## Bava Kamma Daf 85a

###### Bava Kamma 85a:1
[Bava Kamma 85a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:1)

בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט הַמְרוּחָקִים זֶה מִזֶּה קָמִיפַּלְגִי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and ben Azzai **disagree** over whether the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail is applied **with regard to a generalization and a detail that are distant from each other.** When a generalization is followed by a detail, the *halakha* applies only in the case specified in the detail. The verse states: “*Keviyya* for *keviyya*, a wound for a wound, *ḥabura* for *ḥabura*” (Exodus 21:25). The word “*keviyya*,” as stated in the beginning of the verse, is a generalization that includes burns not accompanied by bruises as well as burns accompanied by bruises. “*Ḥabura*,” as stated at the end of the verse, is a detail of a burn that is accompanied by a bruise. The Torah distances the detail, “*ḥabura*,” from the generalization, “*keviyya*,” by stating the *halakha* of: “A wound for a wound” between them.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:2
[Bava Kamma 85a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:2)

רַבִּי סָבַר: אֵין דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט, וּבֶן עַזַּאי סָבַר: דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט. וְכִי תֵּימָא ״חַבּוּרָה״ לְרַבִּי לְמָה לִי? לְדָמִים יְתֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that since there is an intervening phrase between the generalization and the detail, one **does not derive** the *halakha* from the verse concerning burns and bruises by **employing** the principle of **a generalization and a detail.** Therefore, the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation for pain in all cases of burns, even those that are not accompanied by bruises. **And ben Azzai holds** that one **does derive** the *halakha* from the verse concerning burns and bruises by **employing** the principle of **a generalization and a detail,** and therefore the one who caused the injury is liable to pay compensation for pain only if the burn is accompanied by a bruise. **And if you would say: According to** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **why do I** need the Torah to state the *halakha* of **“*ḥabura*** for *ḥabura*,” as that is included as a subset of “*keviyya*”? The phrase mentioning “*ḥabura*” is necessary **to** teach the *halakha* of **additional money,** i.e., in a case where someone caused a burn with a bruise, he pays additional compensation for the bruise beyond that for the burn.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:3
[Bava Kamma 85a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:3)

אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה רוֹצֶה לִיטּוֹל וְכוּ׳. צַעַר בִּמְקוֹם נֶזֶק, הֵיכִי שָׁיְימִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: How is the payment for pain assessed? The court **evaluates how much** money **a person** with **a similar** threshold for pain **as** the victim **is willing to take** in order to be made to suffer in this way. The one who burned the victim must then pay this amount. The Gemara asks: **How do we appraise pain in a case** where the injured party also suffered personal **injury?**


###### Bava Kamma 85a:4
[Bava Kamma 85a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:4)

אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיטּוֹל לִקְטוֹעַ לוֹ יָדוֹ. לִקְטוֹעַ לוֹ יָדוֹ?! לָא צַעַר לְחוֹדֵיהּ הוּא – הָא כּוּלְּהוּ חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים אִיכָּא! וְעוֹד, בְּשׁוּפְטָנֵי עָסְקִינַן?! אֶלָּא לִקְטוֹעַ יָדוֹ הַקְּטוּעָה. יָדוֹ הַקְּטוּעָה נָמֵי לָא צַעַר לְחוֹדֵיהּ אִיכָּא, הָא צַעַר וּבוֹשֶׁת אִיכָּא – דִּכְסִיפָא לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא לְמִשְׁקַל מִבְּשָׂרוֹ לְמִשְׁדְּיֵיהּ לִכְלָבִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel’s father says:** The court **evaluates how much** money **a person is willing to take** to allow someone **to sever his hand.** The Gemara objects: Do you really mean **to sever his hand?** Wouldn’t this evaluation **be not just for pain, but** to **include all five types** of indemnity? **Moreover, are we dealing with fools,** who would accept money to have their hands severed? The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the court evaluates how much money a person would accept to allow someone **to sever his** already **severed hand,** which is of no use. The Gemara objects: In the case of **his severed hand also, there is not pain alone, but there is** both **pain and humiliation, because it is an embarrassing matter for him** if someone were **to take** a part **of his flesh to throw it to dogs.**


###### Bava Kamma 85a:5
[Bava Kamma 85a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:5)

אֶלָּא אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיטּוֹל לִקְטוֹעַ לוֹ יָדוֹ הַמּוּכְתֶּבֶת לַמַּלְכוּת, בֵּין סַם לְסַיִיף. אָמְרִי: הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שָׁקֵיל וּמְצַעַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the court **evaluates how much a person is willing to take** to allow someone **to sever his hand, which is** already condemned by **a written** decree **from the government** to be severed, changing the decree **from** having it severed by means of **a drug,** which is not accompanied by pain, **to** having it severed by means of **a sword,** which is accompanied by pain. The amount of money he would accept to have his hand severed by a sword instead of by the drug is his compensation. The Sages **say** in objection: **Here too,** one would **not take** money **and cause himself pain** in this way, so there is no indemnity to evaluate.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:6
[Bava Kamma 85a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:6)

אֶלָּא אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן לִקְטוֹעַ לוֹ יָדוֹ הַמּוּכְתֶּבֶת לַמַּלְכוּת, בֵּין סַיִיף לְסַם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the court **evaluates how much a person would give to** have someone **sever his hand, which is** already **condemned** by **a written** decree **from the government** to be severed, changing the decree **from** having it be severed by means of **a sword,** which is accompanied by pain, **to** having it be severed by means of **a drug,** which is not accompanied by pain.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:7
[Bava Kamma 85a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:7)

הַאי ״לִיטּוֹל״?! ״לִיתֵּן״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לִיטּוֹל זֶה מִזֶּה, מַה שֶּׁנָּתַן זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: If this is the case, then **this** wording of the mishna: **To take,** is imprecise; **it should have** said: **To give. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** The mishna means that the court evaluates how much **this** one, the injured party, **will take from that** one, i.e., the one who caused the injury, based on **what this** man, the injured party, would have **given** to the government to have his hand severed by a drug rather than with a sword.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:8
[Bava Kamma 85a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:8)

רִפּוּי – הִכָּהוּ, חַיָּיב לְרַפּאוֹתוֹ וְכוּ׳. [תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן:] עָלוּ בּוֹ צְמָחִים מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה, וְנִסְתְּרָה הַמַּכָּה – חַיָּיב לְרַפּאוֹתוֹ, וְחַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ דְּמֵי שִׁבְתּוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְרַפּאוֹתוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ דְּמֵי שִׁבְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: How is payment for **medical costs** assessed? If one **struck** another, then he is **liable to heal him** by paying for his medical costs. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 9:4): If **growths appeared on** the injured area **due to the injury, and the wound reopened,** then the one who caused the injury is again **liable to heal him** by covering his medical costs, **and is liable to give him the value of his loss of livelihood** while he recovers from the reopened wound. But if the growths that appeared **are not due to the injury, he is not liable to heal him** by covering his medical costs, **and he is not liable to give him the value of his loss of livelihood.**


###### Bava Kamma 85a:9
[Bava Kamma 85a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:9)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה – חַיָּיב לְרַפּאוֹתוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ דְּמֵי שִׁבְתּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: שִׁבְתּוֹ – וּרְפוּאָתוֹ; כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּשֶׁבֶת – חַיָּיב בְּרִיפּוּי, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּשֶׁבֶת – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּרִיפּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Yehuda says** that **even** if the growths appeared **due to the injury, he is liable to heal him** by covering his medical costs, **but he is not liable to give him the** value **of his loss of livelihood. And the Rabbis say:** The one who caused the injury is not liable at all, because the Torah states the *halakhot* of compensation for **his loss of livelihood and his medical costs** together. This teaches that **anyone who is liable** to pay compensation **for loss of livelihood is** also **liable** to pay compensation **for medical costs, and** anyone **who is not liable** to pay compensation **for loss of livelihood is** also **not liable to** pay compensation **for medical costs.**


###### Bava Kamma 85a:10
[Bava Kamma 85a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:10)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר רַבָּה: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בְּבֵי רַב דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: הָכָא בְּמַכָּה נִיתְּנָה לְאֶגֶד קָמִיפַּלְגִי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do they disagree? Rabba said: I found the Sages in the study hall of Rav when they were sitting and were stating** an explanation: **Here,** Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis **disagree about** whether **a wound may be** wrapped in a **bandage,** i.e., whether one is permitted to bandage his wound to lessen the pain, at the risk of causing damaging side effects.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:11
[Bava Kamma 85a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:11)

רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מַכָּה נִיתְּנָה לְאֶגֶד. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מַכָּה לֹא נִיתְּנָה לְאֶגֶד; רִיפּוּי, דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא – מִיחַיַּיב; שֶׁבֶת, דְּלָא תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא – לָא מִיחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba explains: **The Rabbis,** i.e., the first *tanna* in the *baraita*, **hold** that **a wound may be** wrapped **in a bandage.** Consequently, if the bandage causes side effects which lead the injured party to incur additional medical expenses, those expenses are considered to have resulted from the original injury. **And Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **a wound may not be** wrapped **in a bandage.** Therefore, with regard to **medical costs,** about **which the verse repeated** the obligation to pay them, by stating: “And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed [*verappo yerappe*]” (Exodus 21:19), the one who caused the injury **is liable** to pay compensation. But for **loss of livelihood,** about **which the verse did not repeat** the obligation to pay it, the one who caused the injury **is not liable** to pay compensation.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:12
[Bava Kamma 85a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:12)

וְאָמֵינָא לְהוּ אֲנָא: אִי מַכָּה לֹא נִיתְּנָה לְאֶגֶד, רִיפּוּי נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב! אֶלָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – מַכָּה נִיתְּנָה לְאֶגֶד, וְלֹא נִיתְּנָה לְאֶגֶד יְתֵירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba continues: **And I said to them** that **if** Rabbi Yehuda were to hold that **a wound may not be** wrapped **in a bandage,** then the one who caused the injury should **also not be liable** to pay compensation for **medical costs,** as he is not liable to compensate the injured party for damage resulting from his own irresponsible behavior. **Rather,** the disagreement is as follows: **Everyone** agrees that **a wound may be** wrapped **in a bandage, but may not be** wrapped **in an excessive bandage.**


###### Bava Kamma 85a:13
[Bava Kamma 85a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:13)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלֹא נִיתְּנָה לְאֶגֶד יְתֵירָה, רִיפּוּי דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא – מִיחַיַּיב, שֶׁבֶת דְּלָא תְּנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא – לָא מִיחַיַּיב. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כֵּיוָן דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קְרָא בְּרִיפּוּי – אַשֶּׁבֶת נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב, דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְרִיפּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He explains the dispute: **Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **since** a wound **may not be** wrapped **in an excessive bandage,** then with regard to **medical costs,** about **which the verse repeated** the obligation to pay them, by stating: “*Verappo yerappe*” (Exodus 21:19), the one who caused the injury **is liable** to pay compensation. But for **loss of livelihood,** about **which the verse did not repeat** the obligation to pay, the one who caused the injury **is not liable** to pay compensation. **And the Rabbis,** i.e., the first *tanna* in the *baraita*, **hold: Since the verse repeated** the obligation to pay compensation **for medical costs, one is also liable** to pay compensation **for loss of livelihood, which is juxtaposed to** the obligation to pay for **medical costs,** as the verse states: “Only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.”


###### Bava Kamma 85a:14
[Bava Kamma 85a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:14)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: שֶׁבֶת לָא מִיחַיַּיב, דְּמַעֲטֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא ״רַק״. וְרַבָּנַן – ״רַק״, לְשֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And Rabbi Yehuda holds** that even though medical costs and loss of livelihood are juxtaposed, the one who caused the injury is **not liable** to pay compensation for **loss of livelihood** in this case, **because the Merciful One restricted it** in the Torah, as the verse states: **“Only** he shall pay for his loss of livelihood, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exodus 21:19). “Only” is a restricting term. **And the Rabbis,** who hold that one must pay for loss of livelihood in this case as well, hold that the word **“only” is coming** to exclude growths **that were not due to the injury,** with regard to which the one who caused the injury is exempt from liability.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:15
[Bava Kamma 85a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:15)

וּלְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי, דְּאָמְרִי: כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּשֶׁבֶת – חַיָּיב בְּרִיפּוּי, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּשֶׁבֶת – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּרִיפּוּי; רִיפּוּי דִּתְנָא בֵּיהּ קָרָא – לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – דְּתַנְיָא, דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: ״וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא״ – מִכָּאן שֶׁנִּיתַּן רְשׁוּת לָרוֹפֵא לְרַפּאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according **to** the opinion of **the latter Rabbis** in the *baraita*, **who say: Anyone who is liable** to pay compensation **for loss of livelihood is liable** to pay compensation **for medical costs, and anyone who is not liable** to pay compensation **for loss of livelihood is not liable** to pay compensation **for medical costs, why do I** need, i.e., how do I account for, the fact **that the verse repeated** the obligation to pay **medical costs?** The Gemara answers: **It is necessary for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **the school of Rabbi Yishmael says:** When the verse states: **“And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed [*verappo yerappe*]”** (Exodus 21:19), it is derived **from here that permission is granted to a doctor to heal,** and it is not considered to be an intervention counter to the will of God.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:16
[Bava Kamma 85a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם עָלוּ בּוֹ צְמָחִים מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה וְנִסְתְּרָה הַמַּכָּה, שֶׁחַיָּיב לְרַפּאוֹתוֹ, וְחַיָּיב לִיתֵּן לוֹ שִׁבְתּוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן, וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא״. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רַק״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה פָּטוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רַק״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that if growths appeared due to the injury, and the wound reopened,** then the one who caused the injury is again **liable to heal him** by covering his medical costs, **and is liable to give him** the value **of his loss of livelihood** while he recovers from the reopened wound? **The verse states: “And he shall cause him to be thoroughly healed”** (Exodus 21:19). One **might** have thought that this is the *halakha* **even** if the growths **were not due to the injury.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Only** he shall pay for his loss of livelihood,” in order to exclude this case. This is in accordance with the opinion of the first *tanna* in the previous *baraita*. **Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Even** if the growths appeared **due to the injury,** the one who caused the injury is **exempt, as it is stated: “Only.”**


###### Bava Kamma 85a:17
[Bava Kamma 85a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:17)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי ״אַף מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה פָּטוּר״ – לִגְמָרֵי, כְּרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי; וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי ״אַף מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה פָּטוּר״ – מִשֶּׁבֶת, וְחַיָּיב בְּרִיפּוּי; כְּמַאן? כַּאֲבוּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: **Even** if the growths appeared **due to the injury,** the one who caused the injury is **completely exempt** from paying compensation, both for medical costs and loss of livelihood. And this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the latter Rabbis** in the previous *baraita*. **And there are** those **who say** that Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: **Even** if the growths appeared **due to the injury,** the one who caused the injury is **exempt from** paying compensation for **loss of livelihood, but is liable** to pay compensation **for medical costs. In accordance with whose** opinion is this statement? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **his father,** Rabbi Yehuda.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:18
[Bava Kamma 85a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:18)

אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רַק״. שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה בָּעֵי קְרָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the statement of the *baraita*: **The Master said:** One **might** have thought that this is the *halakha* **even** if the growths **were not due to the injury.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Only** he shall pay for his loss of livelihood,” to teach that he is exempt in this case. The Gemara asks: **Is there a need** for the **verse** to teach that he is exempt in the case of growths **that were not due to the injury?**


###### Bava Kamma 85a:19
[Bava Kamma 85a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:19)

אָמְרִי: מַאי ״שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה״ – כִּדְתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁעָבַר עַל דִּבְרֵי רוֹפֵא וְאָכַל דְּבַשׁ אוֹ כׇּל מִינֵי מְתִיקָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדְּבַשׁ וְכׇל מִינֵי מְתִיקָה קָשִׁין לַמַּכָּה; וְהֶעֱלָה מַכָּתוֹ גַּרְגּוּתְנִי; יָכוֹל יְהֵא חַיָּיב לְרַפּאוֹתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״רַק״. מַאי ״גַּרְגּוּתְנִי״? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נָאתָא כְּרִיכְתָּא. מַאי אָסוּתֵיהּ? אַהֲלָא וְקִירָא וְקַלְבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say: What** did the *baraita* mean when it said that the growths **were not due to the injury? As it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who violated** his **doctor’s instructions and ate honey or any type of sweet** food, which the doctor had instructed him not to eat **because** of the fact **that honey or any type of sweet** foods **are detrimental to** the recovery from **the injury; and his injury developed *garguteni*;** one **might** have thought that the one who caused the injury **should be liable to heal him** by covering his medical costs. Therefore, **the verse states: “Only,”** to teach that he is exempt in this case. The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of ***garguteni*? Abaye said: Necrosis. What is its remedy? Crystalline ice plant, and wax, and wine dregs.**


###### Bava Kamma 85a:20
[Bava Kamma 85a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:20)

וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אָסְיָיךְ אֲנָא״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״דָּמֵית עֲלַי כְּאַרְיָא אָרְבָא״. וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״מַיְיתִינָא אָסְיָא דְּמַגָּן (בְּמַגָּן)״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אָסְיָא דְּמַגָּן (בְּמַגָּן) – מַגָּן שָׁוֵה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara presents several *halakhot* concerning compensation for medical costs: **And if** the one who caused the injury **says to** the injured party: **I will heal you** myself, as I am a doctor; the injured party may **say to him: You are to me as a predatory lion,** in that I fear you and do not trust you to heal me. **And if** the one who caused the injury **says to** the injured party: **I will bring a doctor who heals for no cost,** so that I will not need to pay for your medical costs; the injured party may **say to him: A doctor who heals for no cost** is **worth nothing.**


###### Bava Kamma 85a:21
[Bava Kamma 85a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:21)

וְאִי אָמַר: ״מַיְיתִינָא לָךְ אָסְיָא רַחִיקָא״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אָסְיָא רַחִיקָא – עֵינָא עָוַירא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the one who caused the injury **says to** the injured party: **I will bring you a doctor** from **a distant** place, the injured party may **say to him: A doctor** from **a distant** place **blinds the eye.** A local doctor has an incentive to ensure that the patient fully heals, while a doctor from a distant place has no incentive to monitor the patient once he has received his fee.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:22
[Bava Kamma 85a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:22)

וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַיְאךְ: ״הַב לִי לְדִידִי, וַאֲנָא מַסֵּינָא נַפְשַׁאי״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״פָּשְׁעַתְּ בְּנַפְשָׁךְ וְשָׁקְלַתְּ מִינַּאי טְפֵי״. וְאִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״קוּץ לִי מִקָּץ״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּפָשְׁעַתְּ בְּנַפְשָׁךְ, וְקָרוּ לִי: ״שׁוֹר הַמַּזִּיק״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if that one,** the injured party, **says to** the one who caused him injury: **Give** the money **to me and I will** take responsibility for **healing myself;** the one who caused him the injury may **say to him: You will be negligent with yourself and you will take more from me** than was originally necessary. **And if** the injured party **says to** the one who caused him injury: **Settle a fixed** sum **for me** to cover my medical costs, and I will take care of my own recovery; the one who caused him the injury may **say to him: All the more so** with this proposal is there a concern **that you will be negligent with yourself,** as you will wish to profit and you will not spend the money on your recovery, **and** people **will call me: An ox that causes damage,** because I caused an injury from which you did not recover.


###### Bava Kamma 85a:23
[Bava Kamma 85a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:23)

תָּנָא: וְכוּלָּן מִשְׁתַּלְּמִין בִּמְקוֹם נֶזֶק. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע״ – לִיתֵּן צַעַר בִּמְקוֹם נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to compensation for pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **And all of these** types of indemnity **are paid in a case** where the one who caused injury must also pay compensation for **damage.** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: The verse states: “A wound for a wound”** (Exodus 21:25), to teach that the one who caused injury is liable **to give** compensation for **pain in a case of damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 85a:24
[Bava Kamma 85a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/85a:24)

הַאי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But isn’t **this** verse **necessary** to teach an additional *halakha*: