Previous daf

1)

(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).
What is the other?

(b) What is the initial problem with assessing Tza'ar?

(c) And on what grounds do we object to the suggestion that he pays the amount that a person would take ...

1. ... to sever an arm that was already cut to the point that it no longer served any purpose?
2. ... to cut off with a sword the arm that the king had already ordered to be cut off using ointment?

(a) So how do we finally establish the case of Tza'ar be'Makom Nezek?

(b) Surely the Tana ought then to have said 'Kamah Rotzeh Adam *Liten* ... '? Why does he say 'Kamah Adam Rotzeh *Litol* ... '?

(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.
What does he say?

(b) And what do the (latter) Chachamim say?

(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.
In that case, why does he pay Ripuy?

(d) What objection does Rabah raise to their explanation?

(a) According to Rabah therefore, everyone agrees that the Nizak has a right to bind his wound. Then what is the basis of their Machlokes?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah now learns by excessive binding exactly as we originally learned by regular binding.
On what grounds do the Rabbanan obligate the Mazik to pay She'ves, as well as Ripuy?

(c) What do the (latter) Chachamim then hold?

(d) They explain "Rapo Yerapei" like Rebbi Yishmael.
What does Rebbi Yishmael then learn from the double Lashon?

(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 as a direct result of the wound, what do we learn from the word "Rak"?

(b) This is the opinion of the Tana Kama of another Beraisa. Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah learns that the word "Rak" exempts the Mazik even if the scabs were the direct result of the wound.
What are the two ways of interpreting Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah?

(c) We just learned from the word "Rak" that the Mazik is Patur from paying for scabs that grew independently of the wound.
How do we establish the case in order to justify the need for a Pasuk to exempt him?

(a) The Tana refers to a scab as 'Gargusni'.
How does Abaye describe 'Gargusni'?

(b) The cure for 'Gargusni' is Ahala, ve'Kira ve'Kalba.
What are these three commodities?

(c) What may the Nizak counter if the Mazik declares that he ...

1. ... wishes to cure him himself?
2. ... plans to employ a doctor who will cure him free of charge?
3. ... will bring a doctor from overseas who will cure him for cheap?

(d) And what may the Mazik counter should the Nizak declare that he wishes to cure himself ...

1. ... and that the money should therefore go to him?
2. ... and that the Mazik should fix a limit as to how mush he is willing to pay?

(a) What do we learn (in connection with Tza'ar) from "Petza Tachas Patza"?

(b) But surely, we need this Pasuk to teach us 'Shogeg ke'Meizid and O'nes ke'Ratzon' (in other words, the principle 'Adam Mu'ad Le'olam')?

(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.
How do we reconcile this with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who, we just saw, learns from here, that a doctor has the authority to heal?

(d) Assuming that the Tana Kama and the Chachamim (on the previous Amud) also hold like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael), how do 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)?

8)

(a) We just ascertained that the Torah obligates the Mazik to pay the four things even when he already pays Nezek.
How do we then know that they must all apply even when he does not?

(b) We already explained the case of Tza'ar she'Lo be'Makom Nezek in our Mishnah.
What will be the case of she'Lo be'Makom Nezek ...

1. ... by Ripuy?
2. ... by She'ves?
3. ... by Bo'shes?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that for She'ves, one reckons the Nizak as if he was a guard in a cucumber field.
Does this pertain to a Nizak whose leg was broken, or his arm?

(b) How would one reckon the She'ves of a Nizak whose ...

1. ... leg was broken?
2. ... whose eye was blinded?

(c) And how would the Mazik have to pay the Nezek and the She'ves of someone whom he had deafened?

(d) Why is he Patur from paying She'ves independently?

(a) What is the problem with fixing She'ves as the wages of a guard in a cucumber field, for example?

(b) How do we resolve this problem?

(a) What She'eilah did Rava ask regarding Reuven who broke Shimon's arm, then his leg, before blinding him and finally deafening him, prior to any assessment having been made?

(b) This She'eilah only affects the amount of Tza'ar and Bo'shes that Reuven has to pay.
Why does it not affect ...

1. ... the Nezek?
2. ... the Ripuy?
3. ... the She'ves?

(c) And what She'eilah does Rava then ask even assuming that, in the previous case, Reuven does not need to pay Shimon each individual sum of Tza'ar and Bo'shes?

(d) What is the outcome of Rava's She'eilah?

(a) Rabah asks whether She'ves ha'Pochsaso be'Damim (She'ves which diminishes the Nizak's value) is considered Nezek or not.
What is the significance of 'She'ves ha'Pochsaso be'Damim'?

(b) Why, in spite of the fact that the Nizak's value has currently depreciated, might the Mazik be Patur from paying Nezek?

Next daf