Clarification: The Ri explains that the K'lal u'Perat that are far apart, over which the Tana'im are arguing here, and that over which Abaye and Rava arre arguing at the beginning of 'B'nos Kutim' (Nidah, Daf 33a) discuss the same topic, but if they discuss two different topics, both opinions agree that 'Ein Danin' ...

Source: ... as is evident in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 6b & 7a), and in 'Kol ha'Menachos' (Menachos, Daf 55b & 56a).

Clarification (Gemara Sanhedrin): And as for the case in 'Nigmar ha'Din' (Sanhedrin, Daf 46a & 46b) in connection with "ve'Humas ve'Salisa", it depends - if, because they are further apart than those in our Sugya and in NIdah, we consider it like two contexts, then it goes according to both opinions ...

Clarification (Gemara Sanhedrin [cont.]): ... whereas if we consider it like one context, then that Sugya will concur with the opinion that holds 'Ein Danin'.

Expanation #1: Rashi explains that, had the Torah written only "Kevi'ah", we would have thought that even if there is also a wound, he pays for the burn, but not for both ...

Expanation #1: ... Therefore it comes to teach us that he must pay both for the Tza'ar and for the wound (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Refutation #1: The Ri however, does not agree with this explanation, since we learn Tz'ar where there is also Nezek from "Petza Tachas Patza".

Refutation #2: Furthermore, why would we even think that the Tza'ar would exempt him from paying Nezek and Ripuy?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains 'Damim Yeseirim' to mean that he pays more for Tza'ar where there is a scar than Tza'ar where there is not ...

Implied Question: ... because, even though the one is not more painful than the other ...

Answer: ... he must pay more because of the shame that the scar causes.

Clarification: It speaks where they did not initially assess it ...

Reason: ... because if they did, the Gemara will say later that if after they assessed him, it got progressively worse, he only pays according to the assessment.

Question: But we already know this from "Rapo" on its own?

Answer: We would then have thought that it iws confined to a man-made wound, but that, to cure one that is delivered by Hash-m is akin to interfering with the Divine decree.

Answer (cont.): The Torah therefore teaches us that it is permitted.

Clarification: This is not considered quite as negligent.

Clarification: Where they did not assess it.

Reason: Since he has already paid the value of his hand or his foot.

Explanation #1: 'As a guard in a cucumber field' does not refer to 'his foot', because concerning his foot, the Gemara gives his Sheves as 'Someone who stands guard at the gate' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... since he is unable to guard a cucumber field.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the Gemara is speaking about someone who has broken both legs, similar to the case of 'Sima es Eino', which must be speaking about where he blinded both eyes ...

Proof: ... because if it was only one eye, he would still be able to do all the things that he was able to do before.

Support: And in the Tosefta (Perek 9) too, it says that we consider him as if he was a lame man guarding a cucumber field - implying that a lame man is able to guard (a cucumber field).

Chidush: It also would seem that if he was a Melamed of children, we would not reckon him as a Shomer Kishu'in.

Chidush (cont.): And by the same token, if he breaks the leg of someone who does embroidery or who strings pearls, we will not reckon him as someone who stands guard by the gate ...

Reason: ... since it would be a perversion of justice to do so.

Conclusion: Our Sugya must therefore be speaking about plain workers who are not craftsmen.

Clarification: This means initially, when he was still healthy.

Clarification: This cannot be referring to the one whose hand is severed, whose leg is broken or whose eye is blinded, but to a victim who was not previously wounded, similar to 'Sima Eino', which is not speaking about the person whose hand or leg is broken ...

Proof: ... because where he broke his leg he only pays him like a guard by the gate, which is less than someone who grinds in the mill.

Question: The Gemara here implies that a Cheresh is worth nothing, seeing as he has to pay his full value, whereas we learned in the Mishnah in the first Perek of Erchin (Daf 2a [See Tosfos DH 'Cheresh']) that a 'Chashu' is subject to Nedarim and Erchin'?

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam maintains that one can draw a distinction between a Cheresh at the hands of man (who has no value) and a Cheresh at the Hands of Hash-m (who does).

Answer #2: Whereas the Ri explains that our Sugya is speaking about a person who is not a craftsman, as he explained earlier on the Daf ...

Support: ... and that is also implied from the fact that it mentions that 'he draws water' or 'goes on errands'.

Support (cont.): ... whereas there (in Erchin) it is speaking about a craftsman.

Introduction to Question: It is in order to ascribe the Din of 'Lo Yiten' to Nezek and Sheves, seeing as each of them is included in 'D'mei Kulo' ...

Question: But why is it obvious to him that Ripuy should be included in 'D'mei Kulo' any more than Tza'ar and Boshes?

Answer: Therefore the correct text includes Ripuy together with Ta'ar and Boshes rather than with Nezek and Sheves.

Question #1: The question remains however, what is the Gemara's problem? Why should he be Patur from Ripuy, Tza'ar and Boshes independently just because he ultimately made him deaf and pays his full value?

Question #2: Why should this be any different than Reuven who severs Shimon's hand, where, after paying Nezek, which is the value of the hand, he nevertheless remains Chayav to pay Ripuy, Tza'ar and Boshes?

Question #2: Moreover, does this mean that someone who wounds a Cheresh is Patur from paying Ripuy, Tza'ar and Boshes?

Refuted Question: One cannot however ask from the Mishnah later (on Daf 87a) 'Someone who wounds a Cheresh is Chayav' ...

Refutation #1: ... since one can establish it by a Cheresh bi'Yedei Shamayim, according to Rabeinu Tam (in the previous DH) ...

Refutation #2: ... or where the victim is a craftsman (according to the Ri there).

Question #3: Furthermore, a little earlier we find that the Gemara declares Chayav Ripuy be'Makom Nezek?

Question #4: Another problem is that it will sometimes transpire that the Mazik will benefit by ultimately rendering his victim a Cheresh - in the case where the Tza'ar and the Ripuy amount to more that the latter's full value?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that it is obvious that in fact, he pays for the Tza'ar, the Boshes and the Ripuy independently ...

Explanation: And the Gemara's She'eilah is, in a case where he severed his hand on Sunday but did not assess it, broke his leg on Monday, again without assessing it and made him deaf on Tuesday ...

Explanation (cont.): Do we make one final assessment at the end, or, bearing in mind that the Ripuy, the Tza'ar and the Boshes were performed consecutively, do we assess them independently?

Ramifications: Because the cost will not turn out to be as high if they are assessed collectively as they would be if they were assessed independently.

Clarification: Because, besides the Sheves of each day until he heals, his value has also depreciated ...

Reason: Since people are not sufficiently expert to know whether the wound will heal, and do not therefore enter into a Safek, to acquire him like a healthy person who has full use of both hands - because they think that he will not heal anymore.

Conclusion: Whereas in a case where people know that he will heal, Abaye concedes that the Mazik is only required to pay the Sheves of each day.