(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) for two reasons, 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 also object to the suggestion that he pays the amount that a person would take ...
1. ... to sever an arm that was already severed to the point that it no longer served any purpose?
2. ... to cut off with a sword the arm that the king has already ordered to be cut off using ointment?
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) for two reasons, 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 already paid Nezek, the arm is now the Mazik's to remove, so why should he have to pay again?
(c)We also object to the suggestion that he pays the amount that a person would take ...
1. ... to sever an arm that has already been severed 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 the dogs).
2. ... to cut off with a sword the arm that the king has already ordered to be cut off using ointment on the grounds that a person does not take money to suffer increased pain, as we just explained.
2)
(a)So how do we finally establish the case of Tza'ar be'Makom Nezek?
(b)How does Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua explain the fact that the Tana then says 'Kamah Adam Rotzeh Litol ... ' (rather than 'Kamah Rotzeh Adam Liten ... ')?
2)
(a)We finally establish the case of Tza'ar be'Makom Nezek as being the amount that a person will pay to sever with ointment the arm that the king has already ordered to be cut off a sword.
(b)Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua explains that when the Tana now says 'Kamah Adam Rotzeh Litol ... ' (rather than 'Kamah Rotzeh Adam Liten ... ') he means 'to take from the Mazik to pay the Nizak the amount that he would have paid to the king to commute his sentence from a sword to ointment.
3)
(a)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if scabs have grown on a wound (as a direct result of the stroke), the Mazik must pay, not only Ripuy, but Sheves, too. What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(b)And what do the (latter) Chachamim say?
(c)The Rabanan 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 Tana Kama) or whether he does so at his own risk (Rebbi Yehudah). In that case, why does he pay Ripuy?
(d)What objection does Rabah raise to this explanation?
3)
(a)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if scabs have grown on a wound (as a direct result of the stroke), the Mazik must pay, not only Ripuy, but Sheves, too. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the Mazik pays Ripuy, but not Sheves ...
(b)... whereas the Tana Kama maintains that whoever is Chayav Ripuy is Chayav Sheves, and whoever is not, is not Chayav Ripuy either.
(c)The Rabanan 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 Tana Kama) or whether that he does so at his own risk (Rebbi Yehudah), and the reason that he pays Ripuy is because the Torah repeats the word Ripuy ("ve'Rapo Yerapei").
(d)Rabah objects to this explanation however. He argues that if the Nizak would not have the right to bind his wound, it would be illogical to obligate the Mazik to pay Ripuy.
4)
(a)In Rabah's opinion then, there is no Machlokes with regard to the Nizak binding his wound. What do both opinions hold?
(b)Rebbi Yehudah now learns as we explained earlier (that he is Chayav Ripuy on the scabs because the Torah writes "ve'Rapo Yerapei"), but not Sheves. What does the Tana Kama say?
(c)On what grounds does Rebbi Yehudah disagree with the Hekesh?
(d)What does the Tana Kama then learn from "Rak"?
4)
(a)In Rabah's opinion then, there is no Machlokes with regard to the Nizak binding his wound. In fact both opinions permit him to do so, but not excessively.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah now learns as we explained earlier (that he is Chayav Ripuy on the scabs because the Torah writes "ve'Rapo Yerapei"), but not Sheves. The Rabanan obligate the Mazik to pay Sheves as well as Ripuy because the Torah compares Sheves to Ripuy ("Rak Shivto Yiten ve'Rapo Yerapei").
(c)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Hekesh because the Torah writes "Rak" to preclude Sheves from the above obligation.
(d)The Tana Kama learns from "Rak" that he is Patur from paying Sheves for scabs that grew not on account of the wound (as we will explain shortly).
5)
(a)The latter Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Yehudah's ruling, though they agree with him regarding the Hekesh. What do they actually say?
(b)And they explain the double Lashon like Rebbi Yishmael. What does Rebbi Yishmael say?
5)
(a)The latter Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Yehudah's ruling, though they agree with him regarding the Hekesh, only they hold that just as the Mazik is Patur from paying Sheves for the scabs, so too, is he Patur from paying Ripuy ...
(b)... and 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 Hash-m delivered the wound.
6)
(a)If, as the Tana Kama maintains, the Hekesh to Ripuy teaches us that the Mazik is obligated to pay Sheves for scabs that grew on account of the wound, what will we then learn from the word "Rak"?
(b)This is the opinion of the Tana Kama of another Beraisa. Rebbi Yosi 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 Yosi 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?
6)
(a)According to the Tana Kama, who maintains that the Hekesh to Ripuy teaches us that the Mazik is obligated to pay Sheves for scabs that grew on account of the wound, "Rak" teaches us 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 Yosi 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 Tana Kama in the previous Beraisa), or that he is Patur from Sheves, 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 where 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).
7)
(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 can 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?
7)
(a)The Tana refers to a scab as 'Gargusni', which Abaye describes as dead flesh.
(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 can counter (if the Mazik declares that he plans to ...
1. ... cure him himself) that he sees him as a crouching lion whom he cannot trust.
2. ... employ a doctor who will cure him free of charge) that a doctor who cures for nothing is worth nothing.
3. ... 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).
(d)And should the Nizak declare that he wishes to cure himself ...
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).
8)
(a)What do we learn (in connection with Tza'ar) from "Petza Tachas Patza"?
(b)But do we not need this Pasuk to teach us 'Shogeg ke'Meizid and Oneis ke'Ratzon' (i.e. 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 there, 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 learn from "Petza Tachas Patza" that the Mazik is obligated to pay Tza'ar, even when he has to pay Nezek, too.
(b)Even though we need this Pasuk to teach us 'Shogeg ke'Meizid and O'nes ke'Ratzon' (i.e. the principle of 'Adam Mu'ad Le'olam') nevertheless, due to the fact that the Pasuk writes "Petza Tachas Patza", and not "Petza be'Patza", we learn two things from it.
(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 because had the Torah meant to teach us only the latter D'rashah, it would have written "ve'Rofei Yerapei". It writes "ve'Rapo Yerapei, in order to teach us both D'rashos.
(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".
85b----------------------------------------85b
9)
(a)We just ascertained that the Torah obligates the Mazik to pay the four things even when he already pays Nezek. From where 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 is an example case of she'Lo be'Makom Nezek with regard to ...
1. ... Ripuy?
2. ... Sheves?
3. ... Boshes?
9)
(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. An example of a case of she'Lo be'Makom Nezek with regard to ...
1. ... Ripuy is where 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 that needs to be cured.
2. ... Sheves is where he simply locks him in a room, and he is unable to go to work.
3. ... Boshes is where he spits in his face.
10)
(a)We learned in our Mishnah that for Sheves, 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 Sheves 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 Sheves of someone whom he had deafened?
(d)Why is he Patur from paying Sheves independently?
10)
(a)We learned in our Mishnah that for Sheves, 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 Sheves of a Nizak whose ...
1. ... leg was broken as if he was guarding a house.
2. ... whose eye was blinded as if he was working on a mill-stone grinding the corn.
(c)A Mazik who deafened someone is obligated to pay his entire value, incorporating the Sheves.
(d)He is Patur from paying Sheves independently because once he pays his entire value, it is as if he has purchased him as a slave, with whom (work-wise) he may do as he pleases.
11)
(a)What is the problem with fixing Sheves as the wages of a guard in a cucumber field, for example?
(b)How do we resolve this problem?
11)
(a)The problem with fixing Sheves 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 Sheves differently.
(b)The answer is that the Mazik has already paid the Nizak's value (based on the work he used to do before the stroke), and Sheves constitutes the minimum work that he could now have done following the stroke, for the period of his sickness.
12)
(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 Boshes that Reuven has to pay. Why does it not affect ...
1. ... the Nezek?
2. ... the Ripuy?
3. ... the Sheves?
(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 Boshes?
(d)What is the outcome of Rava's She'eilah?
12)
(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 Boshes 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.
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 Sheves because, as we already learned, once the Nizak is assessed for his total value, the obligation to pay Sheves falls away.
(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 Boshes he might be Patur even if each individual item was assessed, only he had not yet paid for them.
(d)The outcome of Rava's She'eilah is 'Teiku'.
13)
(a)Rabah asks whether Sheves ha'Pochsaso be'Damim (Sheves which diminishes the Nizak's value) is considered Nezek or not. What is the definition of 'Sheves 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?
13)
(a)Rabah asks whether Sheves ha'Pochsaso be'Damim (Sheves which diminishes the Nizak's value) is considered Nezek or not. 'Sheves 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 Sheves, not Nezek.
