Bava Kamma - Daf 85
- How to evaluate צער במקום נזק
The Gemara asks how to evaluate צער במקום נזק – pain where there is permanent damage, and Rashi explains that since he has paid for the victim’s hand (for example), he “acquired” the right to cut it off, irrespective of the pain it causes. Shmuel’s father said we assess how much money a person would demand to agree to have his hand cut off. The Gemara objects to this (because it would include all five payments, and no one would accept such an agreement), and clarifies that he refers to cutting off a useless hand. This is also rejected, because it would still include בושת, for the embarrassment of taking and throwing his limb to the dogs. The Gemara ultimately explains: אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן – we assess how much a person wants to give לקטוע לו ידו המוכתב למלכות – to have his hand, which is inscribed to the government for amputation, cut off, בין סייף לסם – regarding the difference in pain between amputation by potion (which is painless) and by sword.
- Machlokes about sores caused by excessive bandages
A Baraisa states: עלו בו צמחים מחמת המכה – If sores developed because of the wound, ונסתרה המכה – or if the wound healed and later returned, the Tanna Kamma says he must pay for his healing, as well as his unemployment (if the sores disabled him from working). Rebbe Yehudah says he pays for רפוי, but not שבת. The Chachomim say that the Torah links שבת and רפוי to teach that only one who pays for unemployment must pay for healing, ושאינו חייב בשבת אינו חייב בריפוי – and anyone who is not obligated for unemployment is not obligated for healing. Rabbah ultimately explains that all agree that permission is given to bandage a wound (and the assailant is liable for any resulting sores), but לא ניתנה לאגד יתירה – it is not given for excessive bandaging (where the resulting sores are partially the victim’s negligence). Rebbe Yehudah holds that he pays for healing, because the Torah repeated the word (ורפא ירפא) to require a novel payment, but not unemployment. The Tanna Kamma holds that the linking of the two payments teaches that he even pays unemployment, just like he pays for healing. The final opinion holds that just as unemployment is not paid, healing is also not paid. They hold the repeated “healing” teaches: שניתן רשות לרופא לרפאות – that permission is given to a physician to heal.
- שבת for various injuries, and if successive injuries were assessed or paid at the end
Rava said that if one cut off someone’s hand, he pays its value, and the unemployment is assessed as a watchman of cucumbers. If he then damaged his foot, he pays for it, and the unemployment is assessed as a doorman (since he cannot walk). If he blinded someone, he pays the eye’s value, and the unemployment is that of grinding at a millstone. If he made someone deaf, he pays his full value, and no unemployment (because he cannot do any work). Rava asked, if someone successively inflicted all the above injuries on someone, but no assessment for payment was made until the end, do we make one single assessment (obligating his full value), or is each injury assessed independently? The practical difference pertains to צער and בושת, which he experienced for each injury. On the other hand, since his entire value was paid (for becoming deaf), perhaps he can no longer claim these payments. Rava asked further, assuming a single assessment would be made in the above case, what if an assessment was made after each injury, but no payment was made until the end? The question is left unresolved.