arm that was already cut to the point that it no longer
served any purpose - on the grounds that there too, in addition to pain,
there is also Bo'shes (because once the arm is severed, it will be fed to
2. ... to cut off with a sword the arm that the king had already ordered to
be cut off using ointment - on the grounds that a person does not take money
to suffer increased pain.
(a) We finally establish the case of Tza'ar be'Makom Nezek as being the
amount that a person would pay to sever his arm with ointment - that was
destined to be cut off with a sword.
(b) When the Tana now says 'Kamah Adam Rotzeh *Litol* ... ' (rather than
'Kamah Rotzeh Adam *Liten* ... '), says Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua - he
means 'to take from the Mazik to pay the Nizak the amount that he would have
payed to the king to commute his sentence from a sword to ointment.
(a) In a case where scabs have grown on a wound (as a direct result of the
stroke), the Tana Kama in a Beraisa obligates the Mazik to pay, not only
Ripuy, but She'ves, too. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. According to him - the
Mazik pays Ripuy, but not She'ves.
(b) The (latter) Chachamim say - that whoever is Chayav Ripuy is Chayav
She'ves, and whoever is not, is not Chayav Ripuy either.
(c) The Rabbanan of Bei Rav establish the basis of their Machlokes as to
whether the Nizak has a right to bind his wound (at the expense of the
Mazik). The Rabbanan (the Tana Kama) holds that he has, whereas Rebbi
Yehudah holds that he does so at his own risk. Yet he pays Ripuy - because
the Torah repeats Ripuy ("ve'Rapo Yerapei").
(d) Rabah objects to their explanation however, on the grounds - that if the
Mazik would not have the right to bind his wound, it would be illogical to
obligate the Mazik to pay Ripuy.
(a) According to Rabah, everyone agrees that the Nizak has a right to bind
his wound, and they argue over - whether he is permitted to bind his wound
(b) Rebbi Yehudah now learns by excessive binding exactly as we originally
learned by regular binding. The Rabbanan agree that the Nizak does not have
the right to bind his wound excessively. Nevertheless, they obligate the
Mazik to pay She'ves as well as Ripuy - because, they say, the Torah
compares She'ves to Ripuy ("Rak Shivto Yiten ve'Rapo Yerapei").
(c) The (later) Chachamim hold - that the Torah does indeed compare Ripuy to
She'ves, and that consequently, just as the Mazik is Patur from paying
She'ves, so too, is he Patur from paying Ripuy.
(d) They explain "Rapo Yerapei" like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who learns
from the double Lashon - that a doctor has the authority to heal, despite
the fact that Hashem delivered the wound.
(a) If the Pasuk "(Rak) Shivto Yiten ve'Rapo Yerapei" teaches us that the
Mazik is obligated to pay Ripuy and She'ves for scabs that grew on account
of the wound, we learn from the word "Rak" - that he is Patur from paying
for scabs that are not the direct result of the wound.
(b) This is the opinion of the Tana Kama of another Beraisa. Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah there learns that the word "Rak" exempts the Mazik even if
the scabs were the direct result of the wound. This could either mean - that
he is Patur even from Ripuy (like the Chachamim in the previous Beraisa), or
that he is Patur from She'ves, but Chayav Ripuy, like his father.
(c) We just learned from the word "Rak" that the Mazik is Patur from paying
for scabs that grew independently of the wound. In order to justify the need
for a Pasuk to exempt him, we establish the case - when the scabs grew as a
result of the Nizak eating things that the doctor warned him not to eat (so
that, if not for the wound, the scabs would not have grown).
(a) The Tana refers to a scab as 'Gargusni', which Abaye describes as - dead
(b) The cure for 'Gargusni' is Ahala, ve'Kira ve'Kalba - aloe (the name of a
herb), wax and resin (which is found in barrels of wine).
(c) The Nizak is entitled to counter (if the Mazik declares that he ...
1. ... wishes to cure him himself) - that he sees him as a crouching lion
whom he cannot trust.
(d) And should the Nizak declare that he wishes to cure himself ...
2. ... plans to employ a doctor who will cure him free of charge) - that a
doctor who cures for nothing is worth nothing.
3. ... will bring a doctor from overseas who will cure him for cheap - that
a doctor who comes from overseas, knowing that he cannot later be held
responsible for any mishaps, doesn't really care even if he makes his
patient blind (and cannot therefore be trusted).
1. ... and that the money should go to him - the Mazik has the right to
counter - that he does not trust the Nizak, who will give himself excessive
treatment, and charge him accordingly.
2. ... inviting the Mazik to fix a limit as to how much he is willing to
pay - he can object on the grounds that, at the end of the day, he will
treat himself carelessly and when he fails to improve, he will place the
blame on him (for not giving him sufficient funds to do the job properly).
(a) We learn from "Petza Tachas Patza" - that the Mazik is obligated to pay
Tza'ar, even when he has to pay Nezek, too.
(b) True, we need the Pasuk to teach us 'Shogeg ke'Meizid and O'nes
ke'Ratzon' (in other words, the principle 'Adam Mu'ad Le'olam'). However -
due to the fact that the Pasuk writes "Petza Tachas Patza", and not "Petza
be'Patza", we learn two things from there.
(c) Similarly, Rav Papa learns from "ve'Rapo Yerapei" that the Mazik is
obligated to pay Tza'ar, even when he has to pay Nezek, too. We reconcile
this with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who, we just saw, learns from here,
that a doctor has the authority to heal - by learning them both from the
fact (had the Torah meant to teach us only the latter), then it would have
written "ve'Rofei Yerapei". It writes "ve'Rapo Yerapei, in order to teach us
(d) And assuming that the Tana Kama and the Chachamim (on the previous Amud)
also hold like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael), they extrapolate the third Limud
from the double Lashon (that the Mazik is Chayav to pay Ripuy even if the
Nizak bound his wound, or if he bound it excessively) - from the fact that
the Torah changes from "Rapo Rapo" or "Yerapei Yerapei" to "Rapo Yerapei".
(a) We just ascertained that the Torah obligates the Mazik to pay the four
things even when he already pays Nezek. They must all apply even when he
does not - because otherwise, we would not require a Pasuk to teach us that
the Mazik is Chayav when he does.
(b) We already explained the case of Tza'ar she'Lo be'Makom Nezek in our
Mishnah. The case of she'Lo be'Makom Nezek ...
1. ... by Ripuyis - when the Nizak is already in pain from a wound or a sore
(which is healing by itself), and the Mazik applies a strong salve that
leaves him with white skin.
2. ... by Sheves is - when he simply locks him in a room, and he is unable
to go to work.
3. ... by Bo'shes is - when he spits in his face?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that for She'ves, one reckons the Nizak as if
he was a guard in a cucumber field. This pertains to a Nizak - whose arm was
broken, because a man with a broken leg is incapable of guarding a field.
(b) One would reckon the She'ves of a Nizak whose ...
1. ... leg was broken - as if he was guarding a house?
(c) A Mazik who deafened someone pays his entire value, incorporating the
2. ... whose eye was blinded - as if he was working on a mill-stone grinding
(d) He is Patur from paying She'ves independently - because once he pays his
entire value, it is as if he has purchased him as a slave, and (work-wise)
he may do with as he pleases.
(a) The problem with fixing She'ves as the wages of a guard in a cucumber
field, for example, is - the fact that this is not necessarily what the
Nizak used to do (he may have been a water-carrier or an errand-boy (for
example), so why assess the She'ves differently.
(b) The answer to this Kashya is - that the Mazik has already paid the
Nizak's value (based on the work he used to do before the stroke), and
She'ves constitutes the minimum work that he could now have done following
the stroke, for the period of his sickness.
(a) Rava asked whether Reuven who broke Shimon's arm, then his leg, before
blinding him and finally deafening him (prior to any assessment having been
made) - needs to pay for each item independently, or whether the assessment
after having deafened him absolves him from paying for the rest.
(b) This She'eilah only affects the amount of Tza'ar and Bo'shes that Reuven
has to pay. It does not affect ...
1. ... the Nezek - because it makes no difference whether he pays him for
each item (each one of which detracts from his total value), or just for his
total value from the beginning.
(c) Rava then asks, whether, even assuming that, in the previous case,
Reuven does not need to pay Shimon each individual sum of Tza'ar and
Bo'shes - he might be Patur even if each individual item was assessed, only
he had not yet paid for them.
2. ... the Ripuy - because seeing as he was not cured during the course of
events, the Mazik obviously becomes obligated to pay for all the doctor's
bills, irrespective of when the assessment took place.
3. ... the She'ves - because, as we already learned, once the Nizak is
assessed for his total value, the obligation to pay She'ves falls away.
(d) The outcome of Rava's She'eilah is 'Teiku'.
(a) Rabah asks whether She'ves ha'Pochsaso be'Damim (She'ves which
diminishes the Nizak's value) is considered Nezek or not. The significance
of 'She'ves ha'Pochsaso be'Damim' is - a temporary wound that causes the
Nizak's value to depreciate, but only until it automatically heals.
(b) In spite of the fact that the Nizak's value has currently depreciated,
the Mazik might nevertheless be Patur from paying Nezek - because a
temporary Nezek falls under the category of She'ves, but not Nezek.